Fair enough, but, as is the case with hardware RAID and firewire, I think you'd do better putting those in a Mac Pro than an iMac class machine that has PCIe slots. You're going to seriously need the extra horsepower.
Believe it or not, there are USB display adapters, and some even support the mac, allowing (apparently) up to 4 displays.
Obviously, a USB display adapter isn't going to perform as well as a GeForce 99E+27, but keep in mind as well that the latest iMacs come with a mini display port, so they already support 2 displays.
I'm an Apple investor too, and I'm not so appalled.
The differences between, say, the iMac and Mac Pro:
1. > 4GB of RAM 2. > 2 CPU cores, and they're faster 3. PCIe slots 4. 4 internal hard drives 5. Up to 2 internal optical drives
Now, I'm sure this is going to be controversial, but I'll pose the question anyway:
What would you really want to use those PCIe slots for that you couldn't find reasonably equivalent functionality via USB or Firewire? Bonus points if there are mac drivers available.
If the answer includes Gigabit Ethernet (note that we'd be talking about a *second* GigE port, since the iMac comes with one), Fiber Channel or RAID, then doesn't that imply that you'd be better served by either the Mac Pro or an XServe anyway?
What else is on the list?
SCSI? Really?
Fusion powered 3d graphics card? Are gamers really clambering to run awesome 3D games under OS X?
TV tuners and video capture? There are plenty of those for USB, FW or Ethernet.
What I'm saying is that the "mid tower" you describe *likely* doesn't differ significantly from the iMac except for not having a built-in display, those PCIe slots and extra optical and internal drive bays - and in the case of the optical and/or hard drive bays, FW800 is an alternative. And I am honestly struggling to think of why those PCIe slots are missed.
The FCC just doesn't barge into people's houses in a manner suggested by TFA. They don't have a fleet of yellow trucks like in "Pump Up The Volume."
There is a very, very long history of FCC enforcement actions for things like CB operators using amplifiers, businesses using amateur radios for communications, amateurs abusing repeaters, etc.
Anybody who is so egregious as to actually come to the notice of the FCC generally has gotten to the point where "inspecting" their house wouldn't be necessary - there would already be ample evidence of the problem available simply by monitoring them from a distance.
Such is the nature of RF - you don't have to actually be inside the premises to detect it.
It's often not the FCC that visits folks anyway. This is a cute story about someone causing unintentional interference. In this case, it wasn't the FCC that got to the bottom of it, it was a bunch of hams.
If your brain emits an EM field that oscillates between about 100 Hz and 300 GHz and emits power in excess of the limits for a part 15 unintentional radiator, then yes.
That last one, however, is a condition unlikely to be met by any mammals I know of.
Idioms never do. By definition, an idiom is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words."
The correct word is "contribution," not "donation." Modern dictionaries don't draw much distinction between the two words, but if you look at the origin of each word, contribute comes from the latin for "bringing together," and donate comes from the latin for "giving." It is more precisely correct to describe an involuntary transfer of funds that is still tax deductible as a "contribution" rather than a "donation."
To say that Cisco acted voluntarily since their alternative was going to trial is like saying that a mugging victim acted voluntarily giving the thief his wallet, since he had an alternative of being stabbed.
It turns out, as others have said, that they used the correct word in TFA and that the problem is with the/. summary.
Passengers crashing a plane isn't exactly the "end" of airborne terrorism
I never meant to say it was. It was, however, the end of passenger passivity in the face of hijackings due to the expectation of being released unharmed. Never again will box-cutters be sufficient to assure control of an aircraft.
Why bother asking if it's so easy to lie and you can't possible discern the truth anyway?
You'd be surprised how many people would be in that exact same situation without having prepared a good lie up front, and who, if the need arises suddenly, can't come up with a convincing one.
And if they can, then as I said, the clerk has, in my view, met a reasonable duty to insure he isn't contributing to a tort (or perhaps even a crime) against an innocent third party.
Unquestioningly obeying orders went out of style in 1945.
The security theatre has actually made us less safe than before.
How?
Because by making air travel more expensive, less convenient, and take longer, they have diverted people from airplanes to cars. Since the cars have a far, far higher injury and fatality rate per passenger mile than aircraft, more people will die traveling than had we reacted to the events on 9/11/2001 by doing literally nothing at all.
Hijackings ended on 9/12 because of a simple policy change.
In fact, you're not quite right: the hijackings actually ended before 9/11 did. The passengers on United flight 93 found out about the "policy change" and then took action, preventing their plane from reaching its intended target.
Hey, maybe "Karl" likes to dress up as a "Karen" on the weekend.
As I said in another reply, if the clerk asks and that's the answer, then yes, the clerk will probably comply. But by asking for the explanation, the clerk is no longer negligent.
Do you think that Kinko's reads and validates the information contained on/in every item they print?
Yes. They absolutely do. They do primarily because they're looking for copyrighted materials, which they refuse to copy. But even so, they have eyes. They have to at least glance at the thing they're copying at the very least to make sure they stick it in the machine the right side up. If I were a clerk, I'd at least give the guy a sideways glance and ask for the story. To suggest that the clerk would take the flyer in this circumstance, look at it, look back at the pervy looking customer and say, "Okie dokie! That'll be $19.95 and ready in 10 minutes!" and not be negligent is laughable.
If this guy were printing out leaflets and handing them out in a parking lot, would she sue the owner of the parking lot? The maker of the guy's printer?
No, but how about if he got those leaflets printed by the local Kinko's? If the leaflets said, "My name is Karen Smith and I'm a dirty slut and will bang you if you call me at [work number]" and the fellow asking the clerk to run off 1000 of them for him is clearly not Karen Smith by any stretch of the imagination, and the clerk runs them off anyway, I'd say that Karen's got a pretty good case against Kinko's for negligence at the very least.
Except I never said anything at all about the actual city of San Francisco and San Jose, I talked about their metropolitan areas.
The city of San Francisco is, due to its history and surrounding terrain, much smaller than its footprint suggests it to be, when compared to comparable cities elsewhere.
As I have said elsewhere, the population of the San Francisco bay area at large exceeds that of the entire state of Arizona. Since Caltrain doesn't visit all of the Bay Area counties, it's fair enough to limit discussion to the counties it *does* visit, in which case you still wind up with a comparable (but larger) population than the combination of the two places that are under discussion in the article.
And that's really the whole point I was trying to make, lo those many, many posts ago. You've succeeded in getting lost in the minutiae rather than grasping the actual point, which was to lend support to the fellow who was suggesting that it would take a half million daily riders by pointing out that a very respectable, established commuter railroad operating in a comparable corridor didn't quite get a tenth of that traffic.
I will admit that I misspoke when I said "size" rather than "population" in the original posting way, way back. But the rest, I stand by.
Might as well compare CalTrain with Phoenix's bus system.
In retrospect, perhaps it's less fair to compare CalTrain to Phoenix' bus system (since that consists of a fairly large number of routes) as it is to compare it to Phoenix' METRO light rail system - which has a daily ridership of.... about 37,000 riders per day.
Might as well compare CalTrain with Phoenix's bus system.
Ok. Do you think Phoenix's bus system's weekday daily ridership is closer to 37,000 or half a million daily riders, which was the daily ridership number the GP was talking about in his thought exercise?
You're talking about a single metro area with 7 million people. You can't compare that with a 4.5 million person metro area and a 1.2 million person metro area with 100 miles of nothing in between them.
Ok. How about the Capitol Corridor, which goes between San Jose and Sacramento? For the last 3 years, it has had a daily ridership of about 3,500. I'm thinking that's not making a better case.
Slashdot Mirror
Last time I checked both nVidia and ATI made the graphics hardware in the iMac, and it supports two displays (the internal one and one external one).
If you seriously need to run 3 or 4 displays on one machine, you're probably going to need the extra RAM and horsepower in a Mac Pro anyhow.
You're the sort that sticks a plastic spoiler on the trunk of a Honda Civic too, aren't you?
Fair enough, but, as is the case with hardware RAID and firewire, I think you'd do better putting those in a Mac Pro than an iMac class machine that has PCIe slots. You're going to seriously need the extra horsepower.
Believe it or not, there are USB display adapters, and some even support the mac, allowing (apparently) up to 4 displays.
Obviously, a USB display adapter isn't going to perform as well as a GeForce 99E+27, but keep in mind as well that the latest iMacs come with a mini display port, so they already support 2 displays.
I'm an Apple investor too, and I'm not so appalled.
The differences between, say, the iMac and Mac Pro:
1. > 4GB of RAM
2. > 2 CPU cores, and they're faster
3. PCIe slots
4. 4 internal hard drives
5. Up to 2 internal optical drives
Now, I'm sure this is going to be controversial, but I'll pose the question anyway:
What would you really want to use those PCIe slots for that you couldn't find reasonably equivalent functionality via USB or Firewire? Bonus points if there are mac drivers available.
If the answer includes Gigabit Ethernet (note that we'd be talking about a *second* GigE port, since the iMac comes with one), Fiber Channel or RAID, then doesn't that imply that you'd be better served by either the Mac Pro or an XServe anyway?
What else is on the list?
SCSI? Really?
Fusion powered 3d graphics card? Are gamers really clambering to run awesome 3D games under OS X?
TV tuners and video capture? There are plenty of those for USB, FW or Ethernet.
What I'm saying is that the "mid tower" you describe *likely* doesn't differ significantly from the iMac except for not having a built-in display, those PCIe slots and extra optical and internal drive bays - and in the case of the optical and/or hard drive bays, FW800 is an alternative. And I am honestly struggling to think of why those PCIe slots are missed.
The FCC lacks jurisdiction otherwise. The spokesman may be less than fully informed, seeing as how he's merely a spokesman.
The FCC just doesn't barge into people's houses in a manner suggested by TFA. They don't have a fleet of yellow trucks like in "Pump Up The Volume."
There is a very, very long history of FCC enforcement actions for things like CB operators using amplifiers, businesses using amateur radios for communications, amateurs abusing repeaters, etc.
Here's a smattering of recent ones.
Anybody who is so egregious as to actually come to the notice of the FCC generally has gotten to the point where "inspecting" their house wouldn't be necessary - there would already be ample evidence of the problem available simply by monitoring them from a distance.
Such is the nature of RF - you don't have to actually be inside the premises to detect it.
It's often not the FCC that visits folks anyway. This is a cute story about someone causing unintentional interference. In this case, it wasn't the FCC that got to the bottom of it, it was a bunch of hams.
If your brain emits an EM field that oscillates between about 100 Hz and 300 GHz and emits power in excess of the limits for a part 15 unintentional radiator, then yes.
That last one, however, is a condition unlikely to be met by any mammals I know of.
Idioms never do. By definition, an idiom is "a group of words established by usage as having a meaning not deducible from those of the individual words."
I don't think we really have a word for 'tax deductible contribution given under duress,'
Yes, we do.
This is a tax deductible donation
The correct word is "contribution," not "donation." Modern dictionaries don't draw much distinction between the two words, but if you look at the origin of each word, contribute comes from the latin for "bringing together," and donate comes from the latin for "giving." It is more precisely correct to describe an involuntary transfer of funds that is still tax deductible as a "contribution" rather than a "donation."
To say that Cisco acted voluntarily since their alternative was going to trial is like saying that a mugging victim acted voluntarily giving the thief his wallet, since he had an alternative of being stabbed.
It turns out, as others have said, that they used the correct word in TFA and that the problem is with the /. summary.
Passengers crashing a plane isn't exactly the "end" of airborne terrorism
I never meant to say it was. It was, however, the end of passenger passivity in the face of hijackings due to the expectation of being released unharmed. Never again will box-cutters be sufficient to assure control of an aircraft.
Cisco has agreed to [...] make a monetary donation to the FSF.
Um, that's not a donation.
Donations are gifts. Gifts are given freely, not as a penalty for wrongdoing or in return for dropping a cause of action.
Why bother asking if it's so easy to lie and you can't possible discern the truth anyway?
You'd be surprised how many people would be in that exact same situation without having prepared a good lie up front, and who, if the need arises suddenly, can't come up with a convincing one.
And if they can, then as I said, the clerk has, in my view, met a reasonable duty to insure he isn't contributing to a tort (or perhaps even a crime) against an innocent third party.
Unquestioningly obeying orders went out of style in 1945.
Traffic deaths?
Funny you should mention that.
The security theatre has actually made us less safe than before.
How?
Because by making air travel more expensive, less convenient, and take longer, they have diverted people from airplanes to cars. Since the cars have a far, far higher injury and fatality rate per passenger mile than aircraft, more people will die traveling than had we reacted to the events on 9/11/2001 by doing literally nothing at all.
Hijackings ended on 9/12 because of a simple policy change.
In fact, you're not quite right: the hijackings actually ended before 9/11 did. The passengers on United flight 93 found out about the "policy change" and then took action, preventing their plane from reaching its intended target.
Hey, maybe "Karl" likes to dress up as a "Karen" on the weekend.
As I said in another reply, if the clerk asks and that's the answer, then yes, the clerk will probably comply. But by asking for the explanation, the clerk is no longer negligent.
Sure there is: You can ask. If the guy lies to you, then you're off the hook, because you've exercised due diligence (the bar here is not very high).
Do you think that Kinko's reads and validates the information contained on/in every item they print?
Yes. They absolutely do. They do primarily because they're looking for copyrighted materials, which they refuse to copy. But even so, they have eyes. They have to at least glance at the thing they're copying at the very least to make sure they stick it in the machine the right side up. If I were a clerk, I'd at least give the guy a sideways glance and ask for the story. To suggest that the clerk would take the flyer in this circumstance, look at it, look back at the pervy looking customer and say, "Okie dokie! That'll be $19.95 and ready in 10 minutes!" and not be negligent is laughable.
If this guy were printing out leaflets and handing them out in a parking lot, would she sue the owner of the parking lot? The maker of the guy's printer?
No, but how about if he got those leaflets printed by the local Kinko's? If the leaflets said, "My name is Karen Smith and I'm a dirty slut and will bang you if you call me at [work number]" and the fellow asking the clerk to run off 1000 of them for him is clearly not Karen Smith by any stretch of the imagination, and the clerk runs them off anyway, I'd say that Karen's got a pretty good case against Kinko's for negligence at the very least.
Except I never said anything at all about the actual city of San Francisco and San Jose, I talked about their metropolitan areas.
The city of San Francisco is, due to its history and surrounding terrain, much smaller than its footprint suggests it to be, when compared to comparable cities elsewhere.
As I have said elsewhere, the population of the San Francisco bay area at large exceeds that of the entire state of Arizona. Since Caltrain doesn't visit all of the Bay Area counties, it's fair enough to limit discussion to the counties it *does* visit, in which case you still wind up with a comparable (but larger) population than the combination of the two places that are under discussion in the article.
And that's really the whole point I was trying to make, lo those many, many posts ago. You've succeeded in getting lost in the minutiae rather than grasping the actual point, which was to lend support to the fellow who was suggesting that it would take a half million daily riders by pointing out that a very respectable, established commuter railroad operating in a comparable corridor didn't quite get a tenth of that traffic.
I will admit that I misspoke when I said "size" rather than "population" in the original posting way, way back. But the rest, I stand by.
San Francisco and San Mateo county populations added together exceed the population of Phoenix.
And that leaves out the population of Northern Santa Clara county.
Checkmate.
Might as well compare CalTrain with Phoenix's bus system.
In retrospect, perhaps it's less fair to compare CalTrain to Phoenix' bus system (since that consists of a fairly large number of routes) as it is to compare it to Phoenix' METRO light rail system - which has a daily ridership of.... about 37,000 riders per day.
Might as well compare CalTrain with Phoenix's bus system.
Ok. Do you think Phoenix's bus system's weekday daily ridership is closer to 37,000 or half a million daily riders, which was the daily ridership number the GP was talking about in his thought exercise?
You're talking about a single metro area with 7 million people. You can't compare that with a 4.5 million person metro area and a 1.2 million person metro area with 100 miles of nothing in between them.
Ok. How about the Capitol Corridor, which goes between San Jose and Sacramento? For the last 3 years, it has had a daily ridership of about 3,500. I'm thinking that's not making a better case.
Not in terms of population.
In fact, the San Francisco Bay Area at large has a slightly larger population than the entire state of Arizona.