Multimedia
Oct 6, 01:59 AM
Just a small point, but I think back in 2002? Apple's top end Quicksilver G4 towers were configured like this:
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
Fast 733Mhz, Faster 867Mhz, Fastest Dual 800Mhz
So I could see them having an octo 2.66 above a quad 3.0.I think they will offer a Dual 2.33GHz Clovertown because each Clovertown is priced the same as each 3GHz Woody - $851. If they did offer the 2.66GHz Clovertowns, the premium would be more than $642 more as they each cost $321 more than the 2.33GHz models - $1172. That's almost 40% more money for an 8% 330MHz bump in speed - hardly an amount any logical person would pay extra for.
I think Apple won't want to sell a $4,000 Mac Pro when they can sell a lot more $3,300 ones. At 2.33GHz, the Clovertown OctoMacs are still going to be able to process a total of almost 19GHz or more than 50% more crunching power than the 3GHz Quads. This is all about who needs more cores vs. who needs more power. Different workflows call for different choices. Some need 4 high powered cores while others, like myself, need more cores totalling more power that we know we can use simultaneously since our workflow applications can use 3-4 cores each.
Finally, Apple's all about the perception. Apple has held back cpu releases because they wouldn't let a lower end cpu clock higher than a higher end chip. They did it with PPC 603&604 and I think they did it with G3 & G4.
It's against everything Apple's ever done to have 3.0 GHz dual dual-core towers in the mid range and 2.33GHz quad-core cpus in the high end.One will not be priced higher than the other. Both options will be +$800. Where did you get the idea that the 2.33GHz Octo would be priced above the 3GHz Quad? Both pairs of processors sell from Intel to Apple for exactly the same amount of money. Did you overlook that fact? Or do you think Apple is going to gouge us?
All that's going to happen is one added line in the processor section of the BTO page which will look like this:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Mac Pro buyers need to do their homework so they know which way to go. The 8-core Mac is not a replacement for the current line. It's not "better" for many users. It is only "better" for a certain class of users who know the applications they use can take advantage of several cores at once or that they can imagine a workflow of running multiple applications that could use more cores simultaneously. So it's evolutionary not revolutionary.
There is no reason to believe that any of the three existing lines in the processor section of the "Configure Now" page will be deleted, only that the above line will be added with little fanfare - probably a press release is about all. And perhaps Steve will mention it in his January 9 SteveNote.
I still think the 2.66GHz Quad for $2499 will remain most popular among the vast majority of Mac Pro buyers. Those of us who are hungry for more cores are a rare breed of users who have figured out how to keep all those cores busy most of the time. :pMultimedia, you're so far out of mainstream that your comments make no sense to all but .01 % of computer users.
Seriously.. Most people don't rip 4 videos to h264 while they are creating 4 disk images and browsing the web.Neither do I and I think your characterization of what I do and how I do it is completely a fabricaiton of your imagination. I never use h.264 EVER. And I certainly never encode 4 videos at once - even with the Clovertown I won't be able to do that without compromizing the speed of each encode. You are trying to trivialize what I do by exagerating and mocking a real workflow situation because you have made up your mind that 4 cores are enough. Why do you think it's just fine to MOCK a fellow Mac user because you don't do the same work as he or she does?
Is Intel putting Clovertowns on the market because no one has any use for them?
You are way exagerating how I need more cores for what. You are totally underestimating how many cores ONE application can use. Toast 7.1 will use almost 4 cores of an Intel Mac to create ONE DVD image. Handbrake will use almost 3 to rip one mp4 file from one of those images and it hasn't been optimized for the Mac Pro yet although it is UB. I think you are way out of line to say that it will be highly uncommon for many users to hose an 8-core Mac easily. There are numerous ways to do so in nothing flat. Seems like your imagination is weak.
I have one of those 2GHz Dual Core (DC) G5's here and it is making my life a lot easier because I can continue to record video on the Quad while off-loading just recorded video for editing over there via the GB Ethernet. Then I rip the images back on the Quad via the GB Ethernet conection because ripping them on the DC is much slower. Even ripping two DVD Images simultaneously is faster running both on the Quad than one on the DC and the other on the Quad.
So I don't agree with you that a 2GHz DC G5 Mac is great for most unless everyone is still only doing one thing at a time. While I agree I am in a very small group of compression fanatics, I submit to you that there are plenty of other different kinds of small groups out there who can also use 8 cores all day and all night long. And the sum total of all of us equals a significant market that Apple can serve by simply ordering a thousand Clovertowns and adding that line above to the "Configure Now" page of the current Mac Pro offering.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
MattInOz
Apr 20, 11:54 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
~Shard~
Oct 26, 09:25 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
ZoomZoomZoom
Sep 12, 04:19 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
Yes.
Well, also, "iTV" is sort of completely unexpected. A hardware release by Apple unhyped? That would make two pigs flying outside my window.
novagamer
Jul 12, 05:22 PM
Point Proven..Noobs like this are the reason why sites like \http://mac-sucks.com/ exist.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
This is pretty immature.
Because unlike Apple , getting your own custom motherboard from ASUS / MSI / Gigabyte / DFI. means you have real choices , you can choose different chipsets from Intel , ATI , Nvidia , VIA. NOT JUST STOCK PARTS. I can get that 10 USB , 8 SATA , WiFi , eSATA , Dual PCIe 16x that supports Crossfire or SLI anyway i want it, Apple will never do this , even Dull gives u that much.
I've had a DFI board kill 2 CPUs, a few Abit boards that were extremely flaky, one of which won't run 4 sticks of RAM anymore, another that crashed randomly and had to be RMAd, and don't not forget about the bad caps that a lot of older Abit boards (hello KT7 series) are having right about now.
I've also had an Asus board die spontaneously when I put a (supported) higher wattage processor in it, and come on you quoted VIA. Since when has VIA been a GOOD thing. I remember swapping 4-in-1 drivers every week in order to find a stability that really wasn't ever truly there. With the earliest Via Athlon chipsets it was literally possible to install drivers in the wrong order, so that the OS would continually reboot- even in safe mode! Boy, that sure was fun.
Remember the Socket A processors and their accompanying core-crushing heatsinks? When you get heatsinks that literally have the nickname of 'corecrusher' which I believe a (Thermaltake?) Volcano did, then you've got a bit of a problem. You're using the same argument that enthusiasts use against dell, except you forget that none of those computers can legally run OSX and the accompanying programs.
I've also had a Xeon system, with an iWill workstation motherboard that actually ran without FANS for a little while and survived completely fine, and is still used by the person I sold it to right now. Stability is of utmost importance with workstation/server class hardware, and that's why you won't find a lot of problems with them. Even the original G5 dual CPU system sold in 2003 has pretty much no known issues, whereas you'll find a lot of other (cheaper) Mac hardware does. R&D on solid hardware is very expensive.
Clearly you're a hardware enthusiast from an overclocker's board, and on that note do not quote an overclocked anything if you're going on a Mac forum where people use their machines to make a living: nobody overclocks their work machine unless they're a kid making $50 to do a website for their cousin or something like that, some people's day to day lifestyle rides on the machines they use and the support that is behind it (which Apple has been pretty great, in my experience, with).
If you're comparing stock configurations, the 3GHz Woodcrest Xeon is actually faster than even the ($150 more expensive) Core 2 Duo Extreme Edition (Core 2 Duo X6800) which is going to be only 2.93GHz. Also note that Woodcrest's FSB is 1333MHz while Conroe's tops out at 1066. The slightly lower performance of the Xeons, brought by the use of FB-DIMM memory, will be handily offset by the faster FSB, and it will of course allow for an incredible amount of memory, which servers and workstations need, to be used.
The fact is there are a lot of people in these forums who have used a Mac for their entire lives, and have never dealt with anything on the enthusiast side of the hardware spectrum, so they buy anything people tell them, which can make it tedious to read some of the nonsense that appears infrequently, as well as the hilarious zealot like posting of the few people who DO know something that try to come across as knowing EVERYTHING. You don't really fall into that category, but I think that you're probably at the wrong message board.
Go check out xtremesystems and have a blast, if you're comfortable running windows then it is quite fun being an enthusiast and getting the most bang for your buck, but you really can't advise or look down on people here that literally depend on their Macs to make a living. Have a great week though and try to relax a bit.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these?
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 12:43 AM
Why can't people get away from the concept of a centralized power source, like a coal or nuclear plant or even a wind farm to generate their national needs? I even see arguments that 'we don't have the space' for alternative power. Look at an aerial photo of any city and all you see is miles and miles of dead empty blank rooves. Solar panels or even small wind turbines on every single roof in every city will have people either reducing their reliance on a central power source or even contributing their own electricity to the grid to the point you may not even need a central power source, or maybe just one - which could be a wind farm or a nice clean geothermal plant.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
Even with residential solar or turbines, you still need centralized power to cover base load. Geothermal would work if you can could actually find a heat pocket. A windfarm doesn't. All of this is also very expensive and your distributed generation sources are not economically feasible in a lot of cities. You'll never see turbines mounted on roofs in Southern California where the wind barely blows. It'd be a waste of money.
Geothermal. Magma is 24/7.
Geothermal is probably the only renewable that would cover a significant part of base load for a local grid. But it's expensive as hell and it's a gamble. First of all, you're not tapping into Magma. You're trying to find a heat pocket underground. The research costs about 10 million and this is before you even start drilling. Then when you find a site and spend tens of millions of dollars to drill, there's still a 10% chance that there was really nothing there and you just wasted all that money. If there's something there, then you spend more money to build a plant and there's a chance that after 30 years, the heat will run out and your plant will be useless. Geothermal capacity was about 10,000 MW worldwide in 2010. LA alone has a capacity of 6,000 MW. No way is Geothermal going to cover capacity for the whole entire country.
R.Perez
Mar 16, 01:35 PM
Apparently five-point has never heard of Hubbert's Peak.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
mar ringtones, themes wallpapers nokia--themes -- now and i wallpapers, games Zedge.net+themes How to, update it that download desktop wallpapers shared
Nokia 2330 Classic Wallpapers
Zedge.com+for+nokia+5800
Performance zedge video song
wallpaper mobile nokia 5233.
The more you drill for oil, the faster you drill for oil, the sooner you begin to run out of it. Talk about economic catastrophe.
All the easy oil and gas in the world has pretty much been found. Now comes the harder work in finding and producing oil from more challenging environments and work areas. �
Photics
Apr 9, 10:26 AM
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Sheesh, where does the OSX 10.2 developer tools CD install gcc to, or under what name? The older dev tools gave me a compiler. Grumble.
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
Macinthetosh
Apr 28, 12:55 PM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
MacBook Pros, iMacs, and iPads are seen everywhere you look at LMU, UCLA, and USC.
tigress666
Apr 9, 11:43 AM
Wait? There's no need to wait. You are doing yourself a disservice. Do yourself a favor. Go to one of your friends houses, one with a PS3 or Xbox and at least a 37 inch TV. Play Assassin's Creed or Prince of Persia. Come back and tell us what's the difference.
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
free ringtones wallpapers
wallpapers, zedge.com
Nokia 6300 Wallpapers
Problem description for nokia
http://www.zedge.net/group/
Yeah, of course there is a difference on a console. I thought we were comparing hand helds. And I'm not claiming the iphone is the best experience for a lot of games (notice that I've pretty much said that PoP and Assassin's Creed would do better with buttons but for my purposes it's still fun on touchscreen).
I'm not claiming I'm some sort of hard core gamer.
But what I am claiming, is that there are *good* games on the iphone that are more than just "timewasters" (Well, honestly, any game is a "timewaster" if you think about it. Do you really think you do anything productive when you game? No. You do it for fun in your free time). But there are games that you can get into and play for more than five minutes (stuff that isn't the Angry Birds type game). Games that have me put down my computer and actually focus on them for long periods of time. I'm really happy to see that happen more on the iphone. I love that Square has started putting games on (if you can't tell, they're one of my favorite game makers ;). But Gameloft has started getting my love too).
That's what I'm saying.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Pretty much. It's kinda stupid to compare the iphone to a PS3 or Xbox. That's apples and oranges. No handheld is going to compare to something like that, if nothing else for having a large screen and a controller that really is designed to be a controller (and not a controller and a screen in one. No handheld can be as easy to use as a controller as a dedicated controller, which btw, I totally prefer the Playstation's/Playstation 2 controller. That was the most ergonomic controller I've experienced but I haven't had a console since the PS2. It's about as much difference in experience as a touch screen vs. buttons really. I always find handheld games are more awkward to control and have my hands cramp up. But the point of them is portability so you do make compromises).
True, some iPad/iPhone games are "casual time wasters" but there are also some FANTASTIC games. Dead Space iOS is fantastic and guess what, ITS WAS 10 DOLLARS. True, its not as good as the console versions, but those sold for 60 DOLLARS.
And this is exactly what I'm trying to say :).
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 10:28 AM
You mean Microsoft, right? And the interesting part is, Gates is still alive.
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Two problems with your pseudo-intellectual response.
1. Gates has retired from Microsoft. Who's running the show now?
2. Who is the sicker of the two? Jobs or Gates?
Eduardo1971
Apr 28, 07:27 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
gollum
Nov 28, 08:38 AM
I very rarely get dropped calls on AT & T (been with them since LA Cellular)
ArcaneDevice
Apr 6, 03:09 PM
Navigation on a Mac is far faster.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
If you know what you are doing.
Every folder can be moved to any visible location in the finder even if it's just in the file path.
Keyboard commands and shortcuts from OS 9 still apply. Everything can be navigated by CMD and cursors, dragging folders into dialog boxes opens the location in other apps, panel navigation is infinitely superior to the Explorer tree, CMD and clicking on a window title gives you instant path hierarchy, double-click still minimizes, you can drop any folder into the dock to provide access to anything you want to put in there, files can be viewed without opening the application, option and clicking on a folder arrow in list view opens all folder contents in list view, option and close closes all windows on screen ...
there are hundreds of tricks and shortcuts that can be found to navigate the Finder that Windows 7 still hasn't come around to yet. Switchers need to pick up a book otherwise the flexibility of the Finder will not be unlocked.
One of the basic failings of Windows is that even if you can see the location that doesn't mean you can interact with it.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.
Therbo
May 2, 09:29 AM
I am not concerned with malware that requires user intervention and a few clicks to install things. I am more concerned with malware that installs silently without you seeing any pop-ups or stuff like that.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
Kind of like those pwn2own contests I think are over-rated. "Pwn" my machine without me having to click anything, visit any website or anything. I'll just boot my machine, leave it at the login screen and let you do your thing. You can't touch it physically, just find a way in.
If it wants to infect the system fully, it can't do that silently, unless you have no password or a weak one set for your account.
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
I would just call it scareware.
faroZ06
May 2, 10:21 PM
Just another reason for people to use Firefox. Safari is bloated in my opinion anyways.
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
In addition, you have to click through an installer and enter your password then enter your credit card :rolleyes:
But regardless, this is hardly a threat and I don't see what the big deal over it is. From what I can tell, this malware is downloaded on user error. Not only do you have to have Safari open "safe" files, but you also have to visit the site in order to download it, which by now I assume Safari will warn you about anyways.
If this is the result of computer geniuses trying their attempt at a Mac virus, then I'm not worried about the future security of my Mac at all.
In addition, you have to click through an installer and enter your password then enter your credit card :rolleyes:
1town
Apr 28, 07:58 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
You do not "slip" upwards.
Huntn
Apr 27, 09:16 PM
Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.
I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.
As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.
In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.
I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.
In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.
there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.
I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 12:04 AM
Are you serious? That's a horrible thing to say. They should deprive themselves of sex because your 2000 year old book says so? That's crap. God made them born that way, for what? Just to torture them for their whole lives? I hope you understand that this makes no sense. And as for the catholic church recognizing that they are born that way and do not choose it, that's a load of crap. If you believe that, then you are seriously misguided. If god is so loving, wouldn't he have made them born heterosexual so they could live a normal life and have sex with members of the opposite gender? Why would god make someone gay? Your logic is so flawed im having a hard time expressing myself in words.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
Priests can't even follow their vows of chastity yet they expect it of Catholic lay people too�divorcees and homosexuals. Never worked, never will.
Lay people, snicker.
