I'm quite confident that you could take your third-party ram to any certified apple technician and have them install it for you, keeping your warantee.
Or, if this particular model has some issues with user serviceability (someone posted that the ram wasn't user accessible within warrantee), take said 3rd party ram to your nearest apple authorized service center and pay them $20 to put it in for you, and thus maintain your warrantee status?
The current mac keyboard, the white one with the transparent backing.... I think it sucks.
It's solid enough, well built, and all that
but
- no key click - shallow key travel - not enough taper, keys too close together
Now, it could be just me.. but I type rather fast, and I'm comfortable on almost any keyboard that doesn't suck. I can fly on my ibook keyboard, my little vaio z505 keyboard I was fast on too. Normal pc keyboards, etc. But the new mac keyboard seems to be totally unacceptable. So my question is:
Does apple have any other keyboards that don't suck?
There are something like twelve states that interepre their respective wiretap accts in such a way that recording a phone conversation that you are a party to equates to illegal wiretapping of an electronic communications.
This is absurd, of course, the wiretap laws were created to keep non-parties from intercepting calls.
Also, TV likes to make it seem like it's normal to require permission to record a conversation, when in most cases, it's actually not as long as one party is aware.
OS X has never been limitd to a 1 button mouse. IN fact, every mac user I've seen who uses a mouse uses a typical multi-button optical mouse, or other exotic device. Almost nobody uses the stock 1 button mouse.
The only reason it's even mentioned here is because apple doens't supply peripherals with the mini.
You plug in a two button mouse, and it behaves as you would expect, it's not a "kludge" or anything like that. THis is nothing new, macs haven't been limited to one button mice since along, long time ago.
I love macs. I love my iBook. IF I were to buy another mac righ tnow, it would be a G4 ibook to replace my aging G3 ibook. Why not a powerbook?
It's too dated. They *NEED* to revise this, and soon.
What it needs:
- Better display. It's a fine display and all, but it sucks compared to the new translfective high-contrast displays on new toshibas and sonys... let's upgrade.
- HIgher resolutions. I know, people say "Why would you want higher resolutions on a laptop screen". Why? DETAILS. Increased resolution doesn't have to mean smaller fonts, it just means more detail and smoother displays. 3 years ago I had a 1600x1200 15" display... Apple still has nothing with this DPI, and in my opinion, should have even higher.
- Update the 12" specifically... with Gig-E and FW800 (might have the latter already, I forget). WHy compromise on ethernet speed?
- macs are REALLY not good with drink spills... do SOME level of toughbook-style design. please... at least make the keyboard waterproofed.
I say all this because I"m at the point of wanting a new notebook, but I can't in good conscience buy a powerbook at the price they sell at considering how behind the displays are.
Again, my point isnt' that it's cheap, it's that, in the past, certain things have been forced because it's for the public good.
Currently, many still think of high speed internet as a luxury, yet for a growing number of people, it's quite necessary. Phone service isn't just a necessity because of little timmy and the hospital, you know, it's a necessity because not having it is a serious detrement to your ability to function in society. It's not all about little timmy. Many rural areas had contact with emergency services via radio, you know.
Rolling out phone service in the first place was expensive too. I'm not saying DSL has to be under these requirements... just that saying "it's rural so it won't be supported" is silly.. we had the same problems with phones, and legislated our way around it.
Phone gear wasn't cheap to begin with, either.
Make it a requirement, and they will FIND a way to provide broadband. IT needn't be so rediculously expensive.
Yet, somehow, phone companies were required to provide equal service to those outlying areas, to maintain balance.
They should be required to do so also when it involves broadband. Any service requiring public cooperation and right-of-way for cabling should have this requirement.
The HD is not airtight, as many people who assumed this and immersed one in cooling fluid quickly found out.. there is an air vent, though it has a great dust filter on it.
Some dust won't hurt the drive, but wood contains chemicals and oils, and having sawdust caked onto ANY pcb could potentially cause problems over time, especially with a bit of moisture added.
I didn't forget about it.. it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. Entanglement is indeed interesting.. but viewing it as an effect propagating is not necessarily accurate.. it's more of an artifact of the way we observe the universe.
They reflect each other's states... yes. However, we say that because until we check the state, we don't know, but once we know the state of one, we know the state of the other.. therefore we say that (unless I'm misundrstanding this) as soon as we observe one, we have caused the otherone to collapse from a superposition of states to a known state, thereby acting on it instantly regardless of distance. It's not that black and white, though..
I'm not sure I understand why it wouldn't be consistant.. if we are looking back in time, at some point it SHOULD be consistant, no? Everything all redshifted out, and that's about it.
Common Laser pointers, for instance, diverge spherically (past the focal point, anyway), just like the beam from a flashlight.
If the dot grows bigger the further away, but retains it's shape (ie: a circle), the inverse square applies. Whatever area gained over distance X, at 2X it will have 4x the area, and so on.
Still, there is a limit to your equipment, to your recording medium. Your analog tape can't record a 3ghz signal. That's my point.
This "pure wave" exists only in thought, in the physical world it's affected by everything it passes through.
So, if you are saying that good tape gear has better dynamic range and/or frequency response than equivalently priced digital gear, that makes perfect sense. But to argue that htis is somehow a limitation of digital or analog technology is silly. Both have a limit to their frequency response and dynamic range, for different reasons. Neither can record things beyond those limits.
If both mediums had the same limits, the resulting signal would be the same.
If you look in any direction, you can't see anything further away than the age of the universe * the speed of light.. because nothing existed for you to see. Everything you see, even the car across the road, you are seeing further back in time. The notion of "now" or "the present" exists solely for and at the observer.
Our observable universe, and hence, everything we can know, is limited by the speed of light. Outside that 14 billion light-year bubble, we can't say that anything exists.. so that is by definition our observable universe. (observe in the scientific sense, not the human one).
On human scales, we think newtonian... we don't think that looking at that mountain on the horizon is looking backwards in time, the delay is too small to matter to us.. but it's no less real. No effect propagates faster than the speed of light.
Glance at the sun. It could have exploded already, there is absolutely no way for you to know that. This isn't a limitation of our insturments or technology.. it's because it hasn't happened in your universe yet. The explosion won't affect the orbit of the earth for six minutes. It won't even exist for us for six minutes. Whether or not it exploded has no bearing on your universe for those six minutes.
Now take that out to a cosmic scale... there is most certainly more stuff out there than we can see.
You are making a common perceptual mistake. You are thinking of a 3d explosion, in which everything is moving away from some 3 dimensional point... you expect that towards the center things should be more dense, towards the edge more spread out, maybe slower, etc, and that there is an actual 3d point we could extrapolate as "where it happened".
The big bang postulates a 4d explosion that brought into existence spacetime. (space + time). Our 3d universe is the surface of an expanding 4d bubble, so everything is moving away from everything else, there IS no center in 3 dimensions.
Draw a bunch of points on a balloon, then add more air, notice every point moves away from every other, there is no center.
This is why we look in EVERY direction and eventually see the beginning of the universe.. because looking further away is, due to the speed of light being limited, looking further back in time. Eventually we look far enough back that there is nothing else to see.
You aren't looking at the edge of the universe, you are looking back in time. There is no edge as you are thinking of it.
"Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency."
Will it? Just because the distribution is random does not mean that it will repeat in any fashion whatsoever, ever. ie: that every number sequence is somewhee in pi.
It's natural to see the universe, or the earth, as somehow "made for us". We are human, we look at us, and everything else as separate form us.
When we realize that we are part of that universe, and evolved along with it, it's no longer wierd that everything fits together, it's actually the only way it could all be.
Saying it's too perfect is like a puddle of water saying "Look how this depression in the ground I'm sitting in is JUST the right size to hold me!' Someone must have created it just for me.
Everthying isn't independently random, it's all connected, so it's natural for it to all work together. The earth seems just right for us because we evolved together.
I guess what I wonder is this: Analog has frequency response limits too.. so are we assuming that analog can record far higher frequencies than digital can? Why not then just up the sample rate on digital to compensate?
I don't see how digital can't be just as good, given that neither case represents infinite accuracy.
Just a question here, really, as obviously you know what you are doing.
As 0db signifies the maximum signal you can record accurately, what is the benefit to overdriving your recording? I understand that analog tape gracefully deals with this, natrual compression as you say, but what is the reason for allowing it to overdrive in the first place? To get better dynamic range on the rest of the track at the expense of a few overdriven drumbeats that nobody will notice? Just curious.
The simple answer is don't overdrive digital... select a recording setup that has an acceptable dynamic range to begin with.
Slashdot Mirror
I'm quite confident that you could take your third-party ram to any certified apple technician and have them install it for you, keeping your warantee.
Go buy 3rd party ram, and put it in yourself?
Or, if this particular model has some issues with user serviceability (someone posted that the ram wasn't user accessible within warrantee), take said 3rd party ram to your nearest apple authorized service center and pay them $20 to put it in for you, and thus maintain your warrantee status?
You can achieve the same effect with option-click.
Yes, contextual menus are handy, and a good way to do things, however, they aren't strictly necessary.
Apple doesn't hate multiple button mice, they just try to push a design wehre the second button augments the experience, but isn't required.
When you click a link in firefox, it should do whatever it's been set up to do according to your preferences.
What software are you using? Anything I've used almost universally has consistent, direct keyboard shortcuts.
The exception would be some of the quick ports of open source stuff.
Yes, and some people still live without phones.
At some point in the past, the telephone was a luxury, and not NECESSARY either.... and in some ways, it's still not, but society decided it was.
Persistent internet access will eventually be the same way.
The current mac keyboard, the white one with the transparent backing.... I think it sucks.
It's solid enough, well built, and all that
but
- no key click
- shallow key travel
- not enough taper, keys too close together
Now, it could be just me.. but I type rather fast, and I'm comfortable on almost any keyboard that doesn't suck. I can fly on my ibook keyboard, my little vaio z505 keyboard I was fast on too. Normal pc keyboards, etc. But the new mac keyboard seems to be totally unacceptable. So my question is:
Does apple have any other keyboards that don't suck?
You don't need permission at all. I don't have to ASK you if I can record the call.
I only have to TELL you that the call is being recored. as long as both parties are aware the call is being recorded, it's legal.
There are something like twelve states that interepre their respective wiretap accts in such a way that recording a phone conversation that you are a party to equates to illegal wiretapping of an electronic communications.
This is absurd, of course, the wiretap laws were created to keep non-parties from intercepting calls.
Also, TV likes to make it seem like it's normal to require permission to record a conversation, when in most cases, it's actually not as long as one party is aware.
A bold move?
OS X has never been limitd to a 1 button mouse. IN fact, every mac user I've seen who uses a mouse uses a typical multi-button optical mouse, or other exotic device. Almost nobody uses the stock 1 button mouse.
The only reason it's even mentioned here is because apple doens't supply peripherals with the mini.
You plug in a two button mouse, and it behaves as you would expect, it's not a "kludge" or anything like that. THis is nothing new, macs haven't been limited to one button mice since along, long time ago.
is update the powerbook line.
I mean, seriously.
I love macs. I love my iBook. IF I were to buy another mac righ tnow, it would be a G4 ibook to replace my aging G3 ibook.
Why not a powerbook?
It's too dated. They *NEED* to revise this, and soon.
What it needs:
- Better display. It's a fine display and all, but it sucks compared to the new translfective high-contrast displays on new toshibas and sonys... let's upgrade.
- HIgher resolutions. I know, people say "Why would you want higher resolutions on a laptop screen". Why? DETAILS. Increased resolution doesn't have to mean smaller fonts, it just means more detail and smoother displays. 3 years ago I had a 1600x1200 15" display... Apple still has nothing with this DPI, and in my opinion, should have even higher.
- Update the 12" specifically... with Gig-E and FW800 (might have the latter already, I forget). WHy compromise on ethernet speed?
- macs are REALLY not good with drink spills... do SOME level of toughbook-style design. please... at least make the keyboard waterproofed.
I say all this because I"m at the point of wanting a new notebook, but I can't in good conscience buy a powerbook at the price they sell at considering how behind the displays are.
Again, my point isnt' that it's cheap, it's that, in the past, certain things have been forced because it's for the public good.
Currently, many still think of high speed internet as a luxury, yet for a growing number of people, it's quite necessary. Phone service isn't just a necessity because of little timmy and the hospital, you know, it's a necessity because not having it is a serious detrement to your ability to function in society. It's not all about little timmy. Many rural areas had contact with emergency services via radio, you know.
Rolling out phone service in the first place was expensive too. I'm not saying DSL has to be under these requirements... just that saying "it's rural so it won't be supported" is silly.. we had the same problems with phones, and legislated our way around it.
Phone gear wasn't cheap to begin with, either.
Make it a requirement, and they will FIND a way to provide broadband. IT needn't be so rediculously expensive.
I think he understands it perfectly well.
Do you think canada doesn't have an equal percentage of "rural" people? Believe it or not, we do have our own farmland, lots of it.
Gee, really?
Yet, somehow, phone companies were required to provide equal service to those outlying areas, to maintain balance.
They should be required to do so also when it involves broadband. Any service requiring public cooperation and right-of-way for cabling should have this requirement.
So why is Canada ahead of the US in this regard, then?
The HD is not airtight, as many people who assumed this and immersed one in cooling fluid quickly found out.. there is an air vent, though it has a great dust filter on it.
Some dust won't hurt the drive, but wood contains chemicals and oils, and having sawdust caked onto ANY pcb could potentially cause problems over time, especially with a bit of moisture added.
I didn't forget about it.. it's just not relevant to the discussion at hand. Entanglement is indeed interesting.. but viewing it as an effect propagating is not necessarily accurate.. it's more of an artifact of the way we observe the universe.
They reflect each other's states... yes. However, we say that because until we check the state, we don't know, but once we know the state of one, we know the state of the other.. therefore we say that (unless I'm misundrstanding this) as soon as we observe one, we have caused the otherone to collapse from a superposition of states to a known state, thereby acting on it instantly regardless of distance. It's not that black and white, though..
I'm not sure I understand why it wouldn't be consistant.. if we are looking back in time, at some point it SHOULD be consistant, no? Everything all redshifted out, and that's about it.
Common Laser pointers, for instance, diverge spherically (past the focal point, anyway), just like the beam from a flashlight.
If the dot grows bigger the further away, but retains it's shape (ie: a circle), the inverse square applies. Whatever area gained over distance X, at 2X it will have 4x the area, and so on.
Still, there is a limit to your equipment, to your recording medium.
Your analog tape can't record a 3ghz signal. That's my point.
This "pure wave" exists only in thought, in the physical world it's affected by everything it passes through.
So, if you are saying that good tape gear has better dynamic range and/or frequency response than equivalently priced digital gear, that makes perfect sense. But to argue that htis is somehow a limitation of digital or analog technology is silly. Both have a limit to their frequency response and dynamic range, for different reasons. Neither can record things beyond those limits.
If both mediums had the same limits, the resulting signal would be the same.
Other thoughts:
The speed of light limits what we can see, right?
If you look in any direction, you can't see anything further away than the age of the universe * the speed of light.. because nothing existed for you to see. Everything you see, even the car across the road, you are seeing further back in time. The notion of "now" or "the present" exists solely for and at the observer.
Our observable universe, and hence, everything we can know, is limited by the speed of light. Outside that 14 billion light-year bubble, we can't say that anything exists.. so that is by definition our observable universe. (observe in the scientific sense, not the human one).
On human scales, we think newtonian... we don't think that looking at that mountain on the horizon is looking backwards in time, the delay is too small to matter to us.. but it's no less real. No effect propagates faster than the speed of light.
Glance at the sun. It could have exploded already, there is absolutely no way for you to know that. This isn't a limitation of our insturments or technology.. it's because it hasn't happened in your universe yet. The explosion won't affect the orbit of the earth for six minutes. It won't even exist for us for six minutes. Whether or not it exploded has no bearing on your universe for those six minutes.
Now take that out to a cosmic scale... there is most certainly more stuff out there than we can see.
You are making a common perceptual mistake. You are thinking of a 3d explosion, in which everything is moving away from some 3 dimensional point... you expect that towards the center things should be more dense, towards the edge more spread out, maybe slower, etc, and that there is an actual 3d point we could extrapolate as "where it happened".
The big bang postulates a 4d explosion that brought into existence spacetime. (space + time). Our 3d universe is the surface of an expanding 4d bubble, so everything is moving away from everything else, there IS no center in 3 dimensions.
Draw a bunch of points on a balloon, then add more air, notice every point moves away from every other, there is no center.
This is why we look in EVERY direction and eventually see the beginning of the universe.. because looking further away is, due to the speed of light being limited, looking further back in time. Eventually we look far enough back that there is nothing else to see.
You aren't looking at the edge of the universe, you are looking back in time. There is no edge as you are thinking of it.
"Even calculating PI will eventually produce a series of repetitive numbers that occur at ever decreasing frequency."
Will it? Just because the distribution is random does not mean that it will repeat in any fashion whatsoever, ever. ie: that every number sequence is somewhee in pi.
It's natural to see the universe, or the earth, as somehow "made for us". We are human, we look at us, and everything else as separate form us.
When we realize that we are part of that universe, and evolved along with it, it's no longer wierd that everything fits together, it's actually the only way it could all be.
Saying it's too perfect is like a puddle of water saying "Look how this depression in the ground I'm sitting in is JUST the right size to hold me!' Someone must have created it just for me.
Everthying isn't independently random, it's all connected, so it's natural for it to all work together. The earth seems just right for us because we evolved together.
I guess what I wonder is this: Analog has frequency response limits too.. so are we assuming that analog can record far higher frequencies than digital can? Why not then just up the sample rate on digital to compensate?
I don't see how digital can't be just as good, given that neither case represents infinite accuracy.
Just a question here, really, as obviously you know what you are doing.
As 0db signifies the maximum signal you can record accurately, what is the benefit to overdriving your recording? I understand that analog tape gracefully deals with this, natrual compression as you say, but what is the reason for allowing it to overdrive in the first place? To get better dynamic range on the rest of the track at the expense of a few overdriven drumbeats that nobody will notice? Just curious.
The simple answer is don't overdrive digital... select a recording setup that has an acceptable dynamic range to begin with.