slinger1968
Oct 26, 09:39 PM
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.I've seen this comment on numerous posts and it sounds like people haven't read Anand's review.
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
It's not very easy to get to the CPUs, nothing like a simple swap.
I've built loads of PCs in the last 12+ years and even I would be a little reluctant to rip apart a $2500 to $3000 Mac Pro like anand did to swap out the chips.
It's an easy swap for Apple in the manufacturing process, but not for the consumer.
Read the report. Apple doesn't want people to be able to upgrade their CPUs
MacRumors
Jul 14, 02:03 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
Apple's forthcoming Mac Pro will sport dual Optical Drive slots, if a recent report from AppleInsider (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1886) pans out. In addition, the power supply is rumored to be moved from the bottom of the enclosure to the top. Otherwise, the enclosure would remain largely unchanged from today's PowerMac G5 design.
ThinkSecret currently believes (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060704122932.shtml) the Mac Pro enclosure change will be a more radical departure from the present design to signify the processor change.
Also mentioned in the article is an independent report of possible specifications for the new machines with the "Best" configuration topping out at two 2.66 Ghz Xeon processors. This anonymous source sent possible specs for the Mac Pro to both MacRumors and Appleinsider, and while the validity of the specs are uncertain, the anonymous specs also independently claimed the new Mac Pro would have two optical drives.
red0n
Jun 9, 05:12 PM
I have never had a single call dropped. Here in Orlando I get full service and data speeds of about 450Kb p/s!
Haha
Haha
mostman
Sep 20, 04:06 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Its an Airport Express for Video. Simple as that.
And I think you are significantly misunderstanding how much impact on the market a device like this will have. This is the way to marry the television to your digital content. People don't want a PC in the living room - but they do want to see their photos, watch their videos and listen to their music on their couch - using their television as a display.
These things will sell like crazy. Without DVR functionality. Remember, the DVR market is still small. Small enough to call 'fledgling'. Apple is nothing if not smart about taking proven market verticals and cleaning them up for the consumer. Small steps.
-Mike
Its an Airport Express for Video. Simple as that.
And I think you are significantly misunderstanding how much impact on the market a device like this will have. This is the way to marry the television to your digital content. People don't want a PC in the living room - but they do want to see their photos, watch their videos and listen to their music on their couch - using their television as a display.
These things will sell like crazy. Without DVR functionality. Remember, the DVR market is still small. Small enough to call 'fledgling'. Apple is nothing if not smart about taking proven market verticals and cleaning them up for the consumer. Small steps.
-Mike
macmax
Oct 9, 02:35 AM
Originally posted by javajedi
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
Come on.. lets get real..
1) Macs don't use shared libraries? You must be using System 6. For the folks who aren't familiar with the concept of the shared library (what Microsoft calls a dynamic link library) simply put shared libs are object orientated pieces of code containing functions/methods and other objects that can be invoked upon from other code. Mac OS X being highly object orientated relies almost exclusively on shared libraries. In the modern world of software engineering we rarely find it necessary to statically build an executable. If you look back at OS 7/8/9, while not as much as 10, developers could take advantage of off the shelf code. (eg, sprockets, mp lib, etc). Also you are not accurate in saying OS X is a 25 year old archiecture.
1.5) Microsoft OS's that use versions of the Windows 2000 kernel (2000 itself and XP) just like Mach, have a hardware abstraction layer. The "DLL Hell" days (Windows ME and below) are over. This is no longer an issue with the new kernel. The fact of the matter is that my P4 2.8 machine running XP is equally as stable as my PowerBook G4 800 running Mac OS X. I have not *ONCE* had either one core dump or "blue screen". Sure programs screw up, and when they do, they die, not the OS. Both OS's are very mature.
2.) I have *literally* put my PC up against my PowerBook, and the PowerBook fails miserably. I've wrote a simple stopwatch Java application that iterate through floating point instructions, and if I my PC finished 2.5 times faster than the PowerBook. If you want more details (hell I'll even give you the code) of my app, I'll be glad to share it with the community. Playing/decoding MP3's faster on the Mac? No way in hell. Winamp uses 0-1% CPU, iTunes consumes 8-12%.
3.) You speak of flaws of the "x86 architecture" but do not provide us specifics as to why you say this. The x86 processor began in the late 70's when Intel first offered the 8086 as a CISC successor to it's 4004 line of processors. Many, many things have changed over the course of 20 years. Had they sit still (like the G4/motorola chip) intel wouldn't be selling products today, now would they? The G4 is not much more than an improved G3 series processor with vector processing instructions. Be honest (especially be honest to yourself!) if you look back and compare the G3/G4, you do see improvements, but not drastic improvements. More clock, the maxbus protocol (debatable), and more cache. One of the reasons why you see Apple adding cache like mad to it's recent products is because they are in between a rock and hard place with this Motorola chip. This is exactly the same approach AMD took with their failing processor, the K5/K6. I want you to contrast this to a P4 with an i850e chipset: Insanely high clock speeds, a 533mhz bus, fast memory with RIMMs @ 4.2GB/s, with a next stop of 9.6GB/s -- to MaxBus. You will soon see why the current generation of PowerPC processors is "inferior", dare I say it.
For the most part I think its fare to say that the current Macintosh hardware performance is �status-quo�. The current best of breed of Macintoshes are slower than the current best of bread PCs. Mac�s are slower - just accept it. I don�t like it any more than you do.
my pc with xp pro ed did crash a few times and it does.
on the other hand , my macs with os x do not
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:32 PM
i don't see a single pci express 16 x slot on any of the dell poweredge servers, what site are you looking at?
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
even intel's reference 5000 series motherboards for woodcrest lacks 16x pci express.
will be interesting to see.
Why are you looking at servers? that would be XServe. We're talking workstations here. Go to Dell's Precision workstation series for the medium&large businesses.
Multimedia
Sep 28, 01:35 PM
Anyone notice that Apple also released Logic Express & Pro 7.2.3 updates both now supporting 4 cores Wednesday as well as iTunes update 7.0.1?
Apple releases Logic Pro, Logic Express updates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2089)
"Apple also noted that Logic Pro 7.2.3 is optimized for PowerPC G4, G5 and Intel based Macs with up to 2 dual-core processors." Same is true for Logic Express.
This is a very big evolutionary multicore support step for the Logic gang. Finally gives me incentive to want to buy Logic Pro.I find it was posted here on page 2 yesterday.Thanks for the heads up.
Apple releases Logic Pro, Logic Express updates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2089)
"Apple also noted that Logic Pro 7.2.3 is optimized for PowerPC G4, G5 and Intel based Macs with up to 2 dual-core processors." Same is true for Logic Express.
This is a very big evolutionary multicore support step for the Logic gang. Finally gives me incentive to want to buy Logic Pro.I find it was posted here on page 2 yesterday.Thanks for the heads up.
Draythor
Apr 13, 04:33 PM
GGJstudios
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
Thanks, man. I connect to other drives so rarely that I have never bothered to look this up myself.
OT: Does anyone one know why Apple hasn't got this built in? Licensing rights?
leekohler
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's about power and control- nothing more.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:11 PM
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
Good for you.
I'm a former iPhone user.
The cost difference in an Android was great, and I don't regret it one bit because the experience is far superior FOR ME.
Live and let live, your iPhone is not a Ferrari.
citizenzen
Apr 22, 09:38 PM
... if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
Proof sufficient for their own self, or for those they can convince of it.
Insufficient for those who require some form of evidence.
This same argument has been going on for thousands of years. No one has been able to provide tangible, testable proof that God exists.
No one.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:04 AM
Well�we can argue whether Canadians support a real military but we don�t have to go there. :p
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
All I�m saying is that any respectable military has to prepare for sending a large group of soldiers into known suicide missions. This is what �cannon fodder� is. Sometimes you can�t hide it from the warrior. Sometimes they WILL KNOW that they will die. But this is absolutely necessary to purposely sacrifice their lives in order to achieve a strategic goal�or even victory. It�s much easier if these warriors are imprinted with the idea of �god and heaven�.
Now, in these stupid overwhelmingly �crushing an inferior force� type of wars we�ve been engaged in, perhaps these situations don�t come up as much. Or if they do, you can hand pick a couple of �zealots� to do the job. But if there was a �real war�, like for example, if oil gets scarce and Europe turns on each other� Don�t laugh. If the �middle east� turn on each other all the time for oil, it can happen to �the west� too. You would be real arrogant to think that you are so much �better� than them. And if you ARE that arrogant about being a �sophisticated Westerner� think about China�or Russia.
Hey, maybe our fighting force will be so robotic one day that it doesn�t matter. War will become an ego contest between engineers and no blood will be shed. But until the technology becomes reality, we still need cannon fodder capability for potential tight situations. ;)
I did address the cannon fodder issue in another thread. The military uses psycological tools like ceremony and symbolism to "honor and glorify" it's dead as motivational tools. Religion may have been used in the past but in a military system composed of so many disparate religions, it would be difficult to use religious motivation these days in any meaningful ways. Perhaps since the US military is made up primarily of black (Baptist) and Hispanic (Catholic) soldiers, it's easier to use religious motivation on them. As I said, from my personal experience, religion is not a motivational force in a modern army.
LimeiBook86
Apr 15, 09:14 AM
Pixar did a similar video like this, it was the first one I've seen. Glad to see Apple doing one as well. :) Great idea, very nice! :D
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
emotion
Sep 21, 11:25 AM
The Quadro in the WMCE really puts up a superb 1080p picture - not sure that I'd want to compress the signal and send it over wireless...
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
Technically you're not compressing the signal. Just the file (which will be cached if the network can't cope). The signal is produced locally.
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:06 PM
And the HD capabilities of iTV exceed Eyehome.
You do recognize that there is not currently an HD system in place from Apple. If HD streaming does work, and I'm certainly not convinced of that at this point, you still have to shoehorn the entire system. The content you purchase from iTunes is not in HD and probably won't be for at least a year, probably 2-3. Therefore, the only HD content will be content that you added on your own, via 3rd party solutions.
So enjoy your patchwork HD system, I'd prefer something more seamless, and supported by Apple.
You do recognize that there is not currently an HD system in place from Apple. If HD streaming does work, and I'm certainly not convinced of that at this point, you still have to shoehorn the entire system. The content you purchase from iTunes is not in HD and probably won't be for at least a year, probably 2-3. Therefore, the only HD content will be content that you added on your own, via 3rd party solutions.
So enjoy your patchwork HD system, I'd prefer something more seamless, and supported by Apple.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:10 AM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
Red-red
Apr 9, 08:26 PM
Sorry I have such a small brain.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
I never said you had a small brain at any point nor did I ever insinuate you were stupid.
Not understanding something doesn't make anyone stupid.
Apple really messed up hiring those 2 guys with years of experience working in the gaming industry. They could have just hired you. A person who has all the answers and can see the future.
They've hired two people who work in PR. Probably for their contacts and influence. Their hiring has little to do with Apple's direction into gaming.
They're already well established and have their direction planned out. All you need to do is connect the dots to see where they're heading.
In all seriousness. I am a gamer and a consumer, and if Apple wants to make gaming a MORE serious part of there business, then I want a controller with buttons and a console or someway to stream off of the Internet.
You're not getting a controller with buttons. It isn't happening.
You have to look at it not by what "you" want "now". It's typical of tech forums because people find it very hard to distinguish between the two.
Is it what I want? I'm not so sure. It's an interesting concept and the potential is certainly huge not only for gaming but app's.
Whether we'll see fully fledged games like we're used to or it'll continue to be a foray into the casual is something else that we don't really know yet. It's up to developers to create the apps & games to drive the platform and ecosystem forward but the potential would certainly be there and as we see more and more people shift toward these devices the desire for more complex forms of entertainment will increase.
We've only scratched the surface.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 03:42 PM
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
Don't panic
Mar 15, 03:14 PM
Well, not that I hope he's right, but words like these from people of high up places don't give any comfort.
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Europe's energy commissioner Guenther Oettinger dubs Japan's nuclear disaster an "apocalypse,"
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20110315/wl_afp/japanquakelivereport
yes, but it's a figure of speech.
however bad a realistic worst case scenario would be, it will not require permanent evacuation of anything but a few tens of square miles, if that.
for example, this is not going to be as bad as chernobyl by any stretch of imagination, since the design and built of the plant is much safer, and this uses water for cooling instead of graphite which is itself flammable. And in chernobyl, only the immediate surroundings and another area where the fallout was massive are still off-limits.
In addition, this plant is on the seashore, so about half of the contamination will be dispersed into the ocean.
on a separate note, i can confirm takao's post that many japanese cities have built "tsunami walls" including one of the cities shown in one of the videos (where you can clearly see the water coing over a wall and waterfalling into the city. It might have been inefective in a tsunami this massive, but I am sure they can work on smaller ones. One of the California nuclear power plant on the coast also has a similar 25 feet wall.
I also agree with takao on the bizarre design of putting the spent rods in a pool on top of the reactor and without any containment other than the cooling water and the roof.
it seems clearly a design flaw which hopefully will be/has been taken care of in other designs and fixes
Evangelion
Jul 12, 04:13 AM
Considering I mostly watch hdtv from satellite, neither platform is of any use. And who cares, I have a hdtivo that works like a champ. Let me know when mce can record Deadwood in HD. And let me know how I can hook up an xbox 360 to my hdtv via dvi/hdmi.
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
And whuteva about building your own comp for a penny. You get a gold star. Apple is going to cost more. So is HP, Dell, Sony, and any other tier 1 manufacturer. Then again, a computer from Apple isn't going to come in a $20 plastic chrome-plated case that looks like a transformer.
Everything is just cheaper? Tell me, in what what intel macs can you toss those x1600xt cards into? Or is pc ram somehow cheaper? Oh wait, must be those pc-only hard drives right? And I'm wondering what core duo laptops you can buy that are 4x faster than a macbook pro and only cost $900. Cause I'll sign up right now and buy one. Hell, I'll buy 2. One for me and one for you. It only has to cost 1/3 the price of a macbook pro and offer 4x the speed, and otherwise be similar (weight, display, main features).
And your running xp on your mac? Is it xp or mce? And your using a pirated copy? Cause if you actually purchased a copy, it sort of explains why you think your comp is expensive... since you spent an extra 100-150 on it...
And finally... you have a black macbook pro? I'm impressed. :P So did you use Krylon?
I believe I just fed the troll... I'm guessing that since you don't seem to know what kind of laptop you have. And considering that most of what you said is not based in fact. It's something a 12yo pc fanboy would say.
Dude, take a chill-pill. Why does it matter so much to you if he uses XP?
carfac
Sep 12, 06:55 PM
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
1) It does stream HD content -- Just because the iTunes content is NOT HD (it is near DVD) does not mean the DEVICE is not capable. In fact it uses the HDMI connector (as well as S and componet video) and the built in wireless AND gigabit ethernet insure the bandwidth is there for future HD content.
OK, I will grant this- but the software is (NOT YET) HD. Suppose it will be, though. But the TIVO is also HD, so the point is mute
2) The iTV defeats TIVO in NOT NEEDING a Hard Drive. The PC or MAC Desktop BECOMES the Media Server.
And you see this as an advantage??? I do not have much HD space left, so I must buy ANOTHER box for that, too? No, I want it all in one. Point TIVO
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
ANOTHER Flipping Box for me to add??? So I have iTV, a Mac, Another HD, and now this???? Vs. a TIVO box. Yeah, no brainer here! Tivo Point
4) HD DVD -- With Blue Ray forthcoming, the Mac can still add DVD content to iTunes and then stream to iTV.
Look at the box- no room for an optivcal drive. So, add one to my mac, or add another flipping box. On top of whick, do you REALLY think the studios are going to let something out that will easily go to a disk? No Point.
5) Multiple Streams/Multiple TVs -- iTV beats Tivo in that you can use multiple iTV's connected to a powerful desktop to service multiple monitors using the Front Row Interface.
You have never set up a Tivo, have you? No Point.
6) The platform to expand: Apple's resources are superior to Tivo's and they will evolve beyond Tivo in the coming 2 years
This is an arguement with no basis. Why, because you say so? Because you are an Apple Fan Boy, and apple can do no wrong?
The thing is, I do not want 500 boxes in my living room, and 400 remotes to control all the different aspects of it. I want something all in one box, that works without me having to add something.
This MAY be an option for techno-nerds and such, but it is by no means a Tivo Killer- it does not even compare.
d
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
crees!
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
