Queso
Oct 26, 09:56 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
Rodimus Prime
Mar 13, 04:48 PM
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
wind is not considered fine. We can only count on about 30% of it at any one time. Biggest plus they provide us is that it reduces the stress on our other systems. They allow other power planets to run at lower points and not burn as much fuel.
30% is not considered a good back bone.
Energy storage is yes a problem. We can store some but it is not cost effective.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 11:47 PM
It's believed that the Higgs Boson exists but as yet there is no proof of its existence. Despite this respected physicists continue to try and prove its existence.
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
There are many things we believe in the existence of despite lack of tangible proof.
The Higgs Boson is something that is speculated to exist based on mathematical models and observation of other properties in theory. Therefore they try to "look for it" in order to confirm their models.
Einstein's special relativity was also speculated to exist based on mathematical models. And there was no way to observe that and "prove" that those phenomenon exist until modern equipment was invented...like GPS.
Even when Einstein derived that light travels in "particles", it explained a lot of things, but it isn't really until now that we use "photons" to bombard atoms to do quantum mechanical work...like solar panels. But they were derived to exist based on some other doctrine that works in real life (not just your mind).
There is a line between using an established doctrine to determine something can exist vs. "faith" in something that exists with no basis to draw upon other than some book written thousands of years ago...presumably. That's why it's called "faith".
bruinsrme
Apr 24, 04:38 PM
I figured I'd use this wonderful Easter Sunday (a day spent celebrating the beginning of Spring and absolutely nothing else), to pose a question that I have.... What's the deal with religious people? After many a spirited thread about religion, I still can't wrap my head around what keeps people in the faith nowadays. I'm not talking about those people in third world nations, who have lived their entire lives under religion and know of nothing else. I'm talking about your Americans (North and South), your Europeans, the people who have access to any information they want to get (and some they don't) who should know better by now. And yet, in thread after thread, these people still swear that their way is the only way. No matter what logic you use, they can twist the words from their holy books and change the meaning of things to, in their minds, completely back up their point of view. Is it stubbornness, the inability to admit that you were wrong about something so important for so long? Is it fear? If I admit this is BS, I go to hell? Simple ignorance? Please remember, I'm not talking about just believing in a higher power, I mean those who believe in religion, Jews, Christian, etc.
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
Insert Mac, PC, Windows and/or OSX where appropriate and you can have the same argument
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:51 PM
Until Vista and Win 7, it was effectively impossible to run a Windows NT system as anything but Administrator. To the point that other than locked-down corporate sites where an IT Professional was required to install the Corporate Approved version of any software you need to do your job, I never knew anyone running XP (or 2k, or for that matter NT 3.x) who in a day-to-day fashion used a Standard user account.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
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...
In contrast, an "Administrator" account on OS X was in reality a limited user account, just with some system-level privileges like being able to install apps that other people could run. A "Standard" user account was far more usable on OS X than the equivalent on Windows, because "Standard" users could install software into their user sandbox, etc. Still, most people I know run OS X as Administrator.
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.
It's no different than if instead of writing my preferences to $HOME/.myapp/ I'd write a software that required writing everything to /usr/share/myapp/username/. That would require root in any decent Unix installation, or it would require me to set permissions on that folder to 775 and make all users of myapp part of the owning group. Or I could just go the lazy route, make the binary 4755 and set mount opts to suid on the filesystem where this binary resides... (ugh...).
This is no different on Windows NT based architectures. If you were so inclined, with tools like Filemon and Regmon, you could granularly set permissions in a way to install these misbehaving software so that they would work for regular users.
I know I did many times in a past life (back when I was sort of forced to do Windows systems administration... ugh... Windows NT 4.0 Terminal Server edition... what a wreck...).
Let's face it, Windows NT and Unix systems have very similar security models (in fact, Windows NT has superior ACL support out of the box, akin to Novell's close to perfect ACLs, Unix is far more limited with it's read/write/execute permission scheme, even with Posix ACLs in place). It's the hoops that software vendors outside the control of Microsoft made you go through that forced lazy users to run as Administrator all the time and gave Microsoft such headaches.
As far back as I remember (when I did some Windows systems programming), Microsoft was already advising to use the user's home folder/the user's registry hive for preferences and to never write to system locations.
The real differenc, though, is that an NT Administrator was really equivalent to the Unix root account. An OS X Administrator was a Unix non-root user with 'admin' group access. You could not start up the UI as the 'root' user (and the 'root' account was disabled by default).
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.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
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.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system
Because this required no particular exploit or vulnerability. A simple Javascript auto-download and Safari auto-opening an archive and running code.
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.
That's the thing, infecting a computer at the system level is fine if you want to build a DoS botnet or something (and even then, you don't really need privilege escalation for that, just set login items for the current user, and run off a non-privilege port, root privileges are not required for ICMP access, only raw sockets).
These days, malware authors and users are much more interested in your data than your system. That's where the money is. Identity theft, phishing, they mean big bucks.
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
latergator116
Mar 20, 08:11 PM
Okay, but your comment was in reply to maticus' one about the opinion that "breaking the law is breaking the law". Who was, in turn, talking about iTMS and related issues. Sorry if I lost track somewhere but I assumed you were talking about the same thing.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
That's ok. I was responding to the hypothetical situation of a couple burning music cd's for their wedding and handing them out (thus breaking a copyright) to their guests which I said there was nothing wrong with.
DanielCoffey
Apr 15, 09:28 AM
What's LGBT?
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
I believe it is Lesbian, Gay, Bi and Trans (or something similar).
ksz
Nov 2, 06:51 PM
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
This page (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2866&p=2) from Anandtech, describing power consumption on Kentsfield, brings up the issue of independently varying clock frequency and voltage per core, something that is rather tough to implement. Even at 65nm Intel could do what AMD will do in Barcelona, which is to implement independent clocks for each core.
ender land
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:31 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..
Classic Chalk or Pen post.
I understand your point, but think the fact that they are says a lot about how gaming has changed over the last 4 years.
slu
Oct 7, 04:06 PM
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
1. The blog post you linked is referring to the failure to license the Mac OS in the 80s. I am referring to now, hence why I said Mac OS X. You honestly think if there were more devices capable of running OS X, specifically cheaper devices, that the market share would not be greater? Especially since hardware is now generic, for the most part?
2. That blog post disagrees with the theory that the Mac could have had a Windows style monopoly if they licensed their OS back in the 80s (or platform since hardware was dramatically different back then). I never said they would have dominant market share if you could install Mac OS X on any computer now, just that the market share would be higher. The 5 year old link you provided is not relevant at all to my comment.
3. That blog post is also conjecture, because as the very article you posted states: "It’s conjecture, and barring a time machine, it can never be proven."
And of those 85k apps how many of them are not crap...
I think saying 1k is being very generous. Most of the apps are pretty crappy and useless.
And yes I am calling what most of the devs are turing out crap.
I read reports that over 60% of all apps turn into apple are getting rejected with little help on why. Apple closes overly closes system will be its downfall in the end.
A lot of the best apps for the iPhone out there are currently only available for Jail broken phones only. That should tell you something. A lot of the best apps and devs are saying "I am done with apple" and going to make apps Jail broken only.
Go look at the jail broken app store. Some great stuff is in there. The approval process to get in that store is a matter of turning your app in and it is put up.
I don't disagree with your general point about the app store, but Cydia has plenty of crap apps as well. One only needs to wade through all the calculator skins, winterboard themes, and soundboards to know this.
Yes, there are some great apps for jailbroken iPhones, but it is disingenuous to imply that Cydia doesn't have many of the same problems as the app store. But an open store is going to get you a lot of junk, so you have to take the good with the bad.
mojohanna
Apr 14, 05:32 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
cmd ~ gets you the cycle between windows.
DeathChill
Apr 20, 10:04 PM
So this site is for fanboys only?
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
Yes, because someone who doesn't hate a company and its products has to be a fanboy.
d.perel
Mar 19, 07:15 PM
the software would probably go over better if it did not contain the 1st syllable of 'Pirate' or 'Pirating' right before the word music..... :rolleyes:
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
2005 Subaru Legacy GT Limited
2002 Subaru Legacy GT Limited
2002 Subaru Legacy L Blue Bell
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:21 PM
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.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
I would argue not choosing to believe in a divine being is more rational than hedging your bets.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:12 PM
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
(I've posted this before but since you brought it up, I thought I'd share my theory again...)
There's a MUCH more systematic way that Apple could name this product.
"AirPort" is derrived from "Air" (being the medium through which the device works) and "Port" (gateway/portal to aforementioned medium)
So this iTV box:
The medium through which the device works is Television and the device is a gateway/portal to the Television so add "port" to the end. Thus...
"TelePort."
-Clive
skunk
Mar 25, 11:14 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
qzak
Mar 18, 02:36 PM
might as well ask, other people are probably wondering too... whats DRM?
appleguy123
Apr 22, 11:07 PM
I think the definition is a bit tricky to nail down. I don't think that theists know that there is a God. They just believe that there is. I think my belief is just as strong as that. They may argue otherwise.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
dernhelm
Sep 20, 04:39 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
Maybe they'll call it the Revolution. :D
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 07:19 AM
If the pricing is any indication, the (low end) Quad Core 2.33GHz Clovertown is the same price as the (high end) 3.0GHz Dual-core Xeon...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
so unless the bottom of the line Mac Pro is expected to start at $3298, the current Dual-Core Xeon Mac Pros will stick around.
arn
Then again, the way Apple's pro segment machines have been going up in both power and price...
skunk
Apr 24, 06:20 PM
The muslim extremists in my country always get supported by those who call themselves "moderate muslims". Probably because of some "solidarity" (blind obedience) code within the ummah. When they gang up together like that on controversial issues, it's very easy to see them all as extremists. That's how they strive to appear, even when they're not.That's the trouble with the Word of God�: it's just not negotiable. 7th century rules.
No comments:
Post a Comment