$6100 dollars for 8 4Gb sticks from the apple store (configuring a mac pro). That's about $400 at newegg.
You're either lying or misinformed. You need DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM for a Mac Pro. That's some beefy stuff on it's own. You're also talking about getting it in 4GB sticks, which is about as big as they make a single stick these days. And you're talking about needing 8 of them to fill the slots available to get to 32GB total. Those are the requirements.
Newegg carries DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM, but only in densities up to 1GB per stick. They're from Crucial and they cost $18.99 as of right now. That's interesting, but that's not what you said. Crucial does actually make 4GB sticks of the correct RAM, but they go for $430 each. Purchasing 8 of them would run you about $3440.
Now, I'll admit that a $2660 premium for getting the RAM configured directly by Apple is a terrible deal - but most everyone already knows by now to never by RAM from Apple. Had you perhaps used real numbers to make your point, it would have stood and no foul committed. Instead, you discredited yourself.
I agree. What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a party game. The very idea that I'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic. Party game means I stick in the disk, hand out controllers and beer and that's it.
I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing. It's supposed to be about 'character progression' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres (RPGs, Sports Career Sims, etc). But that doesn't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out. The gaming market has matured, and we don't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more. We just want to play. Make games like that and I'll start giving you money again.
Animal cruelty doesn't serve an important goal, but slaughter houses do. Disease resistance matters; hair color doesn't. Yes it's all culturally myopic, but it's explainable why the trivial would make people so upset.
And gender? Is that one of the trivial differences or an issue of critical import?
Well, I've always wondered where the line would be drawn, and it's apparently at eye and hair color. To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool - and designing a baby to be a particular sex is also cool. But choosing hair color or eye color, that goes to far.
If someone didn't draw the line for me, I'd never know where it goes. I've never been good at placing arbitrary restrictions on things I don't understand, so thank God for the Pope.
This is currently true. While nobody can publicly discuss the exact terms of the 3.0 payment model without breaking the NDA, you can draw some conclusions by looking at the spirit of the current contracts. In short, the 'free means free' part of the payment model is to keep you from making a free app and then charging for it in some way other than the app store. In effect, they're saying that you must Give Unto Caesar or GTFO (or go free). Trying to get around giving Apple their cut is a good way to be stuck in the 'unexpected delays' black hole.
With 3.0 offering in-app micro payments, you can now Give Unto Caesar with every transaction - so why NOT offer a lite->pro upgrade path? Apple still gets their tax, you get a cleaner process, the user is a lot less confused, and you can modularize your app like a good little developer. Everybody wins.
Yeah, the portables and the iMac lines all support a 2nd screen, but then you're splitting your (already lacking) video card in half. That's great for me while I'm working all day, but some of us want to play some games too, and I pay for that 2nd screen dearly with my framerates.
This is correct. Since you can't move data to or from the phone without using a network, and there is no means to do P2P direct sharing (until 3.0) a lot of developers ended up rolling their own servers. It's not uncommon to see embedded web servers in apps in order to facilitate sharing.
Honestly, it drives you nuts to have your users asking things like "Why can't I just drop documents on iTunes and sync them?" and have to answer with "I don't know - ask Apple". Moving data to and from the phone is currently a nightmare - which is really strange considering how many different connection mechanisms it has built into it.
I'll second this. I keep trying to figure out what all these people are doing with their mice that the cord could possibly hinder. I just don't see the justification in trading off the performance and simplicity of a good corded mice for input lag, configuration issues and battery swapping - all so I can flail my mouse hand around a little harder. My mouse hand only moves a couple of inches tops. Including while gaming.
For $40 I can buy a really nice multi button corded Logitech. For the same price, I get a bargain basement wireless that comes with a pile of hassle. The only real value I can see to the wireless mice is that you can sell them to people by saying "but it has no wires -- oooooooh!"
500GB isn't feasible with current optical tech, either. This won't change that unless the burn speed is better than writing to an external HD. Everyone using the whole 'how long to get the data across town' argument aren't factoring in the burn and read time from relatively slow optical disks. This is particularly true if you're trying to get 500GB of data onto 4.5GB DVDs (or even 50GB Dual Layer BD). Give me FW800 to an external 1TB HD and an Audi TT* and I'll show you throughput.
Really, this is solving the wrong problem unless it brings some other compelling advantage. If one of these disks had a shelf life of 100 years or something, then we'd be talking. As a basic storage or data transfer mechanism, I'm not impressed.
Damn, and my mod points just expired last night. This is dead on. Looking at any of Google's services independently is completely missing the point of what it is that Google does.
Does anyone with access to the new SDK know if certs have been added to the thing?
I'd answer that for you, but ever since the event this morning the entire iPhone dev center has been MIA and unavailable. Which is awesome since today happened to be the 'get the QA team devices provisioned' party. I've got a pile of people bitching at me to get our build moving forward and I can't do a damned thing.
Please, please, please pretty please stop trying to 'optimize' sites for the iPhone. It has a perfectly functional browser that deals with normal web pages just fine. Just build a normal standards compliant page that scales gracefully - which you should be doing anyway.
Sadly, it was generally overpriveledged yuppies or 18 year old punks that needed them more...
In my experience, those spots are almost universally occupied by an SUV with a legitimate tag hanging from the rear view mirror. Of course, then you see that 250 pound GOD BLESS AMERICAN waddling over to it. I guess when you're fat enough to develop late onset adult diabetes you get to walk less?
That just seems backwards. They should give all those fat asses a special tag and designated spots on the far side of the parking lot.
Nobody seems to have brought this up, but Apple patenting this at the level they are basically makes it impossible to develop for the iPhone unless you are using the default framework widgets. If you want to do any of your own event tracking and gesture handling, you are violating the patent.
The UIKit framework provides all kinds of interesting controls for you to use that implement the behaviors they are talking about in this patent, but it also provides a generic touch tracking API that you are supposed to use to do your own gesture tracking. The problem is, anything you do in those touch tracking methods will require you to apply 'heuristics' to determine a 'command'. That is, in fact, exactly the way the low level touch tracking API is designed to work.
Want to have a custom view that allows you to scroll but don't want to use Apple's bundled UIScrollView? You violate the patent. Want to show a list of items and allow clicking one to view details without using Apple's UITableView? Patent violation. Want to follow the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as published by Apple and make pinch/spread handle zoom but don't want to use a UIScrollView? Violation.
There are already countless applications on the App Store that violate this patent. Can we really expect Apple to start filing lawsuits against the very developers who make the platform interesting? Are they really saying "You can develop for our platform, but you can't actually do anything that includes handling touch input."?
d'oh, were I write "carpet" I obviously wanted to say "folder". "Folder" is translated to spanish as "carpeta", and I always confuse them.
Oh thank god. I was having a real Monty Python moment there trying to figure out which silly mental disorder you were trying to emulate. I kept expecting Graham Chapman to come strolling up in uniform barking "Right then! Stop this! It's too silly!".
There isn't a designated drinking area for the alcoholics, or a designated shooting-up area for the heroin addicts. So why should there be a special area for those addicted to nicotine?
Drinking and drug use while on the job isn't acceptable because those activities cause impairment. Smoking is a personal habit akin to drinking coffee, soda or some other socially acceptable form of non impairing recreational substance use. The difference between nicotine and caffeine is that caffeine doesn't produce 'second hand coffee', so it's polite to move yourself away from everyone else while you do it - hence the desire to have a designated smoking area. Even if that designated area is 'out back behind the building where nobody can see or smell you'. If you really need someone to explain that to you, I worry for your future.
Wow - that's all completely unconscionable, if not downright illegal. They can prohibit you from smoking on their grounds, sure, but they certainly don't have any right to force you to open your car nor can they stop you from leaving the grounds on your time to have a smoke.
I'm glad to see you've removed yourself from that situation. As an ex-smoker, I feel the pains from both sides of the argument. While I understand that there are valid concerns for the rights of the non-smoking population, lets not forget that smokers have rights too.
Is there not a designated smoking area for these people? If so, how does the dog tell the difference between a worker who smoked in the designated area verses someone who snuck one someplace inappropriate?
You seem to be surprisingly accepting of genuinely gestapo methodologies.
You have yet to provide any evidence of "gestapo methodologies."
You've advocated fences around the country, roaming checkpoints and adopting an attitude of complacence in front of the police at all times. That sounds a lot like the definition of gestapo. In fact, that sounds an awful lot like East Germany.
You and I may agree that the police have a job to do in terms of upholding the laws of our country. I do not, however, condone the unwarranted harassment of innocent citizens in the pursuit of that goal. I'm not alone in this position, either, since the founding fathers explicitly wrote that bit into the constitution.
Only if you buy them in cases of 6. It's hard to justify the upfront investment if there's a possibility you won't use them all before the expiration date.
The actual simplest way would be a good solid fence, but there are people who hate that idea with a passion bordering on insanity for some reason (such as, they don't actually WANT the law enforced).
No, it's because that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Unless you have someone actually watching the entire length of that fence 24/7, it may as well not be there. If you've got someone watching the fence 24/7, why do you need the fence?
If they need checkpoints up to 100 miles inland, then it strongly implies that (a) they aren't doing their job right the first time, or(b) it's just an excuse for the county to earn a few bucks at the expense of recreational drug users, DUI's, and other low-hanging fruit.
No, it's a reaction to the smugglers who are trying to circumvent the at-the-border searches.
And what's to stop them from walking around that one? Maybe another checkpoint further up the road? Perhaps we should just install checkpoints every 50 miles on every major road just in case.
Link Please. If he was really a "card-carrying member of the ACLU" I'm willing to bet he was trying to provoke a "story" and did something else, like start physically pushing the officers at the stop, to give police probable cause to detain him while they got a search warrant.
Yeah - people like this jackass, that tool Martin Luther King, Jr. and that Rosa Parks bitch should just shut up, sit down and be nice, quiet law abiding citizens.
You seem to be surprisingly accepting of genuinely gestapo methodologies.
Actually, they FILTERED cheap vodka in that episode - then compared it to unfiltered top shelf stuff. Incidentally, the 'vodka expert' they had on put every single filtration level they produced - up to the unfiltered top shelf vodka - in exactly the correct order in a blind taste test. Impressive.
Result? Filtration will indeed improve the flavor of your shitty vodka, but good vodka still tastes better.
Slashdot Mirror
You're either lying or misinformed. You need DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM for a Mac Pro. That's some beefy stuff on it's own. You're also talking about getting it in 4GB sticks, which is about as big as they make a single stick these days. And you're talking about needing 8 of them to fill the slots available to get to 32GB total. Those are the requirements.
Newegg carries DDR3 PC3-8500 ECC RAM, but only in densities up to 1GB per stick. They're from Crucial and they cost $18.99 as of right now. That's interesting, but that's not what you said. Crucial does actually make 4GB sticks of the correct RAM, but they go for $430 each. Purchasing 8 of them would run you about $3440.
Now, I'll admit that a $2660 premium for getting the RAM configured directly by Apple is a terrible deal - but most everyone already knows by now to never by RAM from Apple. Had you perhaps used real numbers to make your point, it would have stood and no foul committed. Instead, you discredited yourself.
I agree. What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a party game. The very idea that I'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic. Party game means I stick in the disk, hand out controllers and beer and that's it.
I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing. It's supposed to be about 'character progression' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres (RPGs, Sports Career Sims, etc). But that doesn't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out. The gaming market has matured, and we don't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more. We just want to play. Make games like that and I'll start giving you money again.
And gender? Is that one of the trivial differences or an issue of critical import?
Well, I've always wondered where the line would be drawn, and it's apparently at eye and hair color. To sum up, designing a baby to be resistant to over 70 diseases is cool - and designing a baby to be a particular sex is also cool. But choosing hair color or eye color, that goes to far.
If someone didn't draw the line for me, I'd never know where it goes. I've never been good at placing arbitrary restrictions on things I don't understand, so thank God for the Pope.
This is currently true. While nobody can publicly discuss the exact terms of the 3.0 payment model without breaking the NDA, you can draw some conclusions by looking at the spirit of the current contracts. In short, the 'free means free' part of the payment model is to keep you from making a free app and then charging for it in some way other than the app store. In effect, they're saying that you must Give Unto Caesar or GTFO (or go free). Trying to get around giving Apple their cut is a good way to be stuck in the 'unexpected delays' black hole.
With 3.0 offering in-app micro payments, you can now Give Unto Caesar with every transaction - so why NOT offer a lite->pro upgrade path? Apple still gets their tax, you get a cleaner process, the user is a lot less confused, and you can modularize your app like a good little developer. Everybody wins.
Two screens.
Yeah, the portables and the iMac lines all support a 2nd screen, but then you're splitting your (already lacking) video card in half. That's great for me while I'm working all day, but some of us want to play some games too, and I pay for that 2nd screen dearly with my framerates.
This also has the advantage of meshing with basically every single OS metaphor in common usage. Kitchen?!
This is correct. Since you can't move data to or from the phone without using a network, and there is no means to do P2P direct sharing (until 3.0) a lot of developers ended up rolling their own servers. It's not uncommon to see embedded web servers in apps in order to facilitate sharing.
Honestly, it drives you nuts to have your users asking things like "Why can't I just drop documents on iTunes and sync them?" and have to answer with "I don't know - ask Apple". Moving data to and from the phone is currently a nightmare - which is really strange considering how many different connection mechanisms it has built into it.
And how many of those millions aren't already included in the millions they have from the iPhone? Or the iTunes Music Store?
No, I don't buy it - and I bet Apple won't either!
DON'T DATE ROBOTS!
I'll second this. I keep trying to figure out what all these people are doing with their mice that the cord could possibly hinder. I just don't see the justification in trading off the performance and simplicity of a good corded mice for input lag, configuration issues and battery swapping - all so I can flail my mouse hand around a little harder. My mouse hand only moves a couple of inches tops. Including while gaming.
For $40 I can buy a really nice multi button corded Logitech. For the same price, I get a bargain basement wireless that comes with a pile of hassle. The only real value I can see to the wireless mice is that you can sell them to people by saying "but it has no wires -- oooooooh!"
500GB isn't feasible with current optical tech, either. This won't change that unless the burn speed is better than writing to an external HD. Everyone using the whole 'how long to get the data across town' argument aren't factoring in the burn and read time from relatively slow optical disks. This is particularly true if you're trying to get 500GB of data onto 4.5GB DVDs (or even 50GB Dual Layer BD). Give me FW800 to an external 1TB HD and an Audi TT* and I'll show you throughput.
Really, this is solving the wrong problem unless it brings some other compelling advantage. If one of these disks had a shelf life of 100 years or something, then we'd be talking. As a basic storage or data transfer mechanism, I'm not impressed.
* No really. Give me one.
Damn, and my mod points just expired last night. This is dead on. Looking at any of Google's services independently is completely missing the point of what it is that Google does.
I'd answer that for you, but ever since the event this morning the entire iPhone dev center has been MIA and unavailable. Which is awesome since today happened to be the 'get the QA team devices provisioned' party. I've got a pile of people bitching at me to get our build moving forward and I can't do a damned thing.
Please, please, please pretty please stop trying to 'optimize' sites for the iPhone. It has a perfectly functional browser that deals with normal web pages just fine. Just build a normal standards compliant page that scales gracefully - which you should be doing anyway.
In my experience, those spots are almost universally occupied by an SUV with a legitimate tag hanging from the rear view mirror. Of course, then you see that 250 pound GOD BLESS AMERICAN waddling over to it. I guess when you're fat enough to develop late onset adult diabetes you get to walk less?
That just seems backwards. They should give all those fat asses a special tag and designated spots on the far side of the parking lot.
Nobody seems to have brought this up, but Apple patenting this at the level they are basically makes it impossible to develop for the iPhone unless you are using the default framework widgets. If you want to do any of your own event tracking and gesture handling, you are violating the patent.
The UIKit framework provides all kinds of interesting controls for you to use that implement the behaviors they are talking about in this patent, but it also provides a generic touch tracking API that you are supposed to use to do your own gesture tracking. The problem is, anything you do in those touch tracking methods will require you to apply 'heuristics' to determine a 'command'. That is, in fact, exactly the way the low level touch tracking API is designed to work.
Want to have a custom view that allows you to scroll but don't want to use Apple's bundled UIScrollView? You violate the patent. Want to show a list of items and allow clicking one to view details without using Apple's UITableView? Patent violation. Want to follow the iPhone Human Interface Guidelines as published by Apple and make pinch/spread handle zoom but don't want to use a UIScrollView? Violation.
There are already countless applications on the App Store that violate this patent. Can we really expect Apple to start filing lawsuits against the very developers who make the platform interesting? Are they really saying "You can develop for our platform, but you can't actually do anything that includes handling touch input."?
Oh thank god. I was having a real Monty Python moment there trying to figure out which silly mental disorder you were trying to emulate. I kept expecting Graham Chapman to come strolling up in uniform barking "Right then! Stop this! It's too silly!".
Drinking and drug use while on the job isn't acceptable because those activities cause impairment. Smoking is a personal habit akin to drinking coffee, soda or some other socially acceptable form of non impairing recreational substance use. The difference between nicotine and caffeine is that caffeine doesn't produce 'second hand coffee', so it's polite to move yourself away from everyone else while you do it - hence the desire to have a designated smoking area. Even if that designated area is 'out back behind the building where nobody can see or smell you'. If you really need someone to explain that to you, I worry for your future.
I can't believe I responded to that...
Wow - that's all completely unconscionable, if not downright illegal. They can prohibit you from smoking on their grounds, sure, but they certainly don't have any right to force you to open your car nor can they stop you from leaving the grounds on your time to have a smoke.
I'm glad to see you've removed yourself from that situation. As an ex-smoker, I feel the pains from both sides of the argument. While I understand that there are valid concerns for the rights of the non-smoking population, lets not forget that smokers have rights too.
Is there not a designated smoking area for these people? If so, how does the dog tell the difference between a worker who smoked in the designated area verses someone who snuck one someplace inappropriate?
You've advocated fences around the country, roaming checkpoints and adopting an attitude of complacence in front of the police at all times. That sounds a lot like the definition of gestapo. In fact, that sounds an awful lot like East Germany.
You and I may agree that the police have a job to do in terms of upholding the laws of our country. I do not, however, condone the unwarranted harassment of innocent citizens in the pursuit of that goal. I'm not alone in this position, either, since the founding fathers explicitly wrote that bit into the constitution.
Only if you buy them in cases of 6. It's hard to justify the upfront investment if there's a possibility you won't use them all before the expiration date.
No, it's because that's a fucking ridiculous idea. Unless you have someone actually watching the entire length of that fence 24/7, it may as well not be there. If you've got someone watching the fence 24/7, why do you need the fence?
And what's to stop them from walking around that one? Maybe another checkpoint further up the road? Perhaps we should just install checkpoints every 50 miles on every major road just in case.
Yeah - people like this jackass, that tool Martin Luther King, Jr. and that Rosa Parks bitch should just shut up, sit down and be nice, quiet law abiding citizens.
You seem to be surprisingly accepting of genuinely gestapo methodologies.
Actually, they FILTERED cheap vodka in that episode - then compared it to unfiltered top shelf stuff. Incidentally, the 'vodka expert' they had on put every single filtration level they produced - up to the unfiltered top shelf vodka - in exactly the correct order in a blind taste test. Impressive.
Result? Filtration will indeed improve the flavor of your shitty vodka, but good vodka still tastes better.