Taco! Enough with the Molten Core references!
on
MacBook Pro Benchmarks
·
· Score: 4, Funny
Seems like (nearly) every time a Mac/Intel story pops up, CmdrTaco chimes in with some comment on WoW/Molten Core.
Dear Apple: Slashdot needs to review 5 of these indefinitely. Thank you XOXO;) Seriously, i'm waiting for someone to give good benchmarks on these- especially testing for Warcraft. Now that it has a new Universal Binary I can't wait to see how it holds up against a modern windows machine.
'Not only did the new iMac wipe the floor with the old model in their tests, but using MacWorld's own test methodology would allow MacSpeedZone to conclude that the new Intel iMac is almost as fast as a PowerMac Quad G5.' I see only one way to solve this: Give me one. I'll run WoW on it, and decide.
I'm still waiting for the most important benchmark: frames per second in molten core combat.
There is more of this too....you know those quaint little stickers on CDs? Tipper Gore's (Al's squeeze), was leading the charge on that back in the day. This isn't a "one side is doing it and not the other" thing.
I was going to say something about how easy and pointless it is to cherry-pick transgressions from any party, but you know what? It doesn't matter.
I don't fucking care who's encouraging the brownshirt activity; it just has to stop.
Exactly! That's what I'm saying. Just because I think this isn't something you should do doesn't mean I think the people in charge should make the call. I'm condemning these policies while at the same time, as a private citizen, making a request regarding polite behavior. You're free to ignore it; these are all behaviors perfectly within our constitutional rights, and I will fight to keep them there. But I think it's a reasonable request.
Then - please accept my apologies. I assumed you meant something else; I agree with your point.
People shouldn't look at porn in public libraries -- at least, not where there's a significant chance of it disturbing other patrons, including children.
That idea is not incompatible with the view that the federal government has no place policing this. It's not hypocritical to say that something is bad while also thinking the government shouldn't police it.
100%, flat-out, spectacularly wrong. You obviously did not read the article. The idea is completely incompatible!
'People shouldn't' is a dangerous way to start out a sentence. Who decides? Its the age-old question. What is disturbing? What is art? What is bad for society, and who gets to decide? Just saying 'keep your porn at home' is hardly the answer. What if you think my collection of insect porn is offensive? Beggin' your pardon, but who the fuck are you to decide?
The fact is, your constitution rules in this scenario (public library), and the librarians cannot make the call on what is or isn't obscene. And as we all know the definition is grey at best/. Also, as mentioned in TFA, there were privacy screens available for other partrons who might feel uncomfortable (I imagine these are those polarizing overlays like on bank machines).
Actually, anyone that buys iLife has pretty much ceded any claim to being anything other than a rabid Apple fanboy - other than Garage Band (which is of no use for the hordes of us that count the CD player and the radio as the only instruments we play), all of its functions are generally available for free in other OSes, including Windows.
You have got to be joking. You are trying to tell me that, for free, Windows will allow me to: edit DV movies in standard or high def; burn fully assembled composited DVDs; order hardbound books, cards, and calendars from my photo collection... I mean the list is huge. That is just simply not true. Windows Media Player gives you funcitonality comparable to typical Quicktime + iTunes use, infact possibly a bit better considering MS doesn't ding you for the $40 Apple wants for QuickTime Pro. But as for the rest, no fucking way, its not even remotely close. You've either not used the apps extensively or you are being disingenuous. Even Garageband you are wrong about - besides serving as a fairly functional basic sequencer (it does come with a few hundred loops), it also has an entire podcasting studio inside it. I'm sorry if this all sounds like rabid Apple fanboyism to you, but the fact is these are features that exist in these apps that clearly do not in a standard Windows install, or any for that matter. I can't fathom what other OS's you could possibly be referring to.
I love OS X, but Apple's near-mandatory upgrades at $130 a pop ever several months is a genuine ripoff. Cann you imagine the outcry if Microsoft tried that? I bought XP about 2 1/2 hears ago, but SP2, and lots of other valuable updates and fixes have been freely available automatically through Windows Update. Windows has its (substantial) drawbacks for sure, but there sure is a double standard when talk of Apple comes up - at least the hair-shirted Linux-on-the-desktop guys are consistent...
$130 a pop is steep I agree, but no one forces you to buy it. Windows simply hasn't had as many releases, that's why you don't see that kind of price structure (btw have you priced Office, or a standalone copy of Windows lately?). I do think Apple gets seen quite favourably in these parts, unfairly so in some circumstances, but iLife just ain't one of them.
remember this is Dvorak. He Claimed up until the Day they announced it that Apple will never do a Video Ipod...
One of my favourite Dvorak moments: FireWire and iMovie are doooooomed, because video editing is hard, and no one will want to do it for fun. I kid you not.
Ever hear of disc rot [brainwashed.com]? You wanna see the pile of CDs I have that have degraded to the point of non-playability? Its not disc rot, and I'm not sure what it is, but I even have a bunch of CDs that have developed random pin-holes while sitting in their cases after I ripped them to MP3.
The answer is the acidic dyes they used to print the discs early on. Anything prior to 1991 (afaik) used inks that were not safe and started to eat the discs after 10 years or so... later discs used more benign vegetable dyes. That's why you noticed the pinholes, probably starting around 2000 on, I'm guessing?
What I see happening is someone building an emulator that essentially runs the player software in a sandbox that makes it think everything is fine and dandy.
If DVD Jon is listening, I think the forst movie that is played inside this happy shiny sandbox for content should be an HD copy of The Matrix.
Um... No... There is quite a level of difference between OSX's Graphics and what Vista is bringing to the table. Even Video cards that don't support Glass will be able to do amazing 3D application and animation effects that OSX STILL can't do without the application being written for OpenGL. I know this is a common myth, but truly, trust me. There is a big difference between Vista's graphics and OSX.
Ok, I'll bite. Like what? Linkage? Examples?
All I see here is a lot of hot air. Prove me wrong.
As for your actual point, the advantages of Vista over Windows XP seem to me to be roughly equivalent to the advantages of OS X Tiger over OS X Panther: eye candy and some upgraded OS components.
Bad example. Windows is getting a hardware-accelerated composited desktop for the first time ever. OS X had this when it launched, but not in Mac Classic OS. Its more accurate to say its like going from 98 to XP. Don't forget, Apple ships a new OS X every 18 months or so but Vista has been in the works for a loooong time. Its going to be a big upgrade.
But then the majority of the Mac users I know haven't seen the point in upgrading to Tiger either, and that doesn't stop Apple fanboys proclaiming it like teh greatest OS evar.
I counter your anecdote with my anecdote: I know about a dozen people on Macs and every single one of them has upgraded to Tiger (in fact most of them are on iLife 06 even). And yes, they do think its the greatest OS ever. Whatever works for you.
I'd say that Sheehan was arrested while the "support the troops" person was escourted out is because Sheehan had to be an asshat about it. She probably caused a scene so they arrested her. The "support the troops" person likely left when asked.
'Course this is all speculation. But knowing Sheehans record I'd bet she was being very problamatic. Being problmatic with lots of senators/congressmen and the President around is a sure fire way to get your butt throw in the can.
You really have no idea what happened, but that doesn't stop you from opining vociferously on the matter.
I'd love to know how you manage to type with your head so firmly ensconced in your anus.
It doesn't. All magic sky dieties are bad news. But Christians already had their heyday. Crusades, Inquisitions. Islam is yet a young lad. Give it time to get some steam going.
What the hell? Islam is a young religion?
Its been around for, what, 1500 years or so?
I'd say its more accurate to say Islam had its heyday a many hundreds of years ago, and has been marginalized ever since the crusades...
As far as my beliefs, I do believe in God, and I also believe that evolution is a fact of life. I have no problem reconciling the two. What I hear in some evolutionist's arguing sounds like they think that evolution disproves God, and that is just silly. Evolution is not anti-God just because it pisses of some stubborn folks who insist on taking every word in the Bible literally.
Quite right, there is no conflict whatsoever between believing in God and believing in evolution. I have never understood why there is an argument there (and of course, its only the fundamentalists that really have a problem). Frankly, not crediting God with evolution is holding an supposedly omnipotent being in somewhat low regard...
IMO, it's relentlessly stupid to involve a cable in this integration. A cellphone's integration should be even more transparent than the iPod's, because it ought to do it all wirelessly.
Even the ROKR, the so-called iTunes phone, has Bluetooth, but doesn't sync with this - you still need a cable.
Kind of makes your point rather succinctly, don't you think?
I would appreciate it if you would share your definition of faith and belief. Googling for the definitions didn't yield a lot of results that weren't too consistent or helpful
Sure. "Belief" I think is pretty self-evident. "Faith" I would define as strong belief in a concept or idea despite the absence of any measurable evidence to support it.
To that end, you can "know in your heart" that there is a prime god, or gods; that is faith. However you can never prove it. What you do with this un-provable belief, what real actions you take (if any), is up to each individual person.
However there is no doubt that many of the things that "science" tells us today are wrong. This is the way it has always been. New theories and models come around and displace the old. We add it to the general body of knowledge and the human race keeps on chugging. It is a beautiful thing.
We agree. I would only quibble with 'wrong', it is perhaps more accurate to say 'incomplete'. There are theories that stand for awhile and eventually are tossed (Newton) but with good science it is nearly always the case that the original theory is modified from new observations rather than discarded completely.
I am very suspicious of anyone who says "trust me, I have the answer." The more answers they claim to have, the more skeptical I am. What I see in the creationism vs. evolution vs. ID vs "Big Bird gave birth to the world" debate is a bunch of people on each side chanting that there side is the one true way. I just don't buy it.
I would try not to let the convictions of the opposite person sway you too much. This is the way I see it: some people are crazy. Some people are smart. Some people are crazy AND smart. I've had conversations with scientists who were total assholes; elitist, condescending, ill-mannered. But nearly always, they have reason on their side. Facts and observations to back up their belief. The fact that a person can be both a jerk and right is hard for some to puzzle out; its very easy to simply decide that you don't like them, and therefore their beliefs are suspect.
So when presented with something like, say, the Evolution vs. ID debate, and both sides are arguing vehemently, you shouldn't just walk away and assume both sides are unreasonable. Evolution has a few hundred years of research and the foundation of moden biology behind it; ID has a bunch of red-herring arguments and jabs at the holes in the theory, but offers no actual testable hypothesis even (forget theory). But ID supporters have faith. And their faith tells them that they know we weren't descended from monkeys, they really hate that idea.
Circling around to my original point - what one does with faith. In the case of ID proponents, they have decided to ignore what we (royal we) have learned about biology and life, because the conclusions make them uncomfortable. There is no 'point' to be had here. The scientists, in this case, have every right to scream 'trust me I have the answer' - ok, I'll amend that, they should be screaming 'don't trust us, but we have very good answers you can check out yourself'. Point is, sometimes one side is simply right. There are not always two sides to every point.
None of us knows how we got here, and furthermore it just doesn't fucking matter anyway. My two cents.
I'm a bit off topic here and rambling, I guess seeing people try to bend and form scientific research to prove their own belief systems has been disturbing me lately. It seems that science is the new religion for many. This new religion's adherents are just as intolerant of other's viewpoints as good old fashioned religions have been.
Oh, you were doing so well until that last bit...
Science cannot become 'the new religion for many', intrinsically. Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". The very definition of science requires that you must be able to prove and test your statements, in the real world. Its the best 'truth' we've got. You are conflating faith and belief, which are not the same thing.
You are right in this sense only: I am fairly intolerant of unprovable bullshit. Is it really dogmatic to hold your convictions in proportion to your evidence?
Slashdot Mirror
Dear Apple: Slashdot needs to review 5 of these indefinitely. Thank you XOXO ;) Seriously, i'm waiting for someone to give good benchmarks on these- especially testing for Warcraft. Now that it has a new Universal Binary I can't wait to see how it holds up against a modern windows machine.
'Not only did the new iMac wipe the floor with the old model in their tests, but using MacWorld's own test methodology would allow MacSpeedZone to conclude that the new Intel iMac is almost as fast as a PowerMac Quad G5.' I see only one way to solve this: Give me one. I'll run WoW on it, and decide.
I'm still waiting for the most important benchmark: frames per second in molten core combat.
We get it. You use your Mac for WoW.
I'm down with the pebble bed designs and all that, but last I checked nuclear reactors take a decade to plan and build, and ... we don't have a decade.
I was going to say something about how easy and pointless it is to cherry-pick transgressions from any party, but you know what? It doesn't matter.
I don't fucking care who's encouraging the brownshirt activity; it just has to stop.
Then - please accept my apologies. I assumed you meant something else; I agree with your point.
Wow, how long has the Cthulu party been active?
You cannot possibly be referring to that quaint democratic party that hasn't had a shred of power in six years...?
100%, flat-out, spectacularly wrong. You obviously did not read the article. The idea is completely incompatible!
'People shouldn't' is a dangerous way to start out a sentence. Who decides? Its the age-old question. What is disturbing? What is art? What is bad for society, and who gets to decide? Just saying 'keep your porn at home' is hardly the answer. What if you think my collection of insect porn is offensive? Beggin' your pardon, but who the fuck are you to decide?
The fact is, your constitution rules in this scenario (public library), and the librarians cannot make the call on what is or isn't obscene. And as we all know the definition is grey at best/. Also, as mentioned in TFA, there were privacy screens available for other partrons who might feel uncomfortable (I imagine these are those polarizing overlays like on bank machines).
You seem awfully interested in embargoes and anti-capitalist definitions, Mr. Cas.... heeeyyy waitaminute...
You have got to be joking. You are trying to tell me that, for free, Windows will allow me to: edit DV movies in standard or high def; burn fully assembled composited DVDs; order hardbound books, cards, and calendars from my photo collection... I mean the list is huge. That is just simply not true. Windows Media Player gives you funcitonality comparable to typical Quicktime + iTunes use, infact possibly a bit better considering MS doesn't ding you for the $40 Apple wants for QuickTime Pro. But as for the rest, no fucking way, its not even remotely close. You've either not used the apps extensively or you are being disingenuous. Even Garageband you are wrong about - besides serving as a fairly functional basic sequencer (it does come with a few hundred loops), it also has an entire podcasting studio inside it. I'm sorry if this all sounds like rabid Apple fanboyism to you, but the fact is these are features that exist in these apps that clearly do not in a standard Windows install, or any for that matter. I can't fathom what other OS's you could possibly be referring to.
I love OS X, but Apple's near-mandatory upgrades at $130 a pop ever several months is a genuine ripoff. Cann you imagine the outcry if Microsoft tried that? I bought XP about 2 1/2 hears ago, but SP2, and lots of other valuable updates and fixes have been freely available automatically through Windows Update. Windows has its (substantial) drawbacks for sure, but there sure is a double standard when talk of Apple comes up - at least the hair-shirted Linux-on-the-desktop guys are consistent...
$130 a pop is steep I agree, but no one forces you to buy it. Windows simply hasn't had as many releases, that's why you don't see that kind of price structure (btw have you priced Office, or a standalone copy of Windows lately?). I do think Apple gets seen quite favourably in these parts, unfairly so in some circumstances, but iLife just ain't one of them.
One of my favourite Dvorak moments: FireWire and iMovie are doooooomed, because video editing is hard, and no one will want to do it for fun. I kid you not.
The answer is the acidic dyes they used to print the discs early on. Anything prior to 1991 (afaik) used inks that were not safe and started to eat the discs after 10 years or so... later discs used more benign vegetable dyes. That's why you noticed the pinholes, probably starting around 2000 on, I'm guessing?
.. on my PSP, I keep hearing this little voice trying to tell me something in the back of my mind... nope, can't quite place it...
I vote this +5, Supremely Sig-Worthy. Nicely done.
If DVD Jon is listening, I think the forst movie that is played inside this happy shiny sandbox for content should be an HD copy of The Matrix.
Ok, I'll bite. Like what? Linkage? Examples?
All I see here is a lot of hot air. Prove me wrong.
Bad example. Windows is getting a hardware-accelerated composited desktop for the first time ever. OS X had this when it launched, but not in Mac Classic OS. Its more accurate to say its like going from 98 to XP. Don't forget, Apple ships a new OS X every 18 months or so but Vista has been in the works for a loooong time. Its going to be a big upgrade.
But then the majority of the Mac users I know haven't seen the point in upgrading to Tiger either, and that doesn't stop Apple fanboys proclaiming it like teh greatest OS evar.
I counter your anecdote with my anecdote: I know about a dozen people on Macs and every single one of them has upgraded to Tiger (in fact most of them are on iLife 06 even). And yes, they do think its the greatest OS ever. Whatever works for you.
Cherry-picking datapoints with no context is not 'peer-reviewing'.
My god!... your startlingly jaded cynicism has just wiped all common sense from my brain.
Thank you, random Slashdot troll, for replacing my malaise with catchy cynicism!
And thank you mods, for providing customers to the burgeoning crack market. jeebus.
You really have no idea what happened, but that doesn't stop you from opining vociferously on the matter.
I'd love to know how you manage to type with your head so firmly ensconced in your anus.
Don't know from where this came, but that is what this is. Both sides are being manipulated in an incredibly cynical way.
What the hell? Islam is a young religion?
Its been around for, what, 1500 years or so?
I'd say its more accurate to say Islam had its heyday a many hundreds of years ago, and has been marginalized ever since the crusades...
Quite right, there is no conflict whatsoever between believing in God and believing in evolution. I have never understood why there is an argument there (and of course, its only the fundamentalists that really have a problem). Frankly, not crediting God with evolution is holding an supposedly omnipotent being in somewhat low regard...
Even the ROKR, the so-called iTunes phone, has Bluetooth, but doesn't sync with this - you still need a cable.
Kind of makes your point rather succinctly, don't you think?
Sure. "Belief" I think is pretty self-evident. "Faith" I would define as strong belief in a concept or idea despite the absence of any measurable evidence to support it.
To that end, you can "know in your heart" that there is a prime god, or gods; that is faith. However you can never prove it. What you do with this un-provable belief, what real actions you take (if any), is up to each individual person.
However there is no doubt that many of the things that "science" tells us today are wrong. This is the way it has always been. New theories and models come around and displace the old. We add it to the general body of knowledge and the human race keeps on chugging. It is a beautiful thing.
We agree. I would only quibble with 'wrong', it is perhaps more accurate to say 'incomplete'. There are theories that stand for awhile and eventually are tossed (Newton) but with good science it is nearly always the case that the original theory is modified from new observations rather than discarded completely.
I am very suspicious of anyone who says "trust me, I have the answer." The more answers they claim to have, the more skeptical I am. What I see in the creationism vs. evolution vs. ID vs "Big Bird gave birth to the world" debate is a bunch of people on each side chanting that there side is the one true way. I just don't buy it.
I would try not to let the convictions of the opposite person sway you too much. This is the way I see it: some people are crazy. Some people are smart. Some people are crazy AND smart. I've had conversations with scientists who were total assholes; elitist, condescending, ill-mannered. But nearly always, they have reason on their side. Facts and observations to back up their belief. The fact that a person can be both a jerk and right is hard for some to puzzle out; its very easy to simply decide that you don't like them, and therefore their beliefs are suspect.
So when presented with something like, say, the Evolution vs. ID debate, and both sides are arguing vehemently, you shouldn't just walk away and assume both sides are unreasonable. Evolution has a few hundred years of research and the foundation of moden biology behind it; ID has a bunch of red-herring arguments and jabs at the holes in the theory, but offers no actual testable hypothesis even (forget theory). But ID supporters have faith. And their faith tells them that they know we weren't descended from monkeys, they really hate that idea.
Circling around to my original point - what one does with faith. In the case of ID proponents, they have decided to ignore what we (royal we) have learned about biology and life, because the conclusions make them uncomfortable. There is no 'point' to be had here. The scientists, in this case, have every right to scream 'trust me I have the answer' - ok, I'll amend that, they should be screaming 'don't trust us, but we have very good answers you can check out yourself'. Point is, sometimes one side is simply right. There are not always two sides to every point.
None of us knows how we got here, and furthermore it just doesn't fucking matter anyway. My two cents.
Yup. That is a whole 'nother school of thought. :)
Oh, you were doing so well until that last bit...
Science cannot become 'the new religion for many', intrinsically. Science is "the intellectual and practical activity encompassing the systematic study of the structure and behavior of the physical and natural world through observation and experiment". The very definition of science requires that you must be able to prove and test your statements, in the real world. Its the best 'truth' we've got. You are conflating faith and belief, which are not the same thing.
You are right in this sense only: I am fairly intolerant of unprovable bullshit. Is it really dogmatic to hold your convictions in proportion to your evidence?
nice, your typo contradicted your point :)