kallie
Jun 14, 04:08 PM
Every phone that comes out after the iPhone is supposed to surpass the iPhone by 20**. This is getting old. It took how many years for someone to beat up on Nokia? That's right, it'll be a long time before you see a dent in the iPhone's armor.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
According to the market trends nothing can surpass the iphone boom from the market.
http://tinytwitt.com/content/33/wowsmile.gif
Even ipad has to wait a little time to surpass.
I'm going to make a new smartphone next week. It's an iPhone-killer. Guaranteed.
According to the market trends nothing can surpass the iphone boom from the market.
http://tinytwitt.com/content/33/wowsmile.gif
Even ipad has to wait a little time to surpass.
localoid
Mar 14, 05:17 AM
Somewhat old news, but seemingly germane...
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:42 AM
Any links for that claim?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Simple. Comparing Phone to Phone, may show an Android "win". Comparing All Android devices to IOS devices would not show the same win, as the tablet market is still currently dominated by IOS. Why on earth would they want to show something that makes "their side" look bad?
Also, Apple doesn't make the charts; I don't get how it's strange to compare a platform to another platform. I think it's stranger to compare a single device to an entire platform.
Simple. Comparing Phone to Phone, may show an Android "win". Comparing All Android devices to IOS devices would not show the same win, as the tablet market is still currently dominated by IOS. Why on earth would they want to show something that makes "their side" look bad?
roland.g
Sep 20, 10:28 AM
I'm quit sure Steve Jobs demonstrated it to him in his house.Informing him about the hard drive.
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
I want to get invited to Steve's house for a BBQ. I'll bring the beer if he supplies the Apples. ;)
appleguy123
Apr 22, 09:39 PM
OP, to back up your hypothesis we would need real percentages of atheists in the MacRumors community and the community at large.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
Perhaps the anonymity afforded one on the internets affects how one answers (just like the 16 year old hottie is actually a 45 year old cop).
Perhaps education/enlightenment, long considered the anathema of religion, is at play.
Perhaps a younger demographic here is a factor.
But first, is there a higher percentage of atheists here?
According to the poll which I linked earlier (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=), about 65% of us are atheist or agnostic.
AHDuke99
Oct 29, 11:13 AM
My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
i wouldnt truly worry about that till it happens. one thing i have learned over the years is that roadmaps never hold up. if they had, we'd all be running dual core 6GHZ G5 or G6 right now, with 10GHZ in production readying themselves for 2007. Intel would have a oentium 5 or something out or their 64 bit itanium with consumes 200W of power. just a year ago, we had laptops with pentium M that wre as fast or faster than pentium 4's. who knows where we'll be in a year or 2 from now. i wont worry about laptop performance until we are behind, not what some roadmap says. years ago clock speed was all the rage, today its multiple cores. what will it be tomorrow? who knows.
CaoCao
Mar 26, 10:40 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
That is appalling, what idiot tells police to stay outside a riot zone..
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 12:25 PM
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
Agreed, Jon probably wants headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
The problem is, this may not hurt Apple all that much but it will hurt the Music Download industry. With every DRM that is cracked it gives the RIAA more fuel against their "downloading is bad" campaign. Also less labels would be willing to allow iTMS to sell their music.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
these guys deal in tens of millions!
That's completely false. The current installed base of Macs is around 100 million, and it grows by over a million Macs per month. You don't need a certain percentage of market share for a useful botnet; you need numbers. You talking to a handful of hackers is hardly conclusive. I can interview a handful of people in my neighborhood and find a consensus on any number of falsehoods. Get some facts (rather than making stuff up) and then re-join the discussion.
MrNomNoms
Apr 21, 05:24 AM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
Note to self - note the above.
It is the old story, focus on the product and the profits will follow. The problem is far too many focus on the profit and ignore the product resulting in a crap product no person wants to buy.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:17 PM
Here's another pic from the event today, taken by the Gizmodo guys...
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
http://cache.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701.JPG
http://www.gizmodo.com/assets/resources/2006/09/IMG_3701-thumb.JPG
Looks like a squished Mini :p
avkills
Sep 26, 11:17 AM
I bet I could peg all 8 cores doing a 3D render...easily.
Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.
-mark
Bring them I say. This may make me hold off on my render farm idea.
-mark
lighthouse_man
Apr 13, 03:01 AM
Why are you people comparing one app price tag to the whole suite price tag? For all we know, all the suite apps will be released individually and will total what the full suite now costs.
darkplanets
Mar 13, 07:20 PM
First off, I want to thank you guys for actual intelligent input.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
Yeah, I saw that, sorry for not specifying completely-- my argument was mainly referring to the AVR, not the THTR-300 specifically. You're right though, it was connected to the grid... and still a pebble reactor. If you saw my edit I explain what I said earlier a (little) more; as you have noted pebble reactors with TRISO fuel clearly fail to work under the current implementation.
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
Good! I noted that above in the edit. On a side note, I wonder why they're having such fabrication issues? Properly made TRISO fuel should be able to withstand at least 1600�C, meaning that this is obviously a challenge that will have to be overcome. Overheating/uneven heating of the reactor--per the AVR-- is clearly a reactor design issue. Perhaps better fabrication and core design will result in even safe heating, perhaps not. As of now you're correct, thorium in pebble form is not a good answer.
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
I relate operating economically with good design, but you are entirely correct about the first point-- it is a current sticking point. Perhaps further development will yield better results. As per the non proliferation bit... sadly not everyone can be trusted with nuclear weapons, although in this day and age I think producing one is far simpler than in years prior-- again another contention point. With the global scene the way it is now only those countries with access to these materials would be able to support a thorium fuel cycle.
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
Yes, economically there are a lot of 'ifs' and upfront cost for development, so it really does become a question of cost versus gain... the problem here is that this isn't something easily determined. Furthermore, though a potential cash sink, the technology and development put into the project could be helpful towards future advances, even if the project were to fail. Sadly it's a game of maybe's and ifs, since you're in essence trying to predict the unknown.
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Very possible, but as I said, it's hard to say. I do respect your opinion, however.
And yet, government is ultimately the main source of information about nuclear power. Most atomic scientists work for the government. Almost all nuclear power plants are government funded and operated. Whatever data we employ in debates can usually be traced back to government scientists and engineers.
Yes, quite true. We could get ourselves into a catch-22 with this; the validity of scientific data versus public interest and political motivation is always in tension, especially when the government has interests in both. Perhaps a fair amount of skepticism with personal knowledge and interpretation serves best.
Who's to say how much energy we need? And what do we really 'need' as opposed to 'want'? What people 'need' and what they 'want' are often two different things. I think it's time for a paradigm shift in the way we live. While you're right about want vs need, you yourself say it all-- how can we have a paradigm shift when we don't really know what we want OR need? It's hard to determine exactly what we "need" in this ever electronic world-- are you advocating the use of less technology? What do you define as our "need"? How does anyone define what someone "needs"? Additionally, there's the undoubted truth that you're always going to need more in the future; as populations increase the "need" will increase, technological advancements notwithstanding. With that I mind I would rather levy the idea that we should always be producing more than our "need" or want for that matter, since we need to be future looking. Additionally, cheaper energy undoubtedly has benefits for all. I'm curious as to how you can advocate a paradigm shift when so many things are reliant upon electricity as is, especially when you're trying to base usage on a nearly unquantifiable value.
Whenever I hear/read the phrase "there are no alternatives" I reach for my revolver.
Violence solves nothing. If you had read one of my following posts (as you should now do), you'd have saw that I mentioned geothermal and hydroelectric. However, since you seem to be so high and mighty with your aggressive ways-- what alternatives do you propose exactly? What makes you correct over someone else?
Wow, I don't even know where to start with this. There are literally hundreds of nuclear incidents all over the world each year, everything from radiation therapy overexposure and accidents, to Naval reactor accidents, military testing accidents, and power plant leaks, accidents and incidents, transportation accidents, etc. It's difficult to get reliable numbers or accurate data since corruption of the source data is well known, widespread and notorious (see the above discussion regarding government information). It's true that in terms of sheer numbers of deaths, some other energy technologies are higher risk (coal comes to mind), but that fact alone in no way makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe."
I never denied that these events regularly happen, however as you say yourself, some other energy technologies are higher risk. Therefore that makes nuclear energy "actually quite safe" relative to some other options. There is no such thing as absolute safety, just like there is no such thing as absolute certainty-- only relatives to other quantifiable data. That would therefore support my assertion, no?
Next, how do you presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from? Greenpeace is merely citing research from scientific journals, they do not employ said scientists. Perhaps your beef is actually with the scientists they quote.
My "beef" is both with poor publishing standards as well as Greenpeace itself... citing research that supports your cause, especially if you know it's flawed data, and then waving it upon a banner on a pedestal is worse than the initial publishing of falsified or modified data. If you do any scientific work you should know not to trust most "groundbreaking" publications-- many of them are riddled with flaws, loopholes, or broad interpretation and assumptions not equally backed by actual data. I don't presume to know where most people get their education about nuclear power from, I presume that most don't know anything about nuclear power. If I walked down the street and asked an average layman about doping and neutron absoprtion, I don't think many would have a clue about what I was talking about. Conversely, if I asked them about the cons of nuclear power, I bet they would be all too willing to provide many points of contention, despite not knowing what they are talking about.
Finally, Germany is concerned for good reasons, since their plants share many design features with Russian reactors. The best, safest option is obvious: abandon nuclear energy. Safest, yes. Best; how can you even make this assumption given all of the factors at play? As far as I'm aware, the German graphite moderated reactors still in use all have a containment vessel, unlike the Russians. Furthermore, Russian incidents were caused by human error-- in the case of Chernobyl, being impatient. It's clear that you're anti-nuclear, which is fine, but are you going to reach for a gun on this one too? How are you going to cover the stop-gap in power production from these plants? What's your desired and feasible pipeline for power production in Germany? I'm rather curious to know.
In terms of property destruction, and immediate lives lost, yes. Mortality and morbidity? Too early to tell....so far at least 15 people have already been hospitalized with acute radiation poisoning:
http://story.torontotelegraph.com/index.php/ct/9/cid/2411cd3571b4f088/id/755016/cs/1/
All of them being within immediate contact of the plant. It's similar to those who died at Chernobyl. The projected causalities and impairments is hard to predict as is... given the host of other factors present in human health you can really only correlate, not causate. It's rather relative. Unless you're going to sequence their genome and epigenome, then pull out all cancer related elements, and then provide a detailed breakdown of all elements proving that none were in play towards some person getting cancer, linking incidental radiation exposure with negative health effects is hard to do. This is the reason why we have at least three different models: linear no threshold, linear adjustment factor, and logarithmic.
wnurse
Mar 19, 11:02 PM
No no, I don't think people get it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
If they put DRM on the track before you buy it, then everyone who buys that song will have the same song with the same DRM, which means that any computer can play it, as everyone has the same iTunes and a track with the same DRM.
Adding specific DRM on the fly isn't what Apple has to do, either. Your iTunes still has to know that it IS the computer that you can play a particular track from, and not just any computer.
No that is not true. If you had read my previous post to this post, you would have seen where i said that your copy of itms would have to send a key to the itms server. Each computer would send a unique key so the song cannot play on any other computer other than the one that sent the key. This is not technically challenging, not like building a rocket ship or anything. I could do it.
Sodner
Mar 18, 08:44 AM
Get em AT&T. Bust them all. Hold them to the contracts they signed. Fine them, cancel them, jail them. Do what's in your right per the contract to punish all the theives.
cmaier
Apr 21, 08:25 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
_019.png "Widescreen HD Wallpapers")
Multimedia
Oct 30, 09:44 PM
The Mac Pro uses sleds??? Uh, oh... Why Apple, why??? So it's not like my G5 quads where everything you need is included (just add drives)? That sucks. :mad:
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
Is this really true?No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for different client projects.maxupgrades.com (http://maxupgrades.com) should soon be offering sleds, and brackets to hold hard drives in the optical bays.Good to know.
Just noticed 1-8004MEMORY is now selling 4GB KIT (2GBX2) DDR2 667 ECC FULLY BUFFERED FOR APPLE MAC PRO for only $690 each via this Ramseeker.com link (http://www.ramseeker.com/scripts/counter.php?http://www.18004memory.com/ramseeker/default.asp?itemid=502459) . This makes 2GB sticks now lower crossover price per GB - $172.50 each - vs. 1GB sticks which are priced more than $200 each now. Happy days are here again!
But not sure if heatsinks are included. Can't tell without calling them tomorrow.
Then I would add a pair of $75 MaxSink Heatsinks (http://www.maxupgrades.com/istore/index.cfm?fuseaction=product.display&product_id=157) for a total of $765 per 2x2GB kit still only $191.25/GB.
Or just get the MaxSinks already installed properly with 2 Samsung 2GB sticks for $789 from MaxUpgrades.com.
So a 6GB 8-Core Mac Pro is looking like about $4500 to me now.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:44 PM
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.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
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.
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:00 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
Perfectly stated. :)
Perfectly stated. :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:34 PM
I think you'll have to try again here: I have no idea what you are saying.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
Basically, follow the local law until the point where is will cause you to sin AND be in direct violation of the Sharia Law framework.
�algiris
May 2, 09:23 AM
So make it unsafe, it's not a rocket science, cowboy.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Educate yourself and find the difference between malware like this one and a virus.
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
iGrip
Jul 12, 10:11 AM
I'm wondering what the specifics about dropped calls in New York City would look like.
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
Why do you stay with ATT?
On average I get about 3-4 dropped calls every day. Every. Single. Day.
Why do you stay with ATT?