MattSepeta
Mar 23, 01:51 PM
You've been doing it since the 1940s without congressional approval. Why so concerned about it now? Why this particular president? Were you personally concerned when it was done in Bosnia or Iraq? Do you realise that missiles have been launched into Pakistan from drones for many years, yet no declaration of war on Pakistan...
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
So, in answer to your accusatory traps/questions:
-Why so concerned about it now?
Footprints on the Moon
the moon#39;s surface anyway?
shaping the lunar surface,
across the moon#39;s surface.
lunar surface after Ascent
NASA/DOE Developing Surface
PROFILE) Surface : Drawing
on the moon#39;s surface,
around the moon#39;s surface
on the moon#39;s surface
of the Moon#39;s surface was
Moonworks – i want to go there
Or are you just parroting the latest conservative reason to oppose Obama's actions? Obama: whatever he's for, I'm against. Is that it?
It sure is easy to peg me isn't it? Too bad if you go back over my posts you will find more than enough denouncing involvement in Iraq / Afghanistan.
So, in answer to your accusatory traps/questions:
-Why so concerned about it now?
NY Guitarist
Apr 5, 07:23 PM
I hope the next release of FCS integrates the different apps within the suite under a single UI.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
The whole "Send to" export concept always seemed like an awkward workaround for using this package as a "suite".
As sad as it was to see Apple kill off Shake, my hope is that it will be reborn inside FC as the node based compositor portion of the package. Motion inherited some of Shake's features, notably SmoothCam, so hopefully more of Shake will live on in FCP.
I'd really like to see FCS become of a single app where the "suite" of apps becomes more of a "mode" of operating. In other words if you choose to do editing the UI can switch to a mode that focuses on that, as with compositing, titles (LiveType) or audio editing (Soundtrack).. and so on.
citizenzen
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
Bush was attacked endlessly about conducting a war for oil, and that it was really the U.S. alone, because his coalition was small/weak.
One difference here is that there was a U.N. resolution backing this use of force. So while the coalition of forces might be small, you'd have to in some sense include all the nations who voted for the resolution as backing this effort.
I wonder what the list would look like then?
Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation abstained from voting. However, if my memory serves, either China and Russia could have vetoed the measure with a no vote, yet did not. Which is a tacit form of approval.
Bosnia, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa all cast yes votes along with France the U.K. and the U.S. This for all intents and purposes increases the number of nations in your coalition to include these countries as well.
But personally, I don't support this intervention. Protecting people against genocide is one thing. But intervening in a civil war is another. As a general rule I believe that it's best for a country to work these issues out themselves ... provided once again, that issues of genocide don't arise.
One difference here is that there was a U.N. resolution backing this use of force. So while the coalition of forces might be small, you'd have to in some sense include all the nations who voted for the resolution as backing this effort.
I wonder what the list would look like then?
Brazil, China, Germany, India, Russian Federation abstained from voting. However, if my memory serves, either China and Russia could have vetoed the measure with a no vote, yet did not. Which is a tacit form of approval.
Bosnia, Colombia, Gabon, Germany, India, Lebanon, Nigeria, Portugal and South Africa all cast yes votes along with France the U.K. and the U.S. This for all intents and purposes increases the number of nations in your coalition to include these countries as well.
But personally, I don't support this intervention. Protecting people against genocide is one thing. But intervening in a civil war is another. As a general rule I believe that it's best for a country to work these issues out themselves ... provided once again, that issues of genocide don't arise.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 25, 04:38 PM
Why should Location Services stop your phone from logging cell tower information, the same information your cell company logs?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
The smart complainers rather. I don't think people would have the same issue if Apple collected X amount of data, and deleted it after X time. The issue is that it's stored forever, so people panic.
If it kept it for the same length as Android, and continued to NOT be sent to Apple, I don't see how this is any worse than any other phone's logging that occurs.
Apple doesn't receive data(as far as we know), 'Droid does. Yet Apple is the bad guy simply because it's unencrypted and not truncated. If they did those two fixes, anyone with any notion about the topic would be able to see that it's not a big deal.
Then again, how concerned are you that someone will know what cell phone towers you were near, or which Wi-Fi hot spots were around you on whatever day?
Now if it's in Airplane Mode, then I'd wonder...
I don't think the "smart people" are all that smart if that's their issue!
The smart complainers rather. I don't think people would have the same issue if Apple collected X amount of data, and deleted it after X time. The issue is that it's stored forever, so people panic.
If it kept it for the same length as Android, and continued to NOT be sent to Apple, I don't see how this is any worse than any other phone's logging that occurs.
Apple doesn't receive data(as far as we know), 'Droid does. Yet Apple is the bad guy simply because it's unencrypted and not truncated. If they did those two fixes, anyone with any notion about the topic would be able to see that it's not a big deal.
Then again, how concerned are you that someone will know what cell phone towers you were near, or which Wi-Fi hot spots were around you on whatever day?
godrifle
Nov 29, 12:27 PM
... Is Ford going to start asking for a share of the groceries I haul in the trunk?
layte
Mar 31, 03:30 PM
Except Google have made it very clear with Honeycomb that they're not willing to release the source code for the foreseeable future so 'a bit' could be a lot longer than you'd think. More to the point that does manufacturers very little good. If, f'instance, Google decide to only release a version of Android as open source when they release the next version any manufacturer wanting to use it is going to have to grab the open version, make whatever tweaks they want, get it on a device, get it built in bulk and launch it into the relevant sales channel(s). By the time they do that Google is likely to have released another version of Android and they'll be hopelessly out of date.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
Make no mistake about this, Google tightening up on the Android T&C's like this makes it almost impossible for anyone outside of Google's control to launch a device that really competes with the manufacturers who are on the inside track, at least from an OS point of view.
I was just pointing out that the code is still open, even if some have to wait longer than has been the case. I'm not saying everything is golden and Google are a paragon of virtue, this is certainly a bit of a sly move on their part.
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
zero2dash
Sep 14, 08:33 AM
Yes. Windows NT was running on machines with eight processors several years before OS X was even released.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
Windows supported 64 bit platforms and dual core CPUs long before OS X did.
On the server side.
Nevertheless, ok. Windows did it first.
That's probably because you're not interested in reading anything that might portray Microsoft in a non-negative light.
Couldn't be farther from the truth. I have no problem with Microsoft or Windows, evident by the fact that I've ran their operating systems for the last 10 years. I have a problem with all the crap they're putting in Vista, but otherwise - Win2k and XP Pro have left me primarily trouble-free.
georgee2face
Mar 22, 02:17 PM
I hear that the PlayBook is really easy to hold one-handed. If you know what I mean.
it un-nerves me that I think I do! :)
it un-nerves me that I think I do! :)
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
clevin
Aug 7, 07:13 PM
I keep reading stuff like this. I don't think Time Machine works with the reagular harddrive. You have to use it with an external drive.
thats a kinda harsh requirement, i would think it will allow you to choose local/external hard drive/network server.
Buts till, it will cost lot of space, no matter where the space is from.
thats a kinda harsh requirement, i would think it will allow you to choose local/external hard drive/network server.
Buts till, it will cost lot of space, no matter where the space is from.
Eidorian
Aug 26, 05:50 PM
Anyone know of benchmarks comparing the core duo with the core 2 duo?http://guides.macrumors.com/Merom#Benchmarks
elgruga
Nov 29, 02:27 AM
If Universal get cash as 'compensation' for stolen music, then presumably once you have paid the 'compensation' money, you can steal as much music as you like. Cool.
Apple doesnt really sell music - it sells iPods and offers the music at cost (or close to it) to support the iPod. Its a smart move , and its a pity that almost ALL of the iTunes cash goes direct to the record companies.
I used to work in the music biz, and a bigger bunch of thieving clowns you have yet to meet.
Most artists get 6-8% of the CD sales. Yes folks thats a big fifty cents or so on an average CD sale.
But because they give you an advance against royalties, which you spend on recording and PR etc. etc, only the very successful (a huge 0.5% of bands) ever make any money. Its a losing gamble and it turns music into a commodity - which it shouldnt be.
This battle will run for a while yet, but there is hope that the DEMISE of record companies is on the horizon.
With computer recording etc., its not necessary to get a record deal - good music does exist outside of the music industry machine.
Maybe Micro$oft will implode too - the zune fiasco suggests that they are up their own arses as far as common sense goes.....
Apple doesnt really sell music - it sells iPods and offers the music at cost (or close to it) to support the iPod. Its a smart move , and its a pity that almost ALL of the iTunes cash goes direct to the record companies.
I used to work in the music biz, and a bigger bunch of thieving clowns you have yet to meet.
Most artists get 6-8% of the CD sales. Yes folks thats a big fifty cents or so on an average CD sale.
But because they give you an advance against royalties, which you spend on recording and PR etc. etc, only the very successful (a huge 0.5% of bands) ever make any money. Its a losing gamble and it turns music into a commodity - which it shouldnt be.
This battle will run for a while yet, but there is hope that the DEMISE of record companies is on the horizon.
With computer recording etc., its not necessary to get a record deal - good music does exist outside of the music industry machine.
Maybe Micro$oft will implode too - the zune fiasco suggests that they are up their own arses as far as common sense goes.....
saving107
Apr 6, 01:55 PM
I purchased a Xoom over the weekend it's a great device, a little heavy, but very awesome for its first pass. I used to own an iPad 1, gave it away, didn't want an iPad 2. Why do I need two devices of the same OS where the UI was designed for the iPhone (smaller device) to begin with?
Earth seen from the Moon
A rich textural surface
leaving the moon#39;s surface
on the quot;moon surfacequot; in
on the quot;moon surfacequot; in
the Moon#39;s surface
Digitalclips
Apr 25, 03:07 PM
My Garmin saves way points too!
Leoff
Sep 19, 07:28 AM
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.
In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.
As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.
Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.
cmaier
Apr 19, 06:16 PM
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this..
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
Proof that Samsung ripped off Apple's rip off of Delicious Library?
LagunaSol
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
Just picked up a Atrix 4G and on my way checked out the iPhone 4 - it looks decidedly antique and bland in front of the competition
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
If you're going to judge "looks," the Atrix looks (and feels) like cheap junk next to the iPhone. Just like practically every other Android phone on the market. The iPhone looks like a Rolex sitting next to the Casio of the Android offerings.
Enjoy the plastic. ;)
4God
Jul 14, 02:30 PM
Dual optical drive slots are a must....<snip>.....
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
Maybe one of the drives will be Blu-Ray.
xxBURT0Nxx
Apr 6, 11:16 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
clock speed is not everything... a 1.4ghz sb processor will kill anything you are doing with a 2.4ghz c2d. There are many other factors in a processor than just clock speed so i wouldn't be worried. There is no doubt that the sb will be a much faster processor than the ancient c2d.
Also, I would say 50% less graphics is a bit of a stretch. Haven't personally ran any benchmarks but was reading a thread the other day and in the benchmarks and graphics they were showing that the 320m averages about 5-10 extra fps over the 3000.
here is a thread you can look at and compare for yourself.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1103257
Sure the integrated graphics are going to be slightly worse, but at least you will have a nice new processor. Can't always have your cake and eat it too, especially in an ultraportable.
When the mba was refreshed everyone was complaining about the outdated processor, now rumors of a processor upgrade and people bitch about the integrated graphics. Guess you can't please everyone but jesus, sometimes it just seems like people find anything they can to complain about.
Here's a simple solution for all of you, if you want the "slightly" better graphics go buy a macbook air right now, it's not like apple has stopped selling them. If you'd rather have a sandy bridge processor, wait it out. Seems simple but i guess that's just me?!?!?!:eek:
HiRez
Sep 18, 11:57 PM
The aluminum design has been been pretty good (although I personally like the Titanium design better, with the dark keys that don't get glared when light is shining on them). But, the Mac pro laptop line is in dire need on a system refresh. The design is getting a little stale.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
Here's what I'd like to see:
-- How about some new textures for the case, such as brushed copper? I think that would look sharp. Or tinted aluminum, including brushed black metal. The brushings could even have subtle anisotropic patterns visible when tilted into and away from light sources, like circular rings, houndstooth, herringbone, starburst, etc. Imagine a blue-greenish "surfer" MBP with a "wave" pattern brushed into it, or a Boston Celtics green or two-toned wood-colored model with a brushed parquet pattern. This would be some real cutting-edge design that no other laptop vendor could easily copy.
-- 256 MB graphics, Radeon X1800 Mobility or better
-- HDMI output
-- SDI input and dual SDI video output (fill + key). Yes, input. This would be fantastic for mobile video professionals.
-- 1920x1200 resolution on the 17" model (this will become important with the resolution-independent UI in Leopard)
-- 1680x1050 resolution on the 15" model
-- 12"-13" model with 1440x900 resolution and backlit keyboard
-- Dual Firewire ports on separate controllers, with no shared bandwidth. One 400 Mbps, one 400/800?
-- Three USB2 ports on separate controllers.
bryanc
Aug 26, 06:12 PM
... those who understand binary and those who do not.
Just sell Merom as "64 bit", that's twice as much as "32 bit".
64 bits is not twice as big as 32 bits.... it's 2^32 (roughly 4.3 billion) times as big. Just like 1000 is not twice as big as 10.
33 bits would be twice as big as 32 bits.
But yes, you're right, the important thing here is not that merom is 20% faster (or 20% more power efficient), it's that it's 64 bit.
Leopard will be 64 bit, and you can bet that once leopard is the shipping OS, there will be 64 bit only software that you will want to run. That's why it's worth having a Core 2 Duo system.
Cheers
Just sell Merom as "64 bit", that's twice as much as "32 bit".
64 bits is not twice as big as 32 bits.... it's 2^32 (roughly 4.3 billion) times as big. Just like 1000 is not twice as big as 10.
33 bits would be twice as big as 32 bits.
But yes, you're right, the important thing here is not that merom is 20% faster (or 20% more power efficient), it's that it's 64 bit.
Leopard will be 64 bit, and you can bet that once leopard is the shipping OS, there will be 64 bit only software that you will want to run. That's why it's worth having a Core 2 Duo system.
Cheers
fivepoint
Mar 22, 06:48 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable... all the talk about Obama's great coalition and how its a justifiable war. Here are a few of my favorite quotes from Brhawk Obama:
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
�I�m gonna read this and then tell you who said it. �The president does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation.� Now that was Barack Obama who said that on December the 20, 2007. We�ve got to be very sure here that we follow the Constitution, and president Obama didn�t do that.�
�Well, look, if that�s the criteria by which we are making decisions on the deployment of U.S. forces, then by that argument you would have 300,000 troops in the Congo right now � where millions have been slaughtered as a consequence of ethnic strife � which we haven�t done,�
Oh yeah... and here's a fun little nugget for those who like to tout Obama's coalition:
[Source: US State Department]
Coalition Countries - Iraq - 2003
Afghanistan,
Albania
Australia
Azerbaijan
Bulgaria
Colombia
Czech Republic
Denmark
El Salvador
Eritrea
Estonia
Ethiopia
Georgia
Hungary
Italy
Japan
South Korea
Latvia
Lithuania
Macedonia
Netherlands
Nicaragua
Philippines
Poland
Romania
Slovakia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Uzbekistan
Coalition - Libya - 2011
United States
France
United Kingdom
Italy
Canada
Belgium
Denmark
Norway
Qatar
Spain
Greece
Germany
Poland
Jordan
Morocco
United Arab Emirate
Read more: http://nation.foxnews.com/barack-obama/2011/03/21/fact-bush-had-2-times-more-coalition-partners-iraq-obama-has-libya#ixzz1HKPFLjvX
KnightWRX
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Well, you only need to look at what happened with the gameboy to see that competition is good.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Internet Explorer 6. Case closed on "competition is good". Seriously, that anyone would doubt it at this point is baffling.
After seeing off the game gear and lynx, the gameboy stagnated for almost a decade. How long did it take before there was a colour version? Years, yet we've seen some great revisions since the PSP was announced.
Internet Explorer 6. Case closed on "competition is good". Seriously, that anyone would doubt it at this point is baffling.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 8, 01:47 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Weird... I think there's more involved in this than we can imagine.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Or... a competitor made an arrangement with Be$t Buy to sell a minimum quota a day (well... very odd, but possible) for who knows what reason.
It's a strange concept on BB's part, but if I had a store I would sell all my stock if there's a demand for it. If I hold off, my customers would be driven away to a competitor and I would loose both present and future sales.
When Apple tv2 came out, google paid bby to not sell it so google tv could get a head start
Weird... I think there's more involved in this than we can imagine.
One thing that comes to my mind is the possibility they were holding their stock to sell it outside the country, as there's been a high demand and higher value to sell overseas.
Or... a competitor made an arrangement with Be$t Buy to sell a minimum quota a day (well... very odd, but possible) for who knows what reason.
It's a strange concept on BB's part, but if I had a store I would sell all my stock if there's a demand for it. If I hold off, my customers would be driven away to a competitor and I would loose both present and future sales.
When Apple tv2 came out, google paid bby to not sell it so google tv could get a head start
No comments:
Post a Comment