Enthusiasts have been using liquid cooling for years? Apple has also been using Liquid cooling for years! The two dual PowerPC G5's threw so much heat that they had no choice really. And it's not the first actively cooled system Apple has made. Fourteen years ago the PowerMac 8100/110 had a 110 MHz PowerPC 601 with a Peltier-Junction (thermoelectric) cooler.
I mean come on! Do you really think it has anything to do with Apple itself not letting you hear the song? Oh yes, Apple engages in musical censorship. It's the record companies, people. If a band doesn't have a record distribution deal in the US, then guess what! you can't buy their music on iTunes either.
Segways were not introduced at 5 thousand.. more like half that price... it is just that they have been modded up to that price range.
Dude, if you are going to post facts, get the facts straight. The original price of the segway was $8000, and this was an industrial/commercial model. The average-joe model was introduced much later at $5000, later down to $4000. Even today the price hasn't dropped; it takes a cool $4k (and up) to buy a new Segway.
I think these companies are seriously fooling themselves.
These insurance companies know quite well that they are not fooling themselves. They are fooling the customers/claimants. They are fooling the courts when the claimants try to pursue the money they are owed. They are making fools of a lot of people, but not themselves. But if they are, then they are rich fools.
I can't remeber ever seeing such obviously editorial content posted on the/. front page:
The lessons are that $4000 is not worth risking your life over, that that is what you are doing if you are foolish enough to volunteer for medical testing whatever promises you receive not withstanding, and that if you are so foolish you will be left to die by the company responsible without legal recourse should things go wrong. In other words, only an ignorant would sign up for medical testing. I predict a decline in voluntary test subjects, and a rise in the use of prisoners and other "disposable" human subjects. Submission laced with such strong opinion should not be posted, IMHO. That type of espression of opinion is better left to this forum, not the front page. The front page should link to external articles (even if they too are editorials), not be an outlet for contributors to express their opinions before the readers even have a change to read the articles for themselves. Am I wrong?
It's amazing that so many people take this so personally, as if their rights have been taken away... their right to see editted or censored movies. That's not the case. There has been no such revocation of rights. This is about whether someone has the right to take someone else's copyrighted creative work, hack it up, and sell it for a profit. The people who created that film put months or even years of effort into it, and they proudly put their names onto it. Their reputations as creative artists are at stake with every film they release. They have the right to insist that their creations are seen in the way that they meant them to be seen. If some people don't want to see what is there, they have that choice.
And I have something to say to those who point out that, the studios still make a sale so why care. News flash: the studios know that perfectly well. This isn't about making the sale. It's about their artistic integrity. The studios and artists involved know very well that squashing these services will mean fewer sales.
...they loosely interpret a statute intended to protect the privacy of electronic communications to include home security...
The beautiful thing is, that the police are not the ones who get to interpret the statutes, judges are. The Mr. Gannon will have his day in court, and if he was in the right and the police in the wrong, he will be vindicated. Yeah, it sucks that the police are using these intimidating strong-arm tactics against them in this way. When the charges are thrown out (I suspect they could be, rather than Mr. Gannon actually being tried), then the Gannons should investigate the possiblity of filing criminal charges against police (if police didn't have a warrant yet and were asked to leave, well, they were probably trespassing, but IANAL).
It is remarkable that a/. user, who should have some measure of tech-savvy, mistakes megabits per second with megabytes per second. This is pretty basic stuff, kiddies. Firewire (the IEEE1394A type) tops out at 400 Mb/s, which is 50 MB/s. Eight bits in a byte, remember? SATA is 150 MB/s or 1.2 Gb/s. SATA-2 doubles that. Ultra320 SCSI is 320 MB/s or 2.56 Gb/s. The newer IEEE1394B is 800 Mb/s, but you will only typically find that on a Mac.
That isn't the only odd overly physical remedy recommended by Apple. I had a "Applevision" 17" display ($1049 in 1995!) which would sometimes begin to whine. Apparently this was caused by a poor connection between the CRT Yoke and the cable connecting it to the circuit boards. The remedy recommended by Apple was to firmly smack the monitor with the heel of your hand in the middle of the plastic besel at the top of the monitor. The force of this was apparently supposed to jolt the connector enough to improve the contact. Since this was a Trinitron (with it's vertical mask wires) when you smacked it, it faintly "sang" a note caused by these thousands of tensioned wires vibrating.
What a novel idea, to build a more secure O/S by implementing it upon a small, solid, secure microkernel. Not all that novel though, because Mac OS X is built upon a microkernel based architechture (Mach). No, Mac OS's security is not merely an illusion; this is just another of the many good reasons that it really is a more secure O/S.
This is great news for the many insects who have lost one or both eyes due to an tragic accident or illness. It is one step closer to the ultimate goal of producing artificial fish eyes for blind fish.
You obviously didn't read the information at Apple's site. They clearly state that you will be able to read and write FAT volumes, but only read NTFS volumes. There is no information about using Mac HFS+ volumes under windows, but that is not surprising since that is entirely a windows-realm issue.
It really isn't even so much the sound that the devices make that is distracting. No matter what the person next to you or in front of you is doing, if it isn't watching the presentation or participating in the discussion but rather fidgitting with some gadget, it is somehow always more interesting (i.e. distracting) than that presentation/discussion. It's human nature to be aware of one's surroundings. And when you are surrounded by crackberry addicts, that can be very distracting!
If you really must respond that an e-mail, or take a call, then you will know ahead of time of the possibility of a very important and urgent e-mail or call. In that case, you should prepare for that possibility by sitting at the back of the room, near the door. This makes for a quick and easy escape should your need to take the call (which of course, you would never do in the room, right?), and even if you need to peck out a quick e-mail reply, you can do it literally behind everyone else's backs, so that you are less distracting.
The problem is that most of the people who carry these things (and have a habit of using them in these situations) feel important, and like to sit in a prominent part of the room, near the front or near the speaker, etc. And that just compounds the distraction!
I have two machines on my desk. Both are a little old now, but they are serving me well still. #1 is a XP3200 (32-bit), and #2 is a Mac dual G4 (at a lowly 866 MHz). Surprisingly, these machines are fairly well matched, with SMP-optimised apps running about as fast on the Mac as on the PC. Single-threaded stuff is much slower on the Mac, no surprise. As for games, well I think we all know the real reason I have an x86 machine at all right?
But for general everday use, I prefer the Mac, not only for the GUI, but for the amazing responsiveness of it. Nothing fazes it. Everything seems to fly at full speed no matter what else you are doing at the time. This has everything to do with the dual CPUs. Watching Strongbad e-mail might not require a multi-GHz CPU to run, but that multi-GHz system can still allow the animation to become choppy when you do something which hogs the CPU for any amount of time. That will virtually never happen on a dual-CPU/dual-core system. Any single thread of execution, no matter how high its priority, can never used more than 50% of your CPU resources. To me, that is the strongest argument for dual CPUs, not against them, as others will argue.
The next PC or Mac that I buy will definitely be dual CPU or dual core. No question.
I completely agree. Photoshop used to be a great benchmark, because computers used to be sllllooowwwwww. Remember when Photoshop power users could drop a few thousand on a fancy DSP card for their Mac? In fact a couple of Macs (the Centris 660Av and the Quadra 810AV ca. 1992 or so) came equipped with a 25/33 MHz DSP on-board to handle certain realtime stuff, like softmodem. Adobe didn't waste any time supporting this DSP to accelerate Photoshop, with a pretty sizable improvement. The point is, people used to waste so much time waiting for Photoshop, that anything, absolutely anything, that could improve its performance was a godsend.
These days, modern CPUs are real powerhouses. I have an older Mac (Dual 866 MHz G4, 1 GB RAM), and I have never cursed at it while waiting for it to complete a PS operation. I have never had to wait. Today, any CPU is pretty much fast enough for PS work... It's the RAM you have to worry about. The instant PS starts hitting the disk during an operation, you might as well have a P100 in there.
If my PDA or phone is silent while I work with it, then why is it a distraction?
The clickity-clickity of a person (or multiple persons) thumbing a reply to every super-urgent e-mail they receive on their crackberries during meetings or presentations is not silent. Nor is someone pecking at a laptop keyboard. Nor is a cellphone vibrate alert. Yes, even that is distracting, not only to the presenter or speaker, but more importantly, to the other people who are there to participate in the meeting, discussion, or presentation.
Independant would mean a company who publishes and sells games outside of big distribution companies/labels. Just like independant music, or independant film. They are not amateurs (they are trying to sell you something), but they are independant.
Right in there it says that local access was given..I dont understand how they missed it.
They didn't miss it. ZDNet updated the article later, due to the backlash that this omission created. This is clearly stated on the challenge website referred to in the article. I don't understand how you missed it.
Slashdot Mirror
Enthusiasts have been using liquid cooling for years? Apple has also been using Liquid cooling for years! The two dual PowerPC G5's threw so much heat that they had no choice really. And it's not the first actively cooled system Apple has made. Fourteen years ago the PowerMac 8100/110 had a 110 MHz PowerPC 601 with a Peltier-Junction (thermoelectric) cooler.
I mean come on! Do you really think it has anything to do with Apple itself not letting you hear the song? Oh yes, Apple engages in musical censorship. It's the record companies, people. If a band doesn't have a record distribution deal in the US, then guess what! you can't buy their music on iTunes either.
Dude, if you are going to post facts, get the facts straight. The original price of the segway was $8000, and this was an industrial/commercial model. The average-joe model was introduced much later at $5000, later down to $4000. Even today the price hasn't dropped; it takes a cool $4k (and up) to buy a new Segway.
These insurance companies know quite well that they are not fooling themselves. They are fooling the customers/claimants. They are fooling the courts when the claimants try to pursue the money they are owed. They are making fools of a lot of people, but not themselves. But if they are, then they are rich fools.
I fail to see how adding one additional octave of frequency response to the 6 or 7 currently available, can be called "doubling" the quality.
It's amazing that so many people take this so personally, as if their rights have been taken away... their right to see editted or censored movies. That's not the case. There has been no such revocation of rights. This is about whether someone has the right to take someone else's copyrighted creative work, hack it up, and sell it for a profit. The people who created that film put months or even years of effort into it, and they proudly put their names onto it. Their reputations as creative artists are at stake with every film they release. They have the right to insist that their creations are seen in the way that they meant them to be seen. If some people don't want to see what is there, they have that choice.
And I have something to say to those who point out that, the studios still make a sale so why care. News flash: the studios know that perfectly well. This isn't about making the sale. It's about their artistic integrity. The studios and artists involved know very well that squashing these services will mean fewer sales.
The beautiful thing is, that the police are not the ones who get to interpret the statutes, judges are. The Mr. Gannon will have his day in court, and if he was in the right and the police in the wrong, he will be vindicated. Yeah, it sucks that the police are using these intimidating strong-arm tactics against them in this way. When the charges are thrown out (I suspect they could be, rather than Mr. Gannon actually being tried), then the Gannons should investigate the possiblity of filing criminal charges against police (if police didn't have a warrant yet and were asked to leave, well, they were probably trespassing, but IANAL).
It is remarkable that a /. user, who should have some measure of tech-savvy, mistakes megabits per second with megabytes per second. This is pretty basic stuff, kiddies. Firewire (the IEEE1394A type) tops out at 400 Mb/s, which is 50 MB/s. Eight bits in a byte, remember? SATA is 150 MB/s or 1.2 Gb/s. SATA-2 doubles that. Ultra320 SCSI is 320 MB/s or 2.56 Gb/s. The newer IEEE1394B is 800 Mb/s, but you will only typically find that on a Mac.
"If a market doesn't appear on Apple's main page tab, you can be sure it's a secondary market."
Oh, obviously.
http://www.apple.com/games/
That isn't the only odd overly physical remedy recommended by Apple. I had a "Applevision" 17" display ($1049 in 1995!) which would sometimes begin to whine. Apparently this was caused by a poor connection between the CRT Yoke and the cable connecting it to the circuit boards. The remedy recommended by Apple was to firmly smack the monitor with the heel of your hand in the middle of the plastic besel at the top of the monitor. The force of this was apparently supposed to jolt the connector enough to improve the contact. Since this was a Trinitron (with it's vertical mask wires) when you smacked it, it faintly "sang" a note caused by these thousands of tensioned wires vibrating.
What a novel idea, to build a more secure O/S by implementing it upon a small, solid, secure microkernel. Not all that novel though, because Mac OS X is built upon a microkernel based architechture (Mach). No, Mac OS's security is not merely an illusion; this is just another of the many good reasons that it really is a more secure O/S.
This is great news for the many insects who have lost one or both eyes due to an tragic accident or illness. It is one step closer to the ultimate goal of producing artificial fish eyes for blind fish.
Someone must have forgotten that today isn't April 1st, because this must be a joke.
Fer Kripes sakes, man, it includes a complete set of drivers for virtually all the hardware. What do you expect, 200 kB?
You obviously didn't read the information at Apple's site. They clearly state that you will be able to read and write FAT volumes, but only read NTFS volumes. There is no information about using Mac HFS+ volumes under windows, but that is not surprising since that is entirely a windows-realm issue.
It really isn't even so much the sound that the devices make that is distracting. No matter what the person next to you or in front of you is doing, if it isn't watching the presentation or participating in the discussion but rather fidgitting with some gadget, it is somehow always more interesting (i.e. distracting) than that presentation/discussion. It's human nature to be aware of one's surroundings. And when you are surrounded by crackberry addicts, that can be very distracting!
If you really must respond that an e-mail, or take a call, then you will know ahead of time of the possibility of a very important and urgent e-mail or call. In that case, you should prepare for that possibility by sitting at the back of the room, near the door. This makes for a quick and easy escape should your need to take the call (which of course, you would never do in the room, right?), and even if you need to peck out a quick e-mail reply, you can do it literally behind everyone else's backs, so that you are less distracting.
The problem is that most of the people who carry these things (and have a habit of using them in these situations) feel important, and like to sit in a prominent part of the room, near the front or near the speaker, etc. And that just compounds the distraction!
I have two machines on my desk. Both are a little old now, but they are serving me well still.
#1 is a XP3200 (32-bit), and #2 is a Mac dual G4 (at a lowly 866 MHz). Surprisingly, these machines are fairly well matched, with SMP-optimised apps running about as fast on the Mac as on the PC. Single-threaded stuff is much slower on the Mac, no surprise. As for games, well I think we all know the real reason I have an x86 machine at all right?
But for general everday use, I prefer the Mac, not only for the GUI, but for the amazing responsiveness of it. Nothing fazes it. Everything seems to fly at full speed no matter what else you are doing at the time. This has everything to do with the dual CPUs. Watching Strongbad e-mail might not require a multi-GHz CPU to run, but that multi-GHz system can still allow the animation to become choppy when you do something which hogs the CPU for any amount of time. That will virtually never happen on a dual-CPU/dual-core system. Any single thread of execution, no matter how high its priority, can never used more than 50% of your CPU resources. To me, that is the strongest argument for dual CPUs, not against them, as others will argue.
The next PC or Mac that I buy will definitely be dual CPU or dual core. No question.
I completely agree.
Photoshop used to be a great benchmark, because computers used to be sllllooowwwwww. Remember when Photoshop power users could drop a few thousand on a fancy DSP card for their Mac? In fact a couple of Macs (the Centris 660Av and the Quadra 810AV ca. 1992 or so) came equipped with a 25/33 MHz DSP on-board to handle certain realtime stuff, like softmodem. Adobe didn't waste any time supporting this DSP to accelerate Photoshop, with a pretty sizable improvement. The point is, people used to waste so much time waiting for Photoshop, that anything, absolutely anything, that could improve its performance was a godsend.
These days, modern CPUs are real powerhouses. I have an older Mac (Dual 866 MHz G4, 1 GB RAM), and I have never cursed at it while waiting for it to complete a PS operation. I have never had to wait. Today, any CPU is pretty much fast enough for PS work... It's the RAM you have to worry about. The instant PS starts hitting the disk during an operation, you might as well have a P100 in there.
The clickity-clickity of a person (or multiple persons) thumbing a reply to every super-urgent e-mail they receive on their crackberries during meetings or presentations is not silent. Nor is someone pecking at a laptop keyboard. Nor is a cellphone vibrate alert. Yes, even that is distracting, not only to the presenter or speaker, but more importantly, to the other people who are there to participate in the meeting, discussion, or presentation.
The old ICQ website still tops my ugly list. It had multiple columns and went on forever. Info overload.
Independant does not imply Amateur.
Independant would mean a company who publishes and sells games outside of big distribution companies/labels. Just like independant music, or independant film. They are not amateurs (they are trying to sell you something), but they are independant.
Well, this story has been on the /. frontpage for about an hour now, and the website on the Mini still loads in a snap.
This is not even close to a dupe. It is a follow up. Come one, man, RTFA.
They didn't miss it. ZDNet updated the article later, due to the backlash that this omission created. This is clearly stated on the challenge website referred to in the article. I don't understand how you missed it.