With the subtle difference that it has actual verifiable science in it. No doubt it is an easily digestible piece of film, with an agenda, and there are one or two questions on some of the talking points in it, the majority of the data presented in that film is accurate.
Gold is not non-reactive - you can dissolve it in aqua regia to form chloroauric acid.
This is how gold was hidden from the Nazis during the war in certain chemistry labs. It was dissolved to form a yellow/straw solution and then precipitated out once the war was over and recast into its original form.
Funny, because a similar report was released in the UK, under a government who is a lot more like the Repubs than the Dems with a "vested interest" (oh yes, and you think the the Republican administration that preceded it didn't have a "vested interest" in the results?)
Everyone has a "vested interest" in climate change because however it turns out, it is going to affect the human race enormously. We're not going to die out as a species because of it, but it has the potential to change the way we live, even if it is only to affect the nature of the seasons - becoming more extreme on both ends, is going to have an economic and social impact on how we live.
They're not just asking questions though, they're saying things like "global warming is clearly a scam and politically motivated because look at all the snow we've had this year!"
Science doesn't mind (in fact, it thrives on) genuine critical appraisal of the work being done - it's how we learn and understand and develop more accurate theories.
What it doesn't support is the supposed "equal rebuttal" techniques used by the media and those with an agenda - you can say "I don't agree" if you like, but you had better have some supporting reason for that, and the distorted "facts" and data used (often not even any data, just opinion and 'common sense') used by those trying to discredit climate change really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and people get tired of being faced with "all your science is wrong because of ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point)"
The trouble is, a lot of the population are easily convinced by ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point), because soundbites and well-funded media talking heads and purchased senators are easier to understand than the often complex science, and the less-than-media-savvy scientists working in the field.
That's only on the 27" - it's a great feature but one of the key drawbacks is that there is no passthrough; the iMac has to be powered on fully for it to work (ie, you can't just power the screen alone).
3.5 hour battery, over a half a kilo heavier, and with a trackpad that was "terrible, and we regularly brushed it writing this review, causing irritating cursor behaviour" (according to the reviewer).
Around £900 from UK retailers, which is certainly cheaper than a MBP, but only by £100.
You don't get iLife with the HP (or anything even close to it on Windows at the moment), but you do get a slightly bigger HD. Everything else is pretty much the same.
So, this isn't really making the Macbook Pro look expensive to me - it's making it look like if you want to build a quality machine, this is the sort of price point you are looking at.
The HP has a better GPU, slightly bigger HD, a one inch bigger screen and is £100 less, the MBP has better battery life (double), less weight, batter trackpad, better inclusive software (iLife) - they're about even to me.
Where have you been hiding? It launched on 10.6.6 not long ago. All that "lulz it's just a package manager, how innovative!" stuff has been done.
Oddly enough, as the benefits of a package manager were strongly promoted by the OSS community. What on earth would make Apple consider using something that other OS users have said works well?
Beats me!
(Note that they are not claiming to have "invented" the concept, just that they are [already] shipping it).
I'm almost certain Flash has an "calculate Pi to 30,000 digits" thread that it launches on n-1 cores, where n is the number of cores you have. It then uses that last core to run some SETI at Home.
They're cheap enough (relative to a server with dual redundancy in every component) so that you can run two side by side (yes yes, keep them apart so a fire doesn't kill them both at the same time, or a power failure doesn't kill them both at the same time, keep them on separate UPS setups).
In an area where you need 10 second hot swapping of drives though, it's not your machine. However, still makes it useful for many other server tasks. YMMV. Choice is good. etc etc.
You can have more than one TM disk, it doesn't have to be in the same building as the main machine, and you can keep two Minis apart from each other in separate buildings or rooms too. Benefit of them being two separate machines.
For the cost of two of them for the price of your typical server, as long as you actually set them up properly (ie, with genuine backups, redundancy etc) they are perfectly serviceable for many small to medium businesses.
If you need rack mounted hardware with multiple PSUs, then Apple's not your go-to shop any more - they can't compete in that market and there are better players for that. It doesn't mean that in the lower end they don;t have a reason for OS X server any more though.
Sure, the screen is built in so you have to replace it when you replace the machine, but over the muti-year life of the machine that is not so bad - this one I'm using is coming up for 5 years old and still going strong.
If you need a tower though, Apple is not for you.
In the consumer space though, a *vast* number of laptops are sold, compared to desktops.
Mmm yes, those quad-core mobile i7's. All the rage... in 2010, announced in September 2009.
So, maybe you have the pentium floating point maths bug, but September 2009 wasn't 4 years ago by my count.
Still, good flame.
(Also, pssssst, the i7 line as a whole (including desktop CPUs) was released in November 2008, also not 4 years or so ago, but I won't tell anyone to spare your blushes).
I'll ignore "nothing else new", since that's just weaksauce. Please try harder. $2500 is also for the 17" model. They did release some other sizes too - including the much more popular 13" and 15" ones.
There's a nice obvious "buy now" lin that takes you to the prices. They don;t list them in the marketing material because it's pretty meaningless (for everyone) - you can be sure they'd just put "starting at $xxx" with the "starting at" in really small font. The price listed in the marketing material is almost never accurate.
Given that there are 4 base specs, and a single page lists them all under "buy now" I don't think it was all that obscure.
I call this the "all the other good Apple flames were taken, so I am grasping at straws" flame.
It's not a sticker, it's a piece of plastic that allows the backlight to shine through (thus, lighting it up from the back), but more importantly also allows the WiFi signal in and out of the otherwise radio-opaque case (there are also small radio windows on the edges of the screen too).
And less for more is right - the weight of his laptop *starts* at 10 pounds. That is certainly a lot *more*. He bought a desktop with a handle basically, but if it works for him, so much the better - right tool for the job and everything.
If that's so, why are they always the go-to price comparison by people trying to make Macs look expensive?
Either Dell is representative or it's not - you can't use them as a price comparison and then say they're not representative of the PC industry. From the number of Dell machines I see "in the wild" they really are though.
Well, you can connect your display, since it is a mini-displayport with no adapters. Essentially it was what would have been only the display connector, but with extra features for when devices start appearing.
Also, this works fine with your firewire devices too - it has a firewire 800 port (or you could use an adapter and turn the new thunderbolt port into a firewire port, not that you need to).
Also, no "Mac Tax" on the Thunderbolt cables - mini-displayport was standardised by Apple and is a royalty-free connector.
That's what suggests these images are faked to me. It just seems like a crazy move, especially after 1) standardising the mini-displayport and making it royalty free and 2) releasing a whole line of LCD panels with cabling specifically designed to mate to a laptop - mini-displayport, magsafe connector supplying power from the screen, USB etc.
That's a little disingenuous - VGA and DVI were used at the same time, and on the larger machines both ports were visible. The same was true for ADC and DVI - Apple shipped cards with both ports so you could select the one that worked for you. For laptops, they went with the most flexible port possible at the time and then used adapters.
Micro DVI was used on a single generation of Macbook Air - a very specific ultra-portable, it's hardly representative of the bulk of Apple machines sold.
They're not "jumping around all over the place" - it just looks that way if you compound 10 years worth of change and *all* the models they have ever made, especially if you count mini DVI as a separate connector to DVI, and mini VGA as a separate connector to VGA. Back when mini VGA was being used, Apple included the adapter in the box with every machine that shipped with a mini-VGA port, enabling you to use VGA with very little hassle. They don't ship adapters any more (sell them as accessories), but the point remains - if you compound those, the port selection effectively reduces.
In terms of firewire, they could not easily make the 800 port backwards compatible with the 400 port due to the way the pins were setup, and the original design of the 400 port (that put all the moving parts inside the cable), but I personally prefer the 400 port to the 800 - I was never a fan of the connection integrity on the 800 port, especially using cables that had large EM donuts on them. They are pin compatible though, so you can get a hybrid cable with a 400 port on one end - less than ideal, but not much else could be done.
You just try getting the oil filter off a Xsara Picasso - it's on the front of the engine, so at least they've given you a sporting chance, but it's hard to get a grip on because it's surrounded by pipework for the radiator and power steering pump.
Slashdot Mirror
With the subtle difference that it has actual verifiable science in it. No doubt it is an easily digestible piece of film, with an agenda, and there are one or two questions on some of the talking points in it, the majority of the data presented in that film is accurate.
Gold is not non-reactive - you can dissolve it in aqua regia to form chloroauric acid.
This is how gold was hidden from the Nazis during the war in certain chemistry labs. It was dissolved to form a yellow/straw solution and then precipitated out once the war was over and recast into its original form.
Funny, because a similar report was released in the UK, under a government who is a lot more like the Repubs than the Dems with a "vested interest" (oh yes, and you think the the Republican administration that preceded it didn't have a "vested interest" in the results?)
Everyone has a "vested interest" in climate change because however it turns out, it is going to affect the human race enormously. We're not going to die out as a species because of it, but it has the potential to change the way we live, even if it is only to affect the nature of the seasons - becoming more extreme on both ends, is going to have an economic and social impact on how we live.
They're not just asking questions though, they're saying things like "global warming is clearly a scam and politically motivated because look at all the snow we've had this year!"
Science doesn't mind (in fact, it thrives on) genuine critical appraisal of the work being done - it's how we learn and understand and develop more accurate theories.
What it doesn't support is the supposed "equal rebuttal" techniques used by the media and those with an agenda - you can say "I don't agree" if you like, but you had better have some supporting reason for that, and the distorted "facts" and data used (often not even any data, just opinion and 'common sense') used by those trying to discredit climate change really doesn't stand up to any scrutiny, and people get tired of being faced with "all your science is wrong because of ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point)"
The trouble is, a lot of the population are easily convinced by ($easily_discredited_propaganda_talking_point), because soundbites and well-funded media talking heads and purchased senators are easier to understand than the often complex science, and the less-than-media-savvy scientists working in the field.
Oxygen is also toxic to humans at high partial pressures.
That's only on the 27" - it's a great feature but one of the key drawbacks is that there is no passthrough; the iMac has to be powered on fully for it to work (ie, you can't just power the screen alone).
3.5 hour battery, over a half a kilo heavier, and with a trackpad that was "terrible, and we regularly brushed it writing this review, causing irritating cursor behaviour" (according to the reviewer).
Around £900 from UK retailers, which is certainly cheaper than a MBP, but only by £100.
You don't get iLife with the HP (or anything even close to it on Windows at the moment), but you do get a slightly bigger HD. Everything else is pretty much the same.
So, this isn't really making the Macbook Pro look expensive to me - it's making it look like if you want to build a quality machine, this is the sort of price point you are looking at.
The HP has a better GPU, slightly bigger HD, a one inch bigger screen and is £100 less, the MBP has better battery life (double), less weight, batter trackpad, better inclusive software (iLife) - they're about even to me.
Where have you been hiding? It launched on 10.6.6 not long ago. All that "lulz it's just a package manager, how innovative!" stuff has been done.
Oddly enough, as the benefits of a package manager were strongly promoted by the OSS community. What on earth would make Apple consider using something that other OS users have said works well?
Beats me!
(Note that they are not claiming to have "invented" the concept, just that they are [already] shipping it).
It will try.
I'm almost certain Flash has an "calculate Pi to 30,000 digits" thread that it launches on n-1 cores, where n is the number of cores you have. It then uses that last core to run some SETI at Home.
Which is why you buy two of them.
They're cheap enough (relative to a server with dual redundancy in every component) so that you can run two side by side (yes yes, keep them apart so a fire doesn't kill them both at the same time, or a power failure doesn't kill them both at the same time, keep them on separate UPS setups).
In an area where you need 10 second hot swapping of drives though, it's not your machine. However, still makes it useful for many other server tasks. YMMV. Choice is good. etc etc.
You can have more than one TM disk, it doesn't have to be in the same building as the main machine, and you can keep two Minis apart from each other in separate buildings or rooms too. Benefit of them being two separate machines.
For the cost of two of them for the price of your typical server, as long as you actually set them up properly (ie, with genuine backups, redundancy etc) they are perfectly serviceable for many small to medium businesses.
If you need rack mounted hardware with multiple PSUs, then Apple's not your go-to shop any more - they can't compete in that market and there are better players for that. It doesn't mean that in the lower end they don;t have a reason for OS X server any more though.
Ah yes, those are excellent. You get a pair with every new Apple product. I'm sure it's a seriously massive cost to print them.
Why? That's what the iMac is for.
Sure, the screen is built in so you have to replace it when you replace the machine, but over the muti-year life of the machine that is not so bad - this one I'm using is coming up for 5 years old and still going strong.
If you need a tower though, Apple is not for you.
In the consumer space though, a *vast* number of laptops are sold, compared to desktops.
Mmm yes, those quad-core mobile i7's. All the rage... in 2010, announced in September 2009.
So, maybe you have the pentium floating point maths bug, but September 2009 wasn't 4 years ago by my count.
Still, good flame.
(Also, pssssst, the i7 line as a whole (including desktop CPUs) was released in November 2008, also not 4 years or so ago, but I won't tell anyone to spare your blushes).
I'll ignore "nothing else new", since that's just weaksauce. Please try harder. $2500 is also for the 17" model. They did release some other sizes too - including the much more popular 13" and 15" ones.
I think it will support a 3 phase 415V input... for about 5 microseconds.
There's a nice obvious "buy now" lin that takes you to the prices. They don;t list them in the marketing material because it's pretty meaningless (for everyone) - you can be sure they'd just put "starting at $xxx" with the "starting at" in really small font. The price listed in the marketing material is almost never accurate.
Given that there are 4 base specs, and a single page lists them all under "buy now" I don't think it was all that obscure.
I call this the "all the other good Apple flames were taken, so I am grasping at straws" flame.
The Thunderbolt port is 100% compatible with the mini-displayport that are already shipping on other Macs and many 3rd party video cards.
You don't need any adapters or anything - the mini-displayport just plugs right into it.
It's not a sticker, it's a piece of plastic that allows the backlight to shine through (thus, lighting it up from the back), but more importantly also allows the WiFi signal in and out of the otherwise radio-opaque case (there are also small radio windows on the edges of the screen too).
And less for more is right - the weight of his laptop *starts* at 10 pounds. That is certainly a lot *more*. He bought a desktop with a handle basically, but if it works for him, so much the better - right tool for the job and everything.
How much does it weigh and what is the case made of?
All very impressive specs, but if they are in something the size of a small desktop, what's the point?
My old school G4 Powerbook had a backlit keyboard too. Was pretty nice on the plane.
If that's so, why are they always the go-to price comparison by people trying to make Macs look expensive?
Either Dell is representative or it's not - you can't use them as a price comparison and then say they're not representative of the PC industry. From the number of Dell machines I see "in the wild" they really are though.
Well, you can connect your display, since it is a mini-displayport with no adapters. Essentially it was what would have been only the display connector, but with extra features for when devices start appearing.
Also, this works fine with your firewire devices too - it has a firewire 800 port (or you could use an adapter and turn the new thunderbolt port into a firewire port, not that you need to).
Also, no "Mac Tax" on the Thunderbolt cables - mini-displayport was standardised by Apple and is a royalty-free connector.
>>>Some of the multiplayer games are completely unplayable in the opinion of commodore6502 and are thus clearly must be unplayable to everyone
Fixed that fixed that for you, for you.
That's what suggests these images are faked to me. It just seems like a crazy move, especially after 1) standardising the mini-displayport and making it royalty free and 2) releasing a whole line of LCD panels with cabling specifically designed to mate to a laptop - mini-displayport, magsafe connector supplying power from the screen, USB etc.
That's a little disingenuous - VGA and DVI were used at the same time, and on the larger machines both ports were visible. The same was true for ADC and DVI - Apple shipped cards with both ports so you could select the one that worked for you. For laptops, they went with the most flexible port possible at the time and then used adapters.
Micro DVI was used on a single generation of Macbook Air - a very specific ultra-portable, it's hardly representative of the bulk of Apple machines sold.
They're not "jumping around all over the place" - it just looks that way if you compound 10 years worth of change and *all* the models they have ever made, especially if you count mini DVI as a separate connector to DVI, and mini VGA as a separate connector to VGA. Back when mini VGA was being used, Apple included the adapter in the box with every machine that shipped with a mini-VGA port, enabling you to use VGA with very little hassle. They don't ship adapters any more (sell them as accessories), but the point remains - if you compound those, the port selection effectively reduces.
In terms of firewire, they could not easily make the 800 port backwards compatible with the 400 port due to the way the pins were setup, and the original design of the 400 port (that put all the moving parts inside the cable), but I personally prefer the 400 port to the 800 - I was never a fan of the connection integrity on the 800 port, especially using cables that had large EM donuts on them. They are pin compatible though, so you can get a hybrid cable with a 400 port on one end - less than ideal, but not much else could be done.
You just try getting the oil filter off a Xsara Picasso - it's on the front of the engine, so at least they've given you a sporting chance, but it's hard to get a grip on because it's surrounded by pipework for the radiator and power steering pump.