obeygiant
Mar 17, 11:23 AM
Agreed. I'm getting tired of these sensational, histrionic and downright dishonest threads.
This is no more "sensational," or "histrionic," than any other thread I've seen in the PRSI. And you'll have to outline where its "dishonest."
I think you're just pissed that someone doesn't hold your worldview. In any case you're just building a straw man so you don't have to debate the issues by trying to shoot the messenger.
@5p who says Ron Paul would be any different once elected into office. Its obvious that once presidents get into office that something changes and they try to govern from the middle.
This is no more "sensational," or "histrionic," than any other thread I've seen in the PRSI. And you'll have to outline where its "dishonest."
I think you're just pissed that someone doesn't hold your worldview. In any case you're just building a straw man so you don't have to debate the issues by trying to shoot the messenger.
@5p who says Ron Paul would be any different once elected into office. Its obvious that once presidents get into office that something changes and they try to govern from the middle.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 07:31 PM
Sticking your neck out there, I see. :)
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
I've always been a risk-taker. ;)
Sounds dangerously like, "the ends justify the means."
From a western perspective, there is legitimate concern for libyan civilians engaged in a popular uprising on the one hand, and both the threat to oil supplies and Gaddafi's enmity towards the international community on the other. Nobody wants to see a long, destructive civil war. Libya's own citizens rose in revolt, in sufficient numbers to wrest huge portions of the country from Gaddafi's control. Gaddafi has himself stated that he will hunt down and kill any person who stands against his regime.
Having grave reservations about intervention is all fine and well, but one has to be realistic - under what circumstances is non-intervention a good option here? Indeed, you could say "the ends justify the means" about that too - the oil keeps flowing, no foreign soldiers are killed and no money spent on military intervention. It also allows you the luxury of occupying the moral high ground, condemning human rights violations without taking sides or lifting a finger to aid anyone. It is obvious the UN has taken sides here, no doubt about it. Do you disagree with that decision?
No he hasn't, the stage management has been quite subtle, actually, for once.
I don't think Obama was "dragged" into this at all, the US has gotten willingly involved - but to what extent do you think it was stage-managed?
balamw
Aug 7, 04:36 PM
I'm not comparing it to system restore but to Volume Shadow Copy from Windows Server 2003. File-by-file snapshot by MS 3 years ago!
Again, fundamentally, a feature that existed in VMS over fifteen years ago and had been promised as part of Cairo. It took them over ten years to finally release it in Windows? :p
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
Exactly my thoughts!! Looks like a Trekie (how do you write that??) was let loose :D
Actually had a very Star Wars like feel to it with the angled text. Maybe one of the former Lucasfilm/ILM people from Pixar? :p
"A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a user created a file and overwrote its contents...."
B
Again, fundamentally, a feature that existed in VMS over fifteen years ago and had been promised as part of Cairo. It took them over ten years to finally release it in Windows? :p
I'll have to ask my firendly IT guy, but how does the end user access shadow copies?
Exactly my thoughts!! Looks like a Trekie (how do you write that??) was let loose :D
Actually had a very Star Wars like feel to it with the angled text. Maybe one of the former Lucasfilm/ILM people from Pixar? :p
"A long time ago in a galaxy far away, a user created a file and overwrote its contents...."
B
PODshady
Nov 28, 10:24 PM
I think they'll be a long way off getting money from every iPod sold. For a start its such an illogical thing to ask for (Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope), plus I suspect the main reason that Microsoft agreed to pay money in the first place is that they needed to get the music labels on board to boost the Zune Music Store, Microsoft was in the weaker position here and I believe the labels exploited that weakness.
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
If the labels were to go to Apple and demand a royalty on every iPod and threatening to pull their catalogue if they didn't get it, they would actually come off worse than Apple in terms of lost revenue and it's because of this I reckon they haven't a chance...
I agree
shawnce
Sep 13, 11:36 AM
Do you mean like how BeOS did things?
Yeah BeOS had this great feature called magic pixel dust. :rolleyes:
All that BeOS had was separate threads per window at the UI level. This does nothing for parallelizing compute tasks. These extra thread that BeOS had spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing.
What Mac OS X has now is several operating services that will automatically scale up to use as many cores possible (while still making sense). Many of the "Core" framework do this without any work by application authors other then then those authors deciding to use those services instead of rolling their own.
For example ColorSync color correction, audio conversion, audio mixing, etc.
...and yes Mac OS X 10.5 is expanding the OS services that will do the right thing (TM) as well as making it easier for developers to transparently and directly utilize the cores available in a system.
Yeah BeOS had this great feature called magic pixel dust. :rolleyes:
All that BeOS had was separate threads per window at the UI level. This does nothing for parallelizing compute tasks. These extra thread that BeOS had spent most of their time doing absolutely nothing.
What Mac OS X has now is several operating services that will automatically scale up to use as many cores possible (while still making sense). Many of the "Core" framework do this without any work by application authors other then then those authors deciding to use those services instead of rolling their own.
For example ColorSync color correction, audio conversion, audio mixing, etc.
...and yes Mac OS X 10.5 is expanding the OS services that will do the right thing (TM) as well as making it easier for developers to transparently and directly utilize the cores available in a system.
matticus008
Nov 29, 08:32 AM
I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.
Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).
2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.
Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.
rtkane
Apr 6, 01:31 PM
I hope that number keeps rising; we need competition to not let Apple rest on it's laurels.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
As someone who likes his Apple products, part of me laughs seeing numbers like this for the Xoom, but the other part thinks the same thing you post above--that Apple needs to have a successful competitor in the space to keep Apple's progress from stagnating. More competition will make them take bigger steps more quickly.
jav6454
Feb 28, 04:48 PM
Well, I have nothing to say, but that the University has grounds for dismissal if difference of opinion arises.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
grue
Apr 11, 08:39 PM
Overreact much? FCP hasn't even been announced and your company is already talking about jumping ship? I call b.s. I'm in LA and I haven't heard anyone talking about switching anything. What needed features do you need that don't already exist?
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
How about using more than one bloody core to render a timeline or do an export to the eternally-broken Compressor?
How about properly recognizing file attributes on import?
�stability?
�QMaster having better than coin-flip reliability?
�better R3D support (as well as other cameras)?
�GPGPU/OpenCL?
etc etc
PBF
Apr 11, 11:05 PM
If they delay iPhone 5 until Fall/Winter, then they'd better release the white iPhone 4 some time in Spring as promised by Phil Schiller. :mad:
Stridder44
Mar 26, 05:00 AM
This seems a little fast for the first GM. Maybe not such a big update after all? Where are all the secrets? The UI could use more of an overhaul IMO. This is probably just for the devs and they will bust out some fancy fancy at WWDC. I hope! Gotta have that one more thing...
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
Exactly how I feel about it. I mean it feels like they just told us about it. We're just now starting to get rumors and tips about the new OS. Windows 8 isn't slated to come out until Q4 2012. Take your time Apple. Snow Leopard is a fantastic and very stable OS. PLEASE don't rush Lion! Take your time to iron out the bugs, and add more stuff in if need be.
I hope Lion lives up to the name and is BEAST.
Exactly how I feel about it. I mean it feels like they just told us about it. We're just now starting to get rumors and tips about the new OS. Windows 8 isn't slated to come out until Q4 2012. Take your time Apple. Snow Leopard is a fantastic and very stable OS. PLEASE don't rush Lion! Take your time to iron out the bugs, and add more stuff in if need be.
KnightWRX
Apr 7, 09:36 AM
You make it seem like intel told apple they can't use the sb chips unless they use the IGP, which is obviously false.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
It's not false per say, at least not 100%. Of course, graphics in such systems are usually IGPs, but before the Core iX line of processors, anyone could license and build chipsets for these processors and include a different IGP than Intel did. Intel however refused to license this for the new processors, including the SB line and thus nVidia who was making chipsets could not produce an IGP for the new platform.
So yes, essentially Intel told Apple they had to use the 3000 HD as an IGP, where before, Apple was using nVidia's tech. There was even a massive lawsuit about all of this, between Intel and nVidia which ended with nVidia stepping out of the chipset business alltogether.
So the poster you were replying to wasn't 100% wrong at all. It is in fact a testament to Intel's incompetence how all of this was handled, since an old MBA with a 320m outpaces new SB machines that have a much more powerful CPU in graphics performance.
RebootD
Mar 31, 04:42 PM
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
Who didn't see this coming? They differentiated themselves, gained enough marketshare and now want to clean up and tighten the ship down.
As an EVO 4G user I'd love to have the latest updates as soon as they are released by Google.
Who didn't see this coming? They differentiated themselves, gained enough marketshare and now want to clean up and tighten the ship down.
As an EVO 4G user I'd love to have the latest updates as soon as they are released by Google.
lord patton
Aug 16, 11:31 PM
(sideshow bob)The Power PC...The!!!(/sideshow bob)
Bravo.
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
Bravo.
I don't know what ROFL stands for, but from context-clues, I'm thinking it means pretty damn funny. In which case, ROFL, dude.
brepublican
Sep 19, 12:15 AM
G5 PowerBooks next tuesday :confused:
:D
That one never gets old :D
Seriously though, I'm not holding my breath. Really not in the market for a notebook at the mo... But it'd still be sweet to get some updates. Keeps me feeling all warm and fuzzy :)
:D
That one never gets old :D
Seriously though, I'm not holding my breath. Really not in the market for a notebook at the mo... But it'd still be sweet to get some updates. Keeps me feeling all warm and fuzzy :)
janstett
Sep 13, 01:11 PM
Sheesh...just when I'm already high up enough on Apple for innovating, they throw even more leaps and bounds in there to put themselves even further ahead. I can't wait 'til my broke @$$ can finally get the money to buy a Mac and chuck all my Windows machines out the door.
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
I'm sure we'll see similar efforts from other PC manufacturers eventually, but let's see the software use those extra cores in Windows land. Ain't gonna happen...not on the level of what Apple's doing at least.
First, this is INTEL innovating, not Apple.
Second, Apple has been the one lagging behind on multiprocessor support. Pre OSX it was a joke of a hack to support multi CPUs in Mac OS and you had to have apps written to take advantage of it with special libraries.
On Windows, the scheduler automatically handles task scheduling no matter how many processors you have, 1 or 8. Your app doesn't have to "know" it's on a single or multiple processor system or do anything special to take advantage of multiple processors, other than threading -- which you can do on a single processor system anyway. Most applications are lazy and unimaginative, and do everything in a single thread (worse, the same thread that is processing event messages from the GUI, which is why apps lock up -- when they end up in a bad state they stop processing events from the OS and won't paint, resize, etc.). But when you take advantage of multithreading, there are some sand traps but it's a cool way to code and that's how you take advantage of multiple cores without having to know what kind of system you are on. I would assume OSX, being based on BSD, is similar, but I don't know the architecture to the degree I know Windows.
In Windows, you can set process "affinity", locking it down to a fixed processor core, through Task Manager. Don't know if you can do that in OSX...
styles111
Jun 15, 02:07 PM
To follow up to my last post, just got a call from my local Radio Shack and got my PIN.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
The waiting begins!
So did I! She called me and gave me my pin 24000000xxxxx.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 7, 10:24 PM
Please tell him.
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
me too! I wanna learn!
How does withholding stock from the public aid a company? I can imagine holding them till everything is registered in their system and accounted for. But turning people away when they actually do have stock doesn't sound like a good business practice to me
vivithemage
Apr 27, 08:40 AM
They have some good wordsmiths :D
Tommyg117
Aug 7, 03:33 PM
anyone else a little underwhelmed with today's WWDC? There isn't anything that really jumped out at me besides the Mac Pro.
ChazUK
Apr 6, 02:39 PM
100,002
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
That's what I've gone for, Wifi only. With the wireless hotspot feature of the Nexus S, a 3G version seemed pointless for me.
my cousin got his from Costco last night - he was waiting for the Wi-Fi only one
That's what I've gone for, Wifi only. With the wireless hotspot feature of the Nexus S, a 3G version seemed pointless for me.
toddybody
Apr 19, 02:37 PM
Similarities aside...Samsung cannot be hurting Apple sales as a result of this line. Move on Apple
Willis
Jul 28, 04:27 PM
Okay, I did some tinkering myself, just for kicks, and here's what I came up with. I thought that we were talking about a computer that was somewhere between a Mac Mini and a Mac Pro (Power Mac), so I thought, maybe the style should be a combination of the two. Let me know what you think.
It's not a Mac Plus... It's a Mac++!
http://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++1.PNGhttp://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++2.PNG
can you say "G4 Cube"?
It's not a Mac Plus... It's a Mac++!
http://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++1.PNGhttp://www.ghwphoto.com/Mac++2.PNG
can you say "G4 Cube"?
After G
Aug 26, 04:09 PM
If the power consumption is the same... does that mean that the Merom and the current chips suck the same amount energy while going full throttle?
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
If the above is true, if you turned down the Merom to match the speed of the current chips, wouldn't the Merom be drawing 20% less power?
In other words if the Merom and the current chip were both going 60 mph down the freeway, would the Merom be drawing less power?
Am I missing something here (such as the basics of electricity, the basic way that chips work, etc.)?
512keThey'd draw the same power, but the Merom would be done faster at the same clock rate. So you use less power by taking less time to do your work. That and better power saving modes.
No comments:
Post a Comment