And the more obvious point you missed is that it DOESN'T MATTER. It wouldn't change a thing if Apple had used 64 bit chips because no Mactel system is going to take advantage of 64 bit addressing until the towers or Xserves switch over from using G5's. So either way developers would be readying 64 bit apps in advance, and unless Apple or Intel have thrown up roadblocks to prevent you from doing so, there is no reason you can't develop 64 bit apps on a 32 bit machine.
Just do us a favor: go back under your bridge and resume plotting to steal Christmas from Whoville.
That links goes to the results of a script, it doens't show anything without the input.
And if you are adjusting for inflation, that doens't give the whole picture. Accoring to this site, the GDP of the US was $10.985 trillion in 2003. The foundation's endowment would be about 0.26% of that. If Carnegies donations were 1/80th of Bill's, unadjusted, that would make it about $362 million. In 1915, the GDP was $38.7 billion, and Carnegie's donation would have made up 0.93% of that - three times that of the Gates's percentage.
But that is a sensible approach to the Commerce Clause, but that's not how Congress sees it and SCOTUS seems to have gone along with Congress. People talk about executive power grabs, but I think Congress using the Comerce Clause for everything under the sun is far worse.
Travel by airplane isn't a right, it's a convenience, and the constitution doesn't deal in conveniences.
But you could say the same thing about any sort of travel: car, boat, bike, train, horse, etc. And while you might technically be able to walk to any state in North America, that doesn't help you get to Hawaii or Puerto Rico.
I don't think you're going to see much in the way of faster processor speeds over the next year.
And why is that. It's a new product, no reason it doesn't have room to grow.
Apple releases a system that isn't that good
How is it bad.
That's unless you're one of the Steve Jobs can do no wrong crowd, in which case you have nothing at all useful to say.
Much like the Apple Can Do No Right crowd.
The real reason to wait until 2H06 is why get stuck with the last of the 32-bit Intel Macs, when 64-bit lower-heat Intel processors are only a few months away.
The primary reason for going with Intel was to get chips for laptops. And just what percentage of laptops have 4 gigs of ram, much less a need for more?
I belive they have awards for best video, male performer, female performer, girl-girl scene, group sex scene, best three way, etc. Or at least that's what I remember from the "director's commentary" on Flashpoint, a Jenna Jameson flick directed by her former hubby, Brad Armstrong.
If you've never listened to porn with director's commentary, I highly recommend you find some, it's funny stuff. Highlights were something like:
"Now you know what girls do when they go to the bathroom together"
"If you ever have a chance to get a blow job from Jenna, I suggest you take it" (since they were going out or married at the time)
And my personal favorite, "Joannie Black takes anal like a trooper".
Wow, it took me two minutes to debunk both those claims.
Pretty big words from someone with two links in his post.
No, it doesn't. Prostate cancer deaths are 75% of breast cancer deaths.
Yes, it does. Prostate cancer deaths: 40,000 a year. Breast cancer deaths for this year are estimated at 43,000.
No, it doesn't. It gets 2x the funding.
If you only go by what the NIH spends, sure. The 2006 estimate for breast cancer research is $716 million for bresat cancer, compared to about $380 million for prostate cancer. However, there's the DOD's breast cancer program, which nets around $150 million a year. And then we can compare the funding that the national Office of Women's Health spends on breast cancer to the amount the Office of Men's Health spends on prostate cancer. Oh wait, we can't, because the OMH doesn't exist.
You could try to work out the numbers yourself, but I have a feeling you're not the kind of person who likes facts. Facts... they are so cold. Breast cancer versus prostate cancer stats.
Sorry, but the facts are deserting you faster than Republicans can distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. Here's another one for you: yes, prostate cancer strikes later in life than breast cancer, but women also live 5.7 years longer than men. But hey, we can only even out statistics when women are at the short end of the stick, right? Like how you'll hear complaints about "glass ceilings" and "pay gaps" but you don't see NOW wringing their hands over the fact that over 90% of workplace deaths and injuries are suffered by men.
Well, you have to scroll through a few pages of websites
No, I don't.
whose main existence is to either promote "Men's Rights" or criticize feminism
Yes, the women can have their Oprah, their Lifetime channel, their NOW, their decades of "women's rights" but if men raise their voice they're just a bunch of complainers.
reasonable source: the BBC. There you find the results of a 2001/2002 British Crime survey: "19% of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims with just under half of these being committed by a female abuser."
Looks like you skipped over the part of your article where they said "Figures on the extent of male victims vary considerably so it's difficult to state with any accuracy the true extent." I went with 35% because it is on the low end of the estimates. Studies of studies have pegged it more at 50/50. The problem with relying only on police reports is the fact that women are far more likely to report abuse then men, due to culture and outreach.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that you are less concerned with gay victims of domestic abuse because your larger point is that men in heterosexual relationships are somehow "discriminated" against.
Wow, that's funny. It's funny because a consequence of domestic violence being culturally and politically defined as something male abusers do to female victums, is that violence in lesbian relationships is ignored.
Thanks for playing "make up facts"; you have lost.
Let me guess, you have a big poster on your wall of Nixon and his "victory wave" after he just resigned. You can quibble on the statistics, but even you are are right on all points it still doesn't change the fact that men are indeed getting the short end of the stick in many areas. 75% of the deaths deserve more than half the funding. 19% of the victums of DV would deserve more than zero support and respect. So to get back to the GP's point, yes it is easy to be a w
So...Hitler and McCarthy are at the same level of scum?
Wow, thanks for the straw man. Obviously the scale and nastiness are far different with Hitler, but the (obvious) point (that you missed by about five miles) is that the underlying excuse is the same. McCarthy was "right" because some of the poeple caught up in his witch hunt actually were communists, and Hitler was right because when you kill 8 million poeple you're bound to off some actuall traitors and genetically inferior humans.
You could apply the same reasoning to any oppressive action, from forced relocation of Indian tribes to Japanese internment in WWII.
Re:I did like "The Emperors New Groove"
on
Disney Buys Pixar
·
· Score: 1
I did like "The Emperors New Groove".
Funny you should say that.:) I guess if we see a musical number in Cars, we'll know it's going downhill.
I love thegroupthink of you anti-fanboys when you critisize other./ers for group think. In other words, every time Apple does something questionable or unpopular, you guys fall all over yourselves to say "now if this were Microsoft, people would be up in arms..." Even in stories like the one were Jobs had all Wiley's books pulled from the Apple Stores and a large number of highly moderated posts were calling Jobs a consumate asshole.
No, you read any Apple article where they've done something questionable and unpopular. You'll have up to a dozen or more guys saying "now if this were Microsoft..." Even in articles where most of the posters are calling Jobs an asshole. The "if this were Microsoft" line is nothing more than a knee-jerk responce to impress other's with your own cleverness. There's nothing more funny than group-think critisizing supposed group-think.
The difference is, McCarthy was right. Check out the Verona Project records if you don't believe me. Many of the people he questioned or wanted to question actually were Soviet agents.
To go straight to Godwin's Law, that's like saying Hitler was right because some of the Jews that were killed actually were bad people. Utter nonsense.
There was actually a point where Hunchback was a very good and powerful movie. Then somebody decided the gargoyles needed a bigger role and a song. Sigh...
Of course they did, it was a Disney movie, so it had to be a musical with highly annoying sidekicks. I don't think it's cooincidence that only Disney movie I've liked in at least a decade has been the one to break that mold, The Emperor's New Groove.
How exactly is it that not allowing someone to re-use an old idea (say, Mickey Mouse) is somehow stifling creativity?
Why don't you spend a couple minutes thinking about the movies that Disney has made, where the ideas for those movies came from, and then get back to us on that one.
In my mind, a long copyright term almost seems to *enforce* creativity.
Not possible, because truly origional ideas are very hard to come by. For example, Lucas couldn't have lightsabres because anime companies in Japan had "beam weapons" before Star Wars was made.
is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination
It's fairly easy, actually. For example, prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women, and yet breast cancer gets 3x the funding. Or how men make up at least 35% of the victums of domestic violence, and yet receive virtually no funding, no outreach, and no respect.
lease read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it says it is against the law to discriminate against race, religion, creed, color, national origin, and gender.
SCOTUS might disagree. They did when the ruled that age-discrimination laws did not apply to younger workers.
I'm sure AMD could have given them all the chips they need. They might not have been so forthcoming with the Marketing Money however.
With this?
For Intel, getting Apple is a coup worth paying enough for that even if they never make a cent from Steve Jobs, they've still silenced the biggest critic of the i86 architecture.
I think AMD would happily be "forthcoming with the Marketing Money" if they got Apple, because they would have a show pony for their technology, as opposed to higher producing but boring, supplier-of-the-week companies like Dell or HP.
For most of its life, the P4 wasn't "underperforming", it was as fast - if not faster - than the Athlon.
Maybe if your benchmark is a P4 friendly application such as Quake 3. Otherwise, no. The P4 made a big tradeoff between clock-for-clock speed in exchange for ghz. A 1.3 ghz P3 was faster than a 1.4 ghz P4, which is why Intel waited until faster P4's were available for release the last P3.
Slashdot Mirror
That would be a funny movie if it had something other than dudes in it.
Margaret Whitman's company (Ebay) is bigger
Only in market cap. Saying eBay is bigger than Apple is like saying Google is bigger than IBM.
Larry Ellison (Oracle) has been around longer (without leaving the company at least)
Your point being what exactly? Some companies have been in business for centuries.
Eric Schmidt's company (Google) gets an article on Slashdot every few hours
So does Apple.
Steve Balmer's company (Microsoft) sells more Operating Systems
Apple sells more computers.
And the more obvious point you missed is that it DOESN'T MATTER. It wouldn't change a thing if Apple had used 64 bit chips because no Mactel system is going to take advantage of 64 bit addressing until the towers or Xserves switch over from using G5's. So either way developers would be readying 64 bit apps in advance, and unless Apple or Intel have thrown up roadblocks to prevent you from doing so, there is no reason you can't develop 64 bit apps on a 32 bit machine.
Just do us a favor: go back under your bridge and resume plotting to steal Christmas from Whoville.
That links goes to the results of a script, it doens't show anything without the input.
And if you are adjusting for inflation, that doens't give the whole picture. Accoring to this site, the GDP of the US was $10.985 trillion in 2003. The foundation's endowment would be about 0.26% of that. If Carnegies donations were 1/80th of Bill's, unadjusted, that would make it about $362 million. In 1915, the GDP was $38.7 billion, and Carnegie's donation would have made up 0.93% of that - three times that of the Gates's percentage.
But that is a sensible approach to the Commerce Clause, but that's not how Congress sees it and SCOTUS seems to have gone along with Congress. People talk about executive power grabs, but I think Congress using the Comerce Clause for everything under the sun is far worse.
Travel by airplane isn't a right, it's a convenience, and the constitution doesn't deal in conveniences.
But you could say the same thing about any sort of travel: car, boat, bike, train, horse, etc. And while you might technically be able to walk to any state in North America, that doesn't help you get to Hawaii or Puerto Rico.
Aren't his donations larger than anything anyone has ever given before?
Not bloody likely. Carnegie, anyone?
I don't think you're going to see much in the way of faster processor speeds over the next year.
And why is that. It's a new product, no reason it doesn't have room to grow.
Apple releases a system that isn't that good
How is it bad.
That's unless you're one of the Steve Jobs can do no wrong crowd, in which case you have nothing at all useful to say.
Much like the Apple Can Do No Right crowd.
The real reason to wait until 2H06 is why get stuck with the last of the 32-bit Intel Macs, when 64-bit lower-heat Intel processors are only a few months away.
The primary reason for going with Intel was to get chips for laptops. And just what percentage of laptops have 4 gigs of ram, much less a need for more?
You sound a bit like an Apple Apologist.
And you an Apple Asshat.
And I suppose Dan Rather and Nina Totenberg never did this with their party lines and astroturf.
Okay, name some. Besides that, where did they say what parties, if any, did they belong to?
I'm sure Apple is playing the world's smallest violin in response.
I belive they have awards for best video, male performer, female performer, girl-girl scene, group sex scene, best three way, etc. Or at least that's what I remember from the "director's commentary" on Flashpoint, a Jenna Jameson flick directed by her former hubby, Brad Armstrong.
If you've never listened to porn with director's commentary, I highly recommend you find some, it's funny stuff. Highlights were something like:
"Now you know what girls do when they go to the bathroom together"
"If you ever have a chance to get a blow job from Jenna, I suggest you take it" (since they were going out or married at the time)
And my personal favorite, "Joannie Black takes anal like a trooper".
it's that they're only talking about half of the relationship
No, they talk about both sides. He also pointed out that the industry wouldn't be what it is today without the internet, a point the GP missed.
Wow, it took me two minutes to debunk both those claims.
Pretty big words from someone with two links in his post.
No, it doesn't. Prostate cancer deaths are 75% of breast cancer deaths.
Yes, it does. Prostate cancer deaths: 40,000 a year. Breast cancer deaths for this year are estimated at 43,000.
No, it doesn't. It gets 2x the funding.
If you only go by what the NIH spends, sure. The 2006 estimate for breast cancer research is $716 million for bresat cancer, compared to about $380 million for prostate cancer. However, there's the DOD's breast cancer program, which nets around $150 million a year. And then we can compare the funding that the national Office of Women's Health spends on breast cancer to the amount the Office of Men's Health spends on prostate cancer. Oh wait, we can't, because the OMH doesn't exist.
You could try to work out the numbers yourself, but I have a feeling you're not the kind of person who likes facts. Facts... they are so cold. Breast cancer versus prostate cancer stats.
Sorry, but the facts are deserting you faster than Republicans can distance themselves from Jack Abramoff. Here's another one for you: yes, prostate cancer strikes later in life than breast cancer, but women also live 5.7 years longer than men. But hey, we can only even out statistics when women are at the short end of the stick, right? Like how you'll hear complaints about "glass ceilings" and "pay gaps" but you don't see NOW wringing their hands over the fact that over 90% of workplace deaths and injuries are suffered by men.
Well, you have to scroll through a few pages of websites
No, I don't.
whose main existence is to either promote "Men's Rights" or criticize feminism
Yes, the women can have their Oprah, their Lifetime channel, their NOW, their decades of "women's rights" but if men raise their voice they're just a bunch of complainers.
reasonable source: the BBC. There you find the results of a 2001/2002 British Crime survey: "19% of domestic violence incidents were reported to be male victims with just under half of these being committed by a female abuser."
Looks like you skipped over the part of your article where they said "Figures on the extent of male victims vary considerably so it's difficult to state with any accuracy the true extent." I went with 35% because it is on the low end of the estimates. Studies of studies have pegged it more at 50/50. The problem with relying only on police reports is the fact that women are far more likely to report abuse then men, due to culture and outreach.
I'm going to take a wild stab in the dark here and suggest that you are less concerned with gay victims of domestic abuse because your larger point is that men in heterosexual relationships are somehow "discriminated" against.
Wow, that's funny. It's funny because a consequence of domestic violence being culturally and politically defined as something male abusers do to female victums, is that violence in lesbian relationships is ignored.
Thanks for playing "make up facts"; you have lost.
Let me guess, you have a big poster on your wall of Nixon and his "victory wave" after he just resigned. You can quibble on the statistics, but even you are are right on all points it still doesn't change the fact that men are indeed getting the short end of the stick in many areas. 75% of the deaths deserve more than half the funding. 19% of the victums of DV would deserve more than zero support and respect. So to get back to the GP's point, yes it is easy to be a w
So...Hitler and McCarthy are at the same level of scum?
Wow, thanks for the straw man. Obviously the scale and nastiness are far different with Hitler, but the (obvious) point (that you missed by about five miles) is that the underlying excuse is the same. McCarthy was "right" because some of the poeple caught up in his witch hunt actually were communists, and Hitler was right because when you kill 8 million poeple you're bound to off some actuall traitors and genetically inferior humans.
You could apply the same reasoning to any oppressive action, from forced relocation of Indian tribes to Japanese internment in WWII.
I did like "The Emperors New Groove".
:) I guess if we see a musical number in Cars, we'll know it's going downhill.
Funny you should say that.
They'll all be the same formulaic, coming of age swill that comes out of Disney. They'll all start with an "I wish" song and end with a pop ballad.
:)
That's a new one for my list. You can add annoying sidekicks to yours.
I love the group think of you anti-fanboys when you critisize other ./ers for group think. In other words, every time Apple does something questionable or unpopular, you guys fall all over yourselves to say "now if this were Microsoft, people would be up in arms..." Even in stories like the one were Jobs had all Wiley's books pulled from the Apple Stores and a large number of highly moderated posts were calling Jobs a consumate asshole.
Read almost any apple article.
No, you read any Apple article where they've done something questionable and unpopular. You'll have up to a dozen or more guys saying "now if this were Microsoft..." Even in articles where most of the posters are calling Jobs an asshole. The "if this were Microsoft" line is nothing more than a knee-jerk responce to impress other's with your own cleverness. There's nothing more funny than group-think critisizing supposed group-think.
The difference is, McCarthy was right. Check out the Verona Project records if you don't believe me. Many of the people he questioned or wanted to question actually were Soviet agents.
To go straight to Godwin's Law, that's like saying Hitler was right because some of the Jews that were killed actually were bad people. Utter nonsense.
There was actually a point where Hunchback was a very good and powerful movie. Then somebody decided the gargoyles needed a bigger role and a song. Sigh...
Of course they did, it was a Disney movie, so it had to be a musical with highly annoying sidekicks. I don't think it's cooincidence that only Disney movie I've liked in at least a decade has been the one to break that mold, The Emperor's New Groove.
How exactly is it that not allowing someone to re-use an old idea (say, Mickey Mouse) is somehow stifling creativity?
Why don't you spend a couple minutes thinking about the movies that Disney has made, where the ideas for those movies came from, and then get back to us on that one.
In my mind, a long copyright term almost seems to *enforce* creativity.
Not possible, because truly origional ideas are very hard to come by. For example, Lucas couldn't have lightsabres because anime companies in Japan had "beam weapons" before Star Wars was made.
is like being a white male in a discussion on discrimination
It's fairly easy, actually. For example, prostate cancer kills about as many men as breast cancer kills women, and yet breast cancer gets 3x the funding. Or how men make up at least 35% of the victums of domestic violence, and yet receive virtually no funding, no outreach, and no respect.
lease read the Civil Rights Act of 1964, it says it is against the law to discriminate against race, religion, creed, color, national origin, and gender.
SCOTUS might disagree. They did when the ruled that age-discrimination laws did not apply to younger workers.
How do you figure this:
I'm sure AMD could have given them all the chips they need. They might not have been so forthcoming with the Marketing Money however.
With this?
For Intel, getting Apple is a coup worth paying enough for that even if they never make a cent from Steve Jobs, they've still silenced the biggest critic of the i86 architecture.
I think AMD would happily be "forthcoming with the Marketing Money" if they got Apple, because they would have a show pony for their technology, as opposed to higher producing but boring, supplier-of-the-week companies like Dell or HP.
For most of its life, the P4 wasn't "underperforming", it was as fast - if not faster - than the Athlon.
Maybe if your benchmark is a P4 friendly application such as Quake 3. Otherwise, no. The P4 made a big tradeoff between clock-for-clock speed in exchange for ghz. A 1.3 ghz P3 was faster than a 1.4 ghz P4, which is why Intel waited until faster P4's were available for release the last P3.