Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 02:26 PM
That is totally reasonable and understandable, although I do disagree. I can't with good heart support sending my neighbors son/daughter overseas to fight for another people.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Well, we have allies, don't we? I simply consider the UN an attempt to permanently ally the world's nations to the extent that these sort of situations can be dealt with based on broader consensus. We are far from the ideal, but we must keep working towards it and an imperfect UN is better than no UN at all.
I just find it pretty disgusting when we have the VP going on the record talking out his arse about "Unless we are attacked or unless there is proof we are about to be attacked", then a couple years later nary a peep when we start bombing a foreign country that is not even close to a threat to us. Did Biden qualify it with a " we should be able to intervene in a nation's affairs if it is thought necessary to either 1) protect other nations from harm or 2) protect a nation's own people from its government, or in the case of a civil war, one or more factions." NOPE!
I'm not going to defend Biden, he puts his foot in his mouth quite a bit - though he is FAR from the only politician in Washingotn with that problem. Besides, unlike Cheney, he is very much playing second fiddle in the administration (actually he's so far down the pecking order only fiddles when someone lends him one, if I can stretch that saying to the breaking point).
It is worth remembering that the Bush Administration sent that clown Bolton as our representative to the UN - a man who opposes that organization's very existence. Incredibly counterproductive. No, I expect hypocrisy from both Democrats and Republicans.
I think it all boils down to whether you buy into the notion that the UN is a global representative body. If you do, then sending troops to enforce UN resolutions is not just fighting for "other people" but fighting for ouselves. If member nations took the concept of the UN more seriously, UN resolutions alone might be enough to stabilize situations like this without the need for major military intervention.
Willis
Jul 27, 03:58 PM
It's always a little alarming when a post starts "sorry if I missed it but..."
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
The 2.7 G5 will be the highest clocked chip in a mac for a while, but probably not the fastest. In a number of benchmarks, Yonah has already beaten dual G5's, the conroes and woodrests will likely widen the gap even more.
true.... didnt the Macbook outrun a G5 in final cut studio or something?
mc68k
Dec 7, 12:47 AM
well i bought a delorean s2. hadn't seen it come up before in the used lot, and ive been checking pretty much every time. was at the bottom of the list and i had to sell a few of my cars before i could buy it. 517K! not even something i can win high HP races with, but damn cool :cool:
Hellhammer
Apr 6, 11:26 AM
Hellhammer, can I ask you something about this? There are SB LV and now SB ULV. Both are for laptops and the Macbook Pro 13 has SB LV, right? Or does the Pro has something else? What is the performance difference between an equally clocked ULV and LV?
Thanks!
13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.
If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
Thanks!
13" MBP uses SV chips, i.e. standard voltage (35W). Before it used MV (medium voltage, 25W) chips but Sandy Bridge does not offer CPUs like that. LV (25W) and ULV (17W) chips have not been released yet but will be released shortly like the article says.
If the clock speed and other specs are the same, then the performance is the same. ULV and LV chips are only separated by the TDP which causes the ULV to have lower clock speed. Otherwise they are the same chips.
aegisdesign
Sep 13, 12:05 PM
Also, the iMac is a 32-bit computer, and these are 64-bit chips, reducing any possiblity to zero.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
Only the Yonah based Core Duo iMacs are 32bit (Well, and the G3/G4 too). G5 and the new iMac Core 2 Duo models on sale now are 64bit. Not that it matters per se.
videomaven
Apr 6, 06:08 AM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
There are many ways of delivering content other than BluRay. But if one insists, there is a rudimentary BluRay output currently in FCP. Or burn with Toast. Or author in anything from Adobe Encore to high-end PC-based BluRay authoring systems.
While I accept that you are not acting the troll, you do need to learn a bit more about the video/film world.
deannnnn
Jun 9, 08:44 AM
I have a feeling that those trade-in prices will be substantially reduced once the iPhone 4 is released.
danielespejo
Apr 5, 10:59 PM
sorry but that's not the case. While some contend it's jaw-dropping, that's only because they're stacking it up against what FCS is currently.
.....
While some may find the new FCS exciting, and it does have some bells and whistles, it's typical Apple doing an incremental bump to keep up with what others are doing. Sad really.
Which 'new FCS' are you speaking about? Are you referring to the version that will allegedly be released at NAB? If so, how did you see it? You must be important!
.....
While some may find the new FCS exciting, and it does have some bells and whistles, it's typical Apple doing an incremental bump to keep up with what others are doing. Sad really.
Which 'new FCS' are you speaking about? Are you referring to the version that will allegedly be released at NAB? If so, how did you see it? You must be important!
Stridder44
Aug 7, 05:10 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!
I think Time Machine looks and probably is good, but after having seen all the pictures of the banners at WWDC mocking Vista, I expected someting REALLY NEW, not just warmed up. If they can't show the super super secret new stuff yet, then they shouldn't have used those banners. I find that arrogant...
APPLE!? Arrogant??? Naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.
And how do you know you guys are going to hate it? You never even used it yet. My God some of you people are such complainers. Put some dirt on it, make a hill, and get over it.
I think Time Machine looks and probably is good, but after having seen all the pictures of the banners at WWDC mocking Vista, I expected someting REALLY NEW, not just warmed up. If they can't show the super super secret new stuff yet, then they shouldn't have used those banners. I find that arrogant...
APPLE!? Arrogant??? Naaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhh.
And how do you know you guys are going to hate it? You never even used it yet. My God some of you people are such complainers. Put some dirt on it, make a hill, and get over it.
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:15 AM
BTW: Im so glad to have some MAC rumors to talk about...the 24/7 iOS fest gets tiresome :rolleyes:
KingYaba
Aug 27, 10:45 AM
Maybe an x1800. We all just have to wait and see. :)
-SD-
Aug 18, 05:14 AM
So Japan is getting GT5 on November 3rd too, but at least they get a nifty Titanium Blue console and Ltd Edition game bundle. (http://www.engadget.com/2010/08/18/ps3-gets-titanium-blue-makeover-for-gran-turismo-5-launch-bundle/)
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/10x08189ub234tewfja.jpg
:apple:
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2010/08/10x08189ub234tewfja.jpg
:apple:
Flowbee
Aug 11, 10:28 AM
Arrrggh... too many conflicting rumors make my head a splode. :eek:
DisMyMac
Apr 5, 07:11 PM
Is there any hope for good subtitle support? OCR, etc.?
davidcmc
Mar 22, 03:45 PM
Says the man who doesn't even own one.
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
I don't need to own an iPad 2.
The competitors have 1GB RAM, iPad 2 has 512MB.
It's simple: Apple is always behind hardware-wise because they like to priorize esthetics and appearance (besides the "so wonderful OS" ad). It's been this way for Macs, it seems to be the same way for iPads.
Android phones are selling more than iPhone.
iPhone has started a market, competitors are improving it.
iPad has started a market, competitors are improving it.
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I've only bought the first iPad because there were no competitors at that time (and I hate netbooks), but now things are different. To be honest, A LOT different.
People said that the iPhone was going to be the best phone out there, but the market is showing something different.
People say the iPad is the best tablet out there, but it seems that the market is going to show something different.
There are 2 sides: Apple fanboys and realistic people.
I like products, not brands.
digitalbiker
Aug 25, 10:09 PM
In a world full of computers, I want to be helped by a human with common sense.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
I'm with you on this one! The first thing I do when I reach a phone menu system is try to figure out how to circumvent it so that I can get to a real person.
The problem with menu systems is that they only cover the most likely common user problems. I have been around computers long enough that I can fix all the easy issues. The only time I call is when my problem is serious and phone support never has a menu option for that.
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:17 AM
I know if it is it will work, what i'm asking is, is it? Or is that not known at this time?
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
Not known. There might be other concerns apart from the socket compatibility: FSB, firmware, and in particular the heat output.
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 01:59 PM
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
If long run is 10yrs, I'll grant you that. But in the US and much of Asia (Australia maybe) where there's CDMA carriers, CDMA2000 1x-EVDx is going to be around for a while.
Actually WCDMA also inherits much of it's tech from CDMA/IS-95 and I have seen some documentation that shows that WCDMA can be compatible with CDMA2000 just like UTMS/WCDMA is compatible with GSM. But it sounds as if the upgrade path for GSM/GPRS/EDGE to WCDMA is easier than going from CDMA2000 1x to WCDMA.
But since for the next several years CDMA2000 1x-EVDO will be better than the GSM related technologies. And by the time WCDMA takes over, the iPhone will be as antiquated as the Newton.
Apple needs to create both versions as CDMA has about 5x% of the US market... and Apple has and probably will continue to cater to the US market first.
bmturney
Apr 27, 09:01 AM
It's always entertaining reading the paranoid ramblings of conspiracy theorists.
Macnoviz
Jul 22, 03:03 AM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
technicolor
Sep 19, 10:35 PM
Why should it bother you that new processors come out?
why shouldnt it?
why shouldnt it?
hobi316
Jun 9, 02:15 PM
I just called a local store here in SC and this was pretty much all confirmed. His computer system was down, so he didn't have the info in front of him, but he said it would run pretty much like the EVO did, with a $50 downpayment for the pre-orders. Unfortunately he wasn't yet sure if all stores would be doing pre-orders or just the "in-stock" stores. I'll call back Monday to see if that store can get me a phone on the 24th, since it's close to my work. We'll see, I guess.
AppliedVisual
Oct 15, 01:08 PM
How long did macPro delay compared to HPs similar workstation?
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
HP, Dell and IBM all had dual Core 2 Xeon workstation systems available 2~3 weeks ahead of Apple's Mac Pro release. Apple has yet to release their new Xserve. HP, Dell, IBM and others have had dual (and even some quad CPU configurations) of Core 2 Xeon 1U servers and blades available for months now...
KilGil27
Aug 25, 07:39 PM
just because your battery falls within a range of serial numbers doesn't mean it needs to be replaced... if it tells you your laptop qualifies but your battery doesn't, then it was only the first part of the serial number... not the whole thing
No hay comentarios:
Publicar un comentario