Peterkro
Mar 13, 05:06 PM
You all seem to be ignoring the elephant in the room.
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
I hope you're not including me in that as I've posted several times on the very subject.I'm not a Malthusian but I agree that human population is something we need to look at,every child a wanted child and cared for child for instance.Why do westerners use so much energy?Because they are not in touch with their environment,airconditioning in cars and homes?wtf for there are technologies hundreds of years old that can deal with that.To me it appears a lot of people work harder and harder for less and less.Bah humans in general are eejits.
The spiralling demand for still more energy.
Someone mentioned California, and their inordinate requirement for 'more power' <ugh, ugh ... thank you Tim>.
How about we stop with the over-population, and working everyone 24-7?
Farmers used to get up with the Sun, and went to bed when it set.
If there is a lost tribe still somewhere that is flourishing, I hope that they never get "discovered".
I hope you're not including me in that as I've posted several times on the very subject.I'm not a Malthusian but I agree that human population is something we need to look at,every child a wanted child and cared for child for instance.Why do westerners use so much energy?Because they are not in touch with their environment,airconditioning in cars and homes?wtf for there are technologies hundreds of years old that can deal with that.To me it appears a lot of people work harder and harder for less and less.Bah humans in general are eejits.
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
leftPCbehind209
Apr 12, 10:37 PM
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
Thanks, I figured as much too. Big improvement from before.
Also, way too many haters here on iMovie. For weddings, it has been so much easier to skim my clips using iMovie than FC. I don't need a whole lot to put a wedding together...iMovie has been perfect...it just lacked majorly in color correction.
luci216
Apr 28, 08:34 AM
The top 3 also have much cheaper models than Apple.. which can contribute to their higher sale spots. Not many people are willing to sell out $1k for a computer, especially internationally. In Brazil, a MBP costs about $3k. DOLLARS. Not many people can afford that..
Xeperu
Apr 26, 01:15 PM
The deal with religious people is to ignore them if you disagree.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
I'm a devout (pun intended) atheist and find the entire notion of a "higher being" absolutely ridiculous.
HOWEVER! I do let religious people practice their religion in peace. An anecdote I tell people goes like this.
I had a friend whose mother was dying of cancer. She prayed to her god and that gave her hope and comfort. SHe believed that her prayers helped her mom and even I didn't try to defy her. It gave her strength and no matter how ridiculous it was, I was happy that it helped her cope.
tl;dr - Practice religion, but don't bother me with it.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
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.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 08:51 AM
I own 3 macs and 5 advices. I have a PhD in electrical engineering and designed microprocessors for 14 years, including microprocessors used in many PCs. I've written millions of lines of source code in C, assembler, C++, etc.
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
And most of the folks I know who use Linux or solaris all day at work to design chips use macs at home and carry iPhones. I don't know a single one of them who uses an android phone (many carry blackberries however).
Shhh. Your experiences are obviously the exception, since they don't conform to his viewpoints.
To be honest, the really "tech savy" ones are the ones who can and do use MULTIPLE platforms. Not just Windows, nor Mac, nor Linux, but a combination of many.
I do love his "IT guy" argument though. I just had a friend's father, 20+ years as an IT Professional, convert over to Mac after getting fed up with the Windows Virus/Malware/other random issues train.
He posted the pic of him in the Apple store looking at an iMac with the caption, "You're doing it right."
:D
ddtlm
Oct 10, 07:55 PM
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
MacRumors
Mar 18, 01:23 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2011/03/18/atandt-cracking-down-on-unauthorized-tethering/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
queen elizabeth ii coronation
0889CHINA - Queen Elizabeth II
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth ii crown.
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth ii coronation
queen elizabeth ii crown
Queen Elizabeth II 1977 Crown
Queen Elizabeth II wears the
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/18/021016-atttext.png
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 08:52 PM
Also try physical keyboards, NFC, OLED screens, WiFi etc. As far as making it through the day is concerned, I can show you how to drain iPhone's battery in 6 hours. What's your point? Use LTE when you need it.
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
Gee, you can't make that argument about ANY other phone now can you :rolleyes:
The point is that many reasons for not using LTE for the iPhone yet involve LTE-inflicted drawbacks because of its current, early stage in its life cycle, and battery life happens to be one of those drawbacks
kdarling
Apr 20, 07:37 PM
Interesting and "generic" use by Apple execs. This could be used against them, as compared to saying that our "App Store" is the largest of any of the available applications stores. Subtle, but significant.
Good catch to all those who noticed Cook's generic use with "we've got the largest app store".
The manual for (my wife's Android) phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Last time I checked online, Apple's official iPhone user manual was 244 pages long.
Not to mention that there's probably a hundred iPhone help books for people who can't figure it out.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in.
Apple's approval of an app does not guarantee that it doesn't have a Trojan or other malware. It simply means that it passes their app rules and doesn't violate copyrights. Each OS update has included fixes for buffer overruns and other holes which could've allowed anyone full access.
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Hardly. Do you mean the ~100,000 who recently downloaded apps that the someone stuck a root kit in, but which otherwise didn't do anything? And which were deleted within minutes of Google finding out?
Good catch to all those who noticed Cook's generic use with "we've got the largest app store".
The manual for (my wife's Android) phone is 156 pages long. I couldn't find the buttons illustrated in it to set up another email address other than Gmail.
Last time I checked online, Apple's official iPhone user manual was 244 pages long.
Not to mention that there's probably a hundred iPhone help books for people who can't figure it out.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in.
Apple's approval of an app does not guarantee that it doesn't have a Trojan or other malware. It simply means that it passes their app rules and doesn't violate copyrights. Each OS update has included fixes for buffer overruns and other holes which could've allowed anyone full access.
Perhaps you didn't realize MILLIONS of Android users downloaded malware.
Hardly. Do you mean the ~100,000 who recently downloaded apps that the someone stuck a root kit in, but which otherwise didn't do anything? And which were deleted within minutes of Google finding out?
chabig
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit.They could, but it would cost a lot more.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
Nope, most people identify with atheism but when challenged to defend their points they just say "because God doesn't exist" or something along those lines. They don't try to do the simple paradox argument, or the existence of evil argument. It would therefore lead me to conclude that they're atheists because they were exposed to it in pop culture or something.
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
When someone tries to say there must be a God because the probability of mankind existing is x I counter it with "In a universe that is thought to be forever cycling through big bangs and big crunches eternally probability becomes meaningless. Intelligent life would eventually evolve anyway, without a divine hand to guide it.
There are arguments and counter-arguments to both camps, which is why I choose to be agnostos. In the face of a dearth of evidence it's more rational to withhold judgment than leap to an extreme position.
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
EDIT: It is not reasonable to imagine that something does exist just because there is no evidence to support its existence (in case this isn't obvious :/ )
JackAxe
Sep 26, 06:27 PM
Glad I didn't shell out the money thinking it was. 64 bit Maya is going to be nice, I'm think its coming when OSX 10.5 hits. I got Maya 8 but have not loaded it yet.
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Nope, Bernard of course. :D
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
BTW, I go to the OSX Maya forum once in while and have seen your name there. Is DD the one that got the full version?
Nope, Bernard of course. :D
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
likemyorbs
Mar 26, 12:49 PM
Wow. Someone should explain to him all the reasons why that is unconstitutional.
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 05:26 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 09:59 AM
Piggie, I think Apple is satisfied with their Mac market trend (climbing) and is viewing phones and tablets as the future (and it's where they make the vast majority of their corporate profits now). And when a family in the UK walks into a store and sees the tablet displays, they will find that the best tablet (iPad) is also the tablet that costs no more than the rivals.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
Since within ten years the average English family will care more about tablets than about desktop PCs or laptops, Apple is on this trend at the right time. Ten years from now no one will care that Apple only makes high-end desktops and laptops.
tteerts
Sep 28, 03:18 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?
PeckhamBog
Apr 20, 05:12 PM
It's interesting how Apple seem to put the customer (and the customer's experience) first and profit big time in the process.
Note to self - note the above.
Note to self - note the above.
NebulaClash
Apr 29, 07:54 AM
A reasonable question, AppleScruff. Indeed, my sample group includes staff, faculty, and students from different disciplines (including business/commerce, and engineering) at a university who use their Macs for research, graduate work, or lecture preparation; a prominent cardiologist at a large hospital; a financial advisor; professional musicians; and many others.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
I am myself using a Mac in a business school seamlessly among my PC-using peers. There is nothing that they can do that I cannot - and many things I can do that they would have a difficult time doing in Windows. In fact, my colleagues have been so impressed that one has already made the switch recently, and another is preparing to switch as well. Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
That's been my observation in the business world as well. With projects often being Web-based now, Windows is becoming irrelevant. On one project with about twenty developers, systems architects and analysts, close to half were running Macbook Pros (no Windows installed) and doing very well. It's just not an issue for many office folks. Obviously there are some roles that still require Windows, but not as many as it used to be. The tech folks in particular seem to take great delight in moving to Macs. Times have changed.
blackcrayon
May 2, 10:38 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
.
They are? I just found this thing to see what's going on. With Open Safe Files enabled, it downloads and unzips, but doesn't execute the package installer. Not sure if that's just people being mistaken or there is something else going on here.
Have you ever downloaded something and it automatically started installing from an Apple .pkg? Is that even possible?
The other funny thing (which I guess might affect less experienced users) is that the fake "Virus Scan" it loads into your web browser looks like Windows XP :) Hey, not only am I infected by malware, but someone installed XP within my Safari window!
shawnce
Sep 26, 11:01 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
In other words your average work load doesn't contain enough concurrent work items that are CPU bound.
What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc. ...some what a nonsensical statement...
Threads of work are spread across available cores automatically. If a thread is ready to run and a core is idle then that thread will run on that core.
Aspects of the "UI" frameworks are multithread and will automatically utilize one or more cores (in some cases the frameworks increase the number of threads they use based on how many cores exist in the system). In other words the UI will already potentially use more then one core on a multi-core system.
The same can happen with OpenGL either now... say if the game developer for example utilizes one or more threads to calculate the game world state and a second thread to call into OpenGL to render that game world ...or by enabling the multithread OpenGL render (only available on Mac Pro systems at this time).
Of course that assumes that the tasks you run are CPU intensive enough to even begin to consume compute resources available to you in new systems... in the end you should measure overall throughput of the work load you want to do, not how utilized your individual core are when doing that work load.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
אין תגובות:
הוסף רשומת תגובה