Mord
Jul 13, 10:36 AM
every vendor, dell, HP, gateway ect offer workstations with single xeons, it's a very common practice because it makes business sense.
ghost187
Apr 20, 07:36 PM
So when does the second gen LTE chip come out?
Hopefully b4 iPhone 5 this summer. I was ready to pay full price to upgrade from a HTC Thunderbolt (I am getting by with an Android because locking down unlimited LTE was the most important thing for me).
Hopefully b4 iPhone 5 this summer. I was ready to pay full price to upgrade from a HTC Thunderbolt (I am getting by with an Android because locking down unlimited LTE was the most important thing for me).
stompy
Apr 14, 03:36 PM
, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free,
Agreed. All the little things add up quickly.
I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
Yep. People often confuse bias with knowledge. I'm guilty as well.
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
My company just replaced a co-worker dead desktop with this:
http://i.dell.com/das/dih.ashx/232x232/das/xa_____/global-site-design%20WEB/a9c356c6-fafb-1634-c73b-34d50ab45516/1/OriginalJPG?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Workstations/Fixed_Workstations/Precision/Precision_T3500/right_facing/us-11-22-shipsfast-500x500-t3500.jpg
Well, it's utilitarian. Some would argue that they want a computer, not a sculpture. Ok, but there are reasons behind every object designed. This object says "cheap. cheap. cheap."
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
On a checklist, those things don't seem like much, but I agree: when you put it on your desk, it all matters (some things, obviously, more than others).
Agreed. All the little things add up quickly.
I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
Yep. People often confuse bias with knowledge. I'm guilty as well.
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
My company just replaced a co-worker dead desktop with this:
http://i.dell.com/das/dih.ashx/232x232/das/xa_____/global-site-design%20WEB/a9c356c6-fafb-1634-c73b-34d50ab45516/1/OriginalJPG?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Workstations/Fixed_Workstations/Precision/Precision_T3500/right_facing/us-11-22-shipsfast-500x500-t3500.jpg
Well, it's utilitarian. Some would argue that they want a computer, not a sculpture. Ok, but there are reasons behind every object designed. This object says "cheap. cheap. cheap."
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
On a checklist, those things don't seem like much, but I agree: when you put it on your desk, it all matters (some things, obviously, more than others).
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:49 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
And if over two thousand years from now people still believe in the Higgs Boson despite no evidence that it exists I'd likely be skeptical of their beliefs as well.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
I don't Know what type of Atheists you meet, but most of those in this forum(theists too :D) DO argue their beliefs and do not expect them to go unchecked.
Westside guy
Sep 20, 01:15 PM
It seems like a lot of people don't really grok what the advantages of having a network really are. You don't need a full-blown computer dedicated to the television - e.g. yet another Media Center PC or Myth-TV box. That "solution" is too expensive, way too overpowered, and too energy-hungry for what it needs to do. I suspect the hard drive inside the iTV is somewhat equivalent of "network attached storage" - the computational heavy lifting, such as it is, will occur on your actual computer; but it'll be using the iTV's drive rather than its own drive for storing the shows etc. I imagine you can plop a DVD into your computer and watch it on your TV, too - if you're watching a movie, you're probably not using your computer's DVD drive at the same time anyway.
Heck, this is the sort of thing I always wished Tivo would come up with. I have two Tivos - but really all I need is one Tivo plus a wireless receiver that'd let me watch shows on a second television. Doubly so now that Tivo is selling their own two-tuner units.
This whole iTV thing will be rather interesting. Depending on how it plays out, I can see myself dumping Tivo and buying an EyeTV (the El Gato (?) product). This Apple iTV doesn't need to be a PVR per se, but for flexibility's sake if EyeTV can hook into this whole system - for the people that want to still have over-the-air/cable television - it could be pretty sweet.
Heck, this is the sort of thing I always wished Tivo would come up with. I have two Tivos - but really all I need is one Tivo plus a wireless receiver that'd let me watch shows on a second television. Doubly so now that Tivo is selling their own two-tuner units.
This whole iTV thing will be rather interesting. Depending on how it plays out, I can see myself dumping Tivo and buying an EyeTV (the El Gato (?) product). This Apple iTV doesn't need to be a PVR per se, but for flexibility's sake if EyeTV can hook into this whole system - for the people that want to still have over-the-air/cable television - it could be pretty sweet.
calsci
May 5, 08:28 PM
they never seem to be on top of this issue.
digitalbiker
Aug 29, 11:11 PM
The experts in this area all agree on CO2, caused by oxidation (burning) fossile fuel, is by far the most significant factor in the change of our climate.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
This just isn't true!
It depends on which experts you ask. Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming. Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models. But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:10 PM
The Qur'an is considered the perfect and literal word of allah.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
muhammad is considered allah's perfect man and messenger on earth to be emulated by all men.
Sharia law is derived from the qur'an and the sayings of muhammad (hadith, sunna).
Secular Democracy and democratic laws are made by human beings.
Human beings are necessarily not as perfect as God.
Therefore, under Islam adhering to man-made laws over divinely mandated laws is considered blasphemy.
Which is why is it expressly stated by the Sharia law that the law of the land is to be abided first, up to the point where the principle law contradicts the principle teachings in the Islam, which would cause the person(s) subjective, to sin.
I must also express that Sharia Law is a framework, and is based on both Quran and examples set of Prophet Mohammed (PBUH) { which are derived from the Quran}.
iStudentUK
Apr 24, 09:36 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Remember, although most posters here are from the US a large number are not. In Western Europe the number if religious peope is lower than in the US (most definitely people can be more open about their lack of religion here), and it plays a much lessor role in life/society. That may add to the impression that there are lots of atheists on here.
There could be many other reasons as well, for example the average age of posters on here is likely to be less than in the population at large.
Remember, although most posters here are from the US a large number are not. In Western Europe the number if religious peope is lower than in the US (most definitely people can be more open about their lack of religion here), and it plays a much lessor role in life/society. That may add to the impression that there are lots of atheists on here.
There could be many other reasons as well, for example the average age of posters on here is likely to be less than in the population at large.
srxtr
Apr 20, 06:56 PM
so glad you think stealing an artists work is a proper and moral thing to do, plz stay on your platform, the rest of us will take the high road and pay an enormous fee of .99 to 1.29 per song...geez
+1
+1
wtfk
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
As soon as you mention Greenpeace, morons seem to go on auto-pilot and once they do that you can't stop them.
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
Do you think Greenpeace's behavior might have something to do with that?
HyperX13
Apr 15, 12:57 PM
I have read this a few times now and I still do not get your point.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
Being gay = being promiscuous?
Or is it just a very poor attempt at sarcasm?
Bad, bad taste�
promiscuous or not, it is me. I want rights based on my sexual promiscuity. Why is it different? That is who I am.
benixau
Oct 9, 07:39 AM
takao
Mar 13, 10:19 AM
Well, this is still playing out.
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
a japanese meterology institute estimates the chances of 7.0+ earthquake within the next 3 days at 70% so we will see how well they hold up
(even in europe some nuclear power plants are build rather close to minor seismic fault lines: for example in switzerland and germany)
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:36 PM
That's a pricey chip. You're not going to see killer single thread performance but multitasking would be insane.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
You're assuming truthful answers.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
Potential confounding variables still stand.
Do you have some more reliable source? Mind reading?
We're not making life-altering decisions here, and as such I don't think that it would be too hazardous to assume that the poll takers were being truthful.
By this logic, every poll ever taken is not a reliable source of information.
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
ender78
Sep 26, 04:03 PM
:D Now that's a render farm!!
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
2nd Story: Pixar announces that it is increasing its movie release schedule from one movie every two years to a movie every two days :)
DakotaGuy
Oct 9, 10:00 AM
Alex ant has made some good points on why Macs are a poor buy. They are so much slower and less stable then PC's these days according to everything I read. I still love my Mac, but since reading these message boards over the past year or so I have became more and more negative about Macs. Mac has lost the MHz war and are becoming slower and slower computers and has also lost out to XP for the best operating system, acording to so many people.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
I am a consumer user, email, internet, MP3's, MS Word, digital camera photos, etc. I do like the iTunes, iPhoto, iMovie programs for what I do, but it sounds like with XP there is no longer any problems doing these things and they come loaded with programs that are just as easy to use. The sad thing as Apple was working on their switching campaign to switch people to Macs I am now considering switching to my first PC, because they have so much more megahertz and XP sounds so easy to use and stable.
Well I am broke right now so it will be next spring or summer until I buy a new computer, but as Mac has been going backwards on speed and their software is good, but not any better then Microsoft anymore I really should test out a new PC and see how it works for how I use a computer.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:19 AM
If the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay, then they shouldn't project a positive message about being straight. No more kissing on TV, film, etc. Ban all public displays of affection and don't say a word about issues that someone might take 'offence' to. Yeah...that sounds like a great world. I hope you go there someday.
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
I think you have slightly misread my post or replied to the wrong post.
I most certainly did not say the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay.
;)
samdweck
Oct 7, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by arn
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
30% of visitors are on a Windows machine.
And if you look above... the people you attacked own Macs. They are simply being realistic.
arn
okay fine, i was wrong... sorry to whomever i offended!
No comments:
Post a Comment