She lied to me. I knew a little about the other party (from her), but didn't know any real details. A few days ago she said something which struck me as very odd. I asked her a directed question on it and she lied to my face about him and the situation.
It was only after that I did anything, and that merely to confirm the situation.
She's taking a trip in a couple weeks and was attempting to get him to visit her while she is on the trip.
It was necessary to correlate the truth that I knew with the specific individual as without that she could have continued to deny it.
It would not be unique for either of us to meet people whom we have talked to online. I've met (in RL) a lot of people that way, some of whom I would consider good friends.
My girlfriend played Wow and got a little too cozy with another player. With a little bit of Real World knowledge about him I was able to find out quite a bit about him and his immediate family.
Even dug up a picture that might be of him, she wasn't pleased when I said that as she had never been sent a picture. Seems they weren't that cozy after all.
I'll leave it up to the reader to determine what one can do with such information.
In this case i dumped her, and sent him a message in Wow telling him he should feel free to meet up with her. I've got no interest in her now anyway.
It was rather revealing to toss out information which she knew, but had no idea how I could have found out about. She probably thinks I trolled through all her email, but she seemed really curious as I suspect most of the information passed between them was via Ventrilo (voice chat).
There are settings to effect the use of the keyboard and tabbing between controls.
Don't judge it too harshly based solely on your ignorance. (not intended as insult). I bought a Mac a couple years ago, specificly a G5 1.6Ghz. It is a good system and I use it daily for anything not related to my job. The difference in speed between the G5 and my Pentium 4 really isn't that drastic for most things. What is noticable is the difference in GUI response. The Mac does not respond in the same manner as Windows to mouse-clicks and events, this can take some getting used to. Particularly the mouse acceleration. It isn't that it is slow, its that it is different.
I now have an iMac core duo (17") as well. The machine is fast, but the operating system seems to have a few quirks in it, and can sometimes be unresponsive in an odd-way. I think it is fairly obvious there are some bugs to work out in the Intel version of Tiger, but it is very stable.
In my opinion xBench is fundamentally flawed. The performance numbers it shows are attrocious, and while changing the beam-sync option corrects many numbrs, it still has a few issues.
I think the author is going to have to redevelop some aspects of it before it can be used to compare performance between x86 and PPC.
I ran xbench on a DTK system, asa well as my iMac. The 1.6Ghz G5 I have performed better in xbench, but felt noticably slower.
The simple fact is that benchmarking on OS X for x86 is a mixed bag. The benchmarks aren't well matched with it; comparing applications is troublesome because some have optimized routines for encoding or decoding which use Altivec, while the x86 version may not have -any- optimizations. (likely if it was hand-tuned code as it will have to be re-developed for x86).
Yes you can benchmark the software TODAY and say one is xTimes better, but you cannot predict what the numbers will be like 6 months from now on some of the software, it may change that drastically.
I downloaded the latest beta of X-Plane yesterday. It is now a Universal Binary and performs wonderfully on my iMac. The programmer, Austin Meyers, down-right gushed over the performance of it, and he develops it on a G5 2.7Ghz Dual-PPC. (atleast, thats the last system I knew he was using. it has likely changed again.)
Re:yep, great benchmarks, but lacking in features.
on
MacBook Pro Benchmarks
·
· Score: 1
Firewire400 is still faster than USB 2 when benchmarked for file access.
I have a couple of drives hooked up to my G5 with Firewire(400). Th drives have USB2 interfaces as well.
I don't see the big deal about Firewire800. Unless you're running Firewire in a RAID configuration I doubt the difference is enough to warrant it for most users.
As for Firewire800 on a laptop... huh? that's what, 2% of users? And this MacBook Pro isn't even the top of the line product model... ok, it is for the moment, but we all know Apple will be releasing a higher end model as this was targeted at their mid-range power-user.
Sure it's self serving, if you consider that Apple wants applicatiopns to be available for their platform.
I'm using an iMac Core Duo that they 'gave' me. I don't remember a big dicsussion on Slahdot about the fact everyone who licensed the Intel developer kit machines was given the opportunity to swap it for an imac Core Duo.
Swap being an interesting word since, a) they are supposed to get the devkits back anyway as per the agreement, just not yet. and b) so far they haven't actually provided any instructions on where the devkits are supposed to be sent. (and they acknowledge as much in the agreements).
I licensed a devkit with the intent to get a particular application off the ground, but I didn't find the time, I also hoped Apple would take some stepss to payback to the people who licensed the machines. Perhaps steep discount on future purchase, etc. While I wasn't precisly right as to what they would do, a free iMac wasn't quite what I was expecting.:)
Apple distributing the iMac Core Duos to developers is a good move because it will increase the likelyhood that software will effectively support the dual-core machine, since it seems that all the machines are likely to be dual-core or dual processor in the future.
If you keep the developers happy you will have applications for your platform, in which case, your users should be happy.
People run classic for the same reason they still have Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 machines sitting on a network somewhere.
They work, and in some cases the cost of the software to get the current version is astronomical.
Sooner or later those machines will be retired and the money to upgrade spent.
I bought a G5 a couple of years ago, I ran Classic less than a dozen times. I don't see it as a problem that I cannot run Classic applications on my iMac Core Duo.
If the problem was related to a bug in the iPod software whereby the volume would jump, or max itself out then I think he'd have a case.
Me, I don't really want Apple to add a volume restriction like they have on the European ones. It doesn't analyze the signal volume, it simply restricts the maximum volume the user can select. Thereby limiting the amount you can hear on an otherwise quite recording (of Classical music for example).
This is the kind of guy who would sue because he stuck his tongue on a metal pole when it's significantly below freezing.
And they have the ability to file for a warrant AFTERWARDS.
Look, I think the whole truth is rather simple. They are collecting all the phonenumbers and subsequent phonenumbers from those. They are datamining the whole collection and it isn't a few hundred, or a few thousand calls a day. It's hundreds of thousands of calls a day.
And there is no possible way for them to file the paperwork to cover it.
And in those calls that are legitimate there are a few thousand that relate to the democrats (for example).
But hey, if you don't want anyone outside of the current administration double checking that there is at least SOME legitimacy to the task, who am I to argue. I'm not american. They can monitor all my calls legally.
(It wouldn't do them any good ( politics ain't my thing, and the only 'building' I hate is ATI headquaters as they owe me a few hours of my life back for a botched video card driver, but it's a Canadian company so I doubt the U.S. government cares.), and I'm pretty sure they would be bored with my conversations.).
Oversite, even after the fact, is significantly better than none.
Apple cheats. They use the generated binary as input to an x86 compiler. As I understand they actually licensed Rosetta, it wasn't done in house. Regardless of that I do think it is impressive, not only does it work well enough but it is seamless for the user.
While I think the publishers of a scientific journal bare some responsibility when it turns out an article was entirely bogus I don't understand why people want to blame the publishers of an Autobiography.
Had the publishers known the book was faked, contrived or otherwise bogus they should have refused publishing it as an autobiography. I see no reason for them to go out of their way to prove, or disprove it though.
The more I read about him, the more I think perhaps the negative comments are sour grapes.
I used to think that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates where similar people. I've come to the conclusion that Steve Jobs is who Bill Gates wishes he was. Bill Gates has repeatedly said he wanted a computer in every home, etc.
But he failed to have a computer designed that DESERVED to be in every home. (and, in many ways, an OS that deserves to be on any computer...) He build an empire that could almost force it to be true, but that is hardly the same thing.
A lot of people seem to be unimpressed with the current crop of new Intel based Macs. I think Apples implementation of it is almost perfect.
Apple could have chosen to be bold, all the new machines based on the Intel processors could have been completely new designs ascetically. Instead they chose the keep the outwards appearance the same and replace everything inside, and make it function exactly the same as before. (Ok, with a decent improvement in speed.)
Had Apple chosen to be bold, and had the OS failed to deliver the promise of running almost all applications then the whole thing would have been looked upon as a fiasco. Instead they focused on getting the internals right.
I remember having conversations with people years ago about the idea of emulating a PowerPC based Mac on an Intel x86 platform; nobody thought it would been feasible. Even if you got it to work, it would never be fast enough to be useful. But Apple has done it, Rosetta is a stunning achievement and it's integration with the OS is almost seamless. (yes I tried the PowerPC emulator (PearPC) and was amazed that it worked as well as it did. But that doesn't make it viable for joe-user.
The company I work for would have no technical difficulty hosting my personal website. In many ways they would probably encourage me to do it, as I can use it to gain experience outside of what I do on a day to day basis for the company.
But even if they suggested it I wouldn't do it lightly.
I would rather pay for hosting service and know that if I lost my job tomorrow I would still have the website and domain.
I know that anything I do on the website is mine. I don't use their tools, or their time to maintain it. If, for some reason, they decided they owned something on my website I could, in good faith fight for my rights to keep it as mine. They would have to fight to take it from me, I wouldn't have to fight to get it back.
Most sites are so bad they won't collect much data from pocketpc users anyway. Nobody will visit twice.
First, browsers on PocketPC are horrific. My pocketpc has more ram available to it that most computers I used in the mid nineties, yet the browsers on them are horrible. (and I don't Just mean IE, although it's one of the worst).
I think the questions you should be asking are: Is the website such that users may want access to the information on something like a pocketpc. Is it a subset of the information, just employees/staff (think intranet).
Any movie listing site, for example, should support the widest range of access. I want to know what movies are playing when I am out and about. I could be in a restaurant and want to look up the listings. I don't really need an option to view a trailer though.
Since the new iMac has a maximum capacity of 2G ram anyway, where's the problem? Really want 64bit? Buy a G5.
The push to 32bit (particularly on x86) was not simply about the word size, it was also the point where MMU's were expected to make a significant improvement. It was where Intel fixed their architecture to the point of actually being usefull. (16bit protected mode is actually kind of ugly.).
I have a 1.6Ghz G5, and sometimes next week I will be receiving a 17" iMac. The processor speed of the new iMac will trample the G5 I have, I'll probably relegate it to a fileserver and run OS X Server on it. (Developer licensing makes this easy and legal)
The push to 64bits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Yes I bought a 64bit machine, but I can deal with using a 32bit machine for a few more years. The push to 64bit seems very artificial right now, I just don't see the rush.
Slashdot Mirror
to re-iterate. I dumped her.
She lied to me. I knew a little about the other party (from her), but didn't know any real details. A few days ago she said something which struck me as very odd. I asked her a directed question on it and she lied to my face about him and the situation.
It was only after that I did anything, and that merely to confirm the situation.
She's taking a trip in a couple weeks and was attempting to get him to visit her while she is on the trip.
It was necessary to correlate the truth that I knew with the specific individual as without that she could have continued to deny it.
It would not be unique for either of us to meet people whom we have talked to online. I've met (in RL) a lot of people that way, some of whom I would consider good friends.
My girlfriend played Wow and got a little too cozy with another player. With a little bit of Real World knowledge about him I was able to find out quite a bit about him and his immediate family.
Even dug up a picture that might be of him, she wasn't pleased when I said that as she had never been sent a picture. Seems they weren't that cozy after all.
I'll leave it up to the reader to determine what one can do with such information.
In this case i dumped her, and sent him a message in Wow telling him he should feel free to meet up with her. I've got no interest in her now anyway.
It was rather revealing to toss out information which she knew, but had no idea how I could have found out about. She probably thinks I trolled through all her email, but she seemed really curious as I suspect most of the information passed between them was via Ventrilo (voice chat).
Even if they understand it, does any game actually process the audio this accurately? Assuming it is even possible?
because most provices don't allocate large groups of numbers like sasktel does...
a whole town gets NXX- ?? Why? there aren't too many towns in sask with more than 9999 people!
There are settings to effect the use of the keyboard and tabbing between controls.
Don't judge it too harshly based solely on your ignorance. (not intended as insult). I bought a Mac a couple years ago, specificly a G5 1.6Ghz. It is a good system and I use it daily for anything not related to my job. The difference in speed between the G5 and my Pentium 4 really isn't that drastic for most things. What is noticable is the difference in GUI response. The Mac does not respond in the same manner as Windows to mouse-clicks and events, this can take some getting used to. Particularly the mouse acceleration. It isn't that it is slow, its that it is different.
I now have an iMac core duo (17") as well. The machine is fast, but the operating system seems to have a few quirks in it, and can sometimes be unresponsive in an odd-way. I think it is fairly obvious there are some bugs to work out in the Intel version of Tiger, but it is very stable.
If he has a ham license it is almost impossible to stop him.
As long as the installation is not a saftyhazard and meets a few, basic requirements it will be approved. Even if the local community doesn't want it.
My question isn't why didn't he talk with the church, it's quite possibly they would have allowed a passive repeater on the roof. A lot less work.
The problem is, for them to win they would have had to continue this farce for 2+ years.
Hardly a good business decision to keep this going until the competition catches up.
In my opinion xBench is fundamentally flawed. The performance numbers it shows are attrocious, and while changing the beam-sync option corrects many numbrs, it still has a few issues.
I think the author is going to have to redevelop some aspects of it before it can be used to compare performance between x86 and PPC.
I ran xbench on a DTK system, asa well as my iMac. The 1.6Ghz G5 I have performed better in xbench, but felt noticably slower.
The simple fact is that benchmarking on OS X for x86 is a mixed bag. The benchmarks aren't well matched with it; comparing applications is troublesome because some have optimized routines for encoding or decoding which use Altivec, while the x86 version may not have -any- optimizations. (likely if it was hand-tuned code as it will have to be re-developed for x86).
Yes you can benchmark the software TODAY and say one is xTimes better, but you cannot predict what the numbers will be like 6 months from now on some of the software, it may change that drastically.
I downloaded the latest beta of X-Plane yesterday. It is now a Universal Binary and performs wonderfully on my iMac. The programmer, Austin Meyers, down-right gushed over the performance of it, and he develops it on a G5 2.7Ghz Dual-PPC. (atleast, thats the last system I knew he was using. it has likely changed again.)
Firewire400 is still faster than USB 2 when benchmarked for file access.
I have a couple of drives hooked up to my G5 with Firewire(400). Th drives have USB2 interfaces as well.
I don't see the big deal about Firewire800. Unless you're running Firewire in a RAID configuration I doubt the difference is enough to warrant it for most users.
As for Firewire800 on a laptop... huh? that's what, 2% of users? And this MacBook Pro isn't even the top of the line product model... ok, it is for the moment, but we all know Apple will be releasing a higher end model as this was targeted at their mid-range power-user.
Sure it's self serving, if you consider that Apple wants applicatiopns to be available for their platform.
:)
I'm using an iMac Core Duo that they 'gave' me. I don't remember a big dicsussion on Slahdot about the fact everyone who licensed the Intel developer kit machines was given the opportunity to swap it for an imac Core Duo.
Swap being an interesting word since, a) they are supposed to get the devkits back anyway as per the agreement, just not yet. and b) so far they haven't actually provided any instructions on where the devkits are supposed to be sent. (and they acknowledge as much in the agreements).
I licensed a devkit with the intent to get a particular application off the ground, but I didn't find the time, I also hoped Apple would take some stepss to payback to the people who licensed the machines. Perhaps steep discount on future purchase, etc. While I wasn't precisly right as to what they would do, a free iMac wasn't quite what I was expecting.
Apple distributing the iMac Core Duos to developers is a good move because it will increase the likelyhood that software will effectively support the dual-core machine, since it seems that all the machines are likely to be dual-core or dual processor in the future.
If you keep the developers happy you will have applications for your platform, in which case, your users should be happy.
The real world involves pain and suffering. And that's just the fun stuff.
The only thing I want fom the RealWorld is a few electrons, and a continuous supply of caffeine.
And maybe a little less light.
Now let me get back to my LCD Tan...
People run classic for the same reason they still have Windows 3.1 and Windows 95 machines sitting on a network somewhere.
They work, and in some cases the cost of the software to get the current version is astronomical.
Sooner or later those machines will be retired and the money to upgrade spent.
I bought a G5 a couple of years ago, I ran Classic less than a dozen times.
I don't see it as a problem that I cannot run Classic applications on my iMac Core Duo.
If the problem was related to a bug in the iPod software whereby the volume would jump, or max itself out then I think he'd have a case.
Me, I don't really want Apple to add a volume restriction like they have on the European ones. It doesn't analyze the signal volume, it simply restricts the maximum volume the user can select. Thereby limiting the amount you can hear on an otherwise quite recording (of Classical music for example).
This is the kind of guy who would sue because he stuck his tongue on a metal pole when it's significantly below freezing.
Mere mortals aren't supposed to step through the reality-distortion field, it causes memory loss.
And they have the ability to file for a warrant AFTERWARDS.
Look, I think the whole truth is rather simple. They are collecting all the phonenumbers and subsequent phonenumbers from those. They are datamining the whole collection and it isn't a few hundred, or a few thousand calls a day. It's hundreds of thousands of calls a day.
And there is no possible way for them to file the paperwork to cover it.
And in those calls that are legitimate there are a few thousand that relate to the democrats (for example).
But hey, if you don't want anyone outside of the current administration double checking that there is at least SOME legitimacy to the task, who am I to argue. I'm not american. They can monitor all my calls legally.
(It wouldn't do them any good ( politics ain't my thing, and the only 'building' I hate is ATI headquaters as they owe me a few hours of my life back for a botched video card driver, but it's a Canadian company so I doubt the U.S. government cares.), and I'm pretty sure they would be bored with my conversations.).
Oversite, even after the fact, is significantly better than none.
Apple cheats. They use the generated binary as input to an x86 compiler. As I understand they actually licensed Rosetta, it wasn't done in house. Regardless of that I do think it is impressive, not only does it work well enough but it is seamless for the user.
It isn't perfect, but it is damn good.
It -should- mean that they are conservative enough in their submissions that they obviously meet the criteria.
Of course, I doubt that's the case.
While I think the publishers of a scientific journal bare some responsibility when it turns out an article was entirely bogus I don't understand why people want to blame the publishers of an Autobiography.
Had the publishers known the book was faked, contrived or otherwise bogus they should have refused publishing it as an autobiography. I see no reason for them to go out of their way to prove, or disprove it though.
People take some things far too seriously.
The more I read about him, the more I think perhaps the negative comments are sour grapes.
I used to think that Steve Jobs and Bill Gates where similar people. I've come to the conclusion that Steve Jobs is who Bill Gates wishes he was. Bill Gates has repeatedly said he wanted a computer in every home, etc.
But he failed to have a computer designed that DESERVED to be in every home. (and, in many ways, an OS that deserves to be on any computer...) He build an empire that could almost force it to be true, but that is hardly the same thing.
A lot of people seem to be unimpressed with the current crop of new Intel based Macs. I think Apples implementation of it is almost perfect.
Apple could have chosen to be bold, all the new machines based on the Intel processors could have been completely new designs ascetically. Instead they chose the keep the outwards appearance the same and replace everything inside, and make it function exactly the same as before. (Ok, with a decent improvement in speed.)
Had Apple chosen to be bold, and had the OS failed to deliver the promise of running almost all applications then the whole thing would have been looked upon as a fiasco. Instead they focused on getting the internals right.
I remember having conversations with people years ago about the idea of emulating a PowerPC based Mac on an Intel x86 platform; nobody thought it would been feasible. Even if you got it to work, it would never be fast enough to be useful. But Apple has done it, Rosetta is a stunning achievement and it's integration with the OS is almost seamless.
(yes I tried the PowerPC emulator (PearPC) and was amazed that it worked as well as it did. But that doesn't make it viable for joe-user.
The company I work for would have no technical difficulty hosting my personal website. In many ways they would probably encourage me to do it, as I can use it to gain experience outside of what I do on a day to day basis for the company.
But even if they suggested it I wouldn't do it lightly.
I would rather pay for hosting service and know that if I lost my job tomorrow I would still have the website and domain.
I know that anything I do on the website is mine. I don't use their tools, or their time to maintain it. If, for some reason, they decided they owned something on my website I could, in good faith fight for my rights to keep it as mine. They would have to fight to take it from me, I wouldn't have to fight to get it back.
Keep your homelife, and your worklife separate.
How about lower density foam areas designed the let the air-out without a complete structural failure of the foam?
Most sites are so bad they won't collect much data from pocketpc users anyway. Nobody will visit twice.
First, browsers on PocketPC are horrific. My pocketpc has more ram available to it that most computers I used in the mid nineties, yet the browsers on them are horrible. (and I don't Just mean IE, although it's one of the worst).
I think the questions you should be asking are: Is the website such that users may want access to the information on something like a pocketpc. Is it a subset of the information, just employees/staff (think intranet).
Any movie listing site, for example, should support the widest range of access. I want to know what movies are playing when I am out and about. I could be in a restaurant and want to look up the listings. I don't really need an option to view a trailer though.
Since the new iMac has a maximum capacity of 2G ram anyway, where's the problem? Really want 64bit? Buy a G5.
The push to 32bit (particularly on x86) was not simply about the word size, it was also the point where MMU's were expected to make a significant improvement. It was where Intel fixed their architecture to the point of actually being usefull. (16bit protected mode is actually kind of ugly.).
I have a 1.6Ghz G5, and sometimes next week I will be receiving a 17" iMac. The processor speed of the new iMac will trample the G5 I have, I'll probably relegate it to a fileserver and run OS X Server on it. (Developer licensing makes this easy and legal)
The push to 64bits doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Yes I bought a 64bit machine, but I can deal with using a 32bit machine for a few more years. The push to 64bit seems very artificial right now, I just don't see the rush.
It probably isn't encrypted. They probably think it's ok since it is only in transit for 20 minutes (or whatever it is).
Of course, if the car is involved in an accident, the driver seriously injured and the tapes get stolen during or after the accident cleanup... ooops.
This stuff happens every day. And it will continue to happen.
... 145.990 MHz.
Ok, ok, off by a few zeros. Left the Mhz off by mistake.