sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:51 AM
Say that about games like Final Fantasy III, Aralon, or even NOVA 2. Try finishing any of these games while on one sitting at the toilet. :eek:
2012 mustang v6 premium
2012 mustang v6 coupe.
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Coupe in
2012 mustang v6 coupe.
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
2012 mustang v6 coupe.
2012 mustang v6 premium
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
2012 Ford Mustang Shelby GT500
kas23
May 5, 11:04 AM
I get about 0-1 dropped calls per day. That said, only about half of my incoming calls get through. The rest go straight to voicemail (so I am told).
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.
G58
Feb 22, 01:37 PM
...I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
I don't really know where to begin to reply to this simplistic tripe.
In your world, are the policemen made of sugar by any chance?
You: "don't think Apple has done anything exceptional." Buy a Nexus one then.
"They built off of their popular iPod brand."
How did they create the touchscreen iPhone BRAND from the iPod Touch BRAND - a product that was launches after it?
iPhone Release date: June 29, 2007
iPod Touch 1st generation Release date: September 13, 2007
Brands don't build technology. Brands only build limited awareness and trust. But if the iPhone wasn't as good as it is, and as new as it was when it was first released, it would not only not have benefited from any brand benefits created by previous iPod model, it would have failed, and damaged the iPod brand too.
"Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod."
If this was the case, it would be Nokia and RIM duking it out now. Your entire theory is immature and utterly flawed. It's Apple's business model that created this situation, aided and abetted by an utterly moribund mobile phone market prior to their intervention.
"Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start."
Here I agree, but not for any of the reasons you've proposed. Apple's ace is OS X. The version used to power the iPhone is a cut down version of the full OS with a touch screen UI. Every other mobile manufacturer was always going to be at a disadvantage as soon as Apple decided to play in their pool.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 07:50 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?
eleven59
Apr 10, 11:00 AM
This must be me but I've never cared to have a program maximized on my Mac... Not even games. I always prefer to see multiple programs so I can click easily on any when needed.... It's also nice that just hovering over one let's you scroll thru it without actually clicking on it....
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
And resizing.. That takes me less than a second to drag and resize a window to what I want it to be.. if I even have to
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:37 PM
That that was created out of pure invention, not a government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
I don't wish to piss on your bonfire too much, but I don't believe there are any nuclear plants anywhere in the world which have been built without government subsidy.
mrkramer
Mar 13, 11:49 AM
The only change to my opinion is thinking that Nuclear energy may not be the best for areas that are at high risk of earthquakes unless they have some sort of cooling system that can survive with no power. But Nuclear is still the best viable option we have for most places.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
slu
Oct 7, 02:55 PM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
of the V6 premium coupe
2011 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
2012 mustang v6 premium.
2012 mustang v6 premium.
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
2012 mustang v6 coupe.
2012 FORD Mustang V6 Premium. Previous Play Next
2012 Ford Mustang V6 Premium
ArcaneDevice
Sep 12, 06:45 PM
Without HDMI, signals are reduced to Standard Def. For copy-protection reasons, HD signals never leave any compliant device - players and monitors alike - meaning no key, no HD.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
HDMI has nothing to do with the down res of an image. The Image Constraint Token dictates whether HD will be transmitted over analog channels like component. The ICT has not been implemented by any studio and they have stated it is not likely to be in the near future.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
So, without HDMI, even HD-DVD discs on an xbox, for example, will only look as good as DVDs because the hardware is programmed to reduce the resolution to SD.
HDMI has nothing to do with the down res of an image. The Image Constraint Token dictates whether HD will be transmitted over analog channels like component. The ICT has not been implemented by any studio and they have stated it is not likely to be in the near future.
HDMI sends the signals and confirms the device on either end is compliant device. How the HDCP handles the situation is up to the studios and manufacturers.
mdntcallr
Oct 26, 11:04 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:12 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
takao
Mar 16, 06:08 AM
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 11:16 AM
Personally, I think it's great. However, they should be careful.
Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
As distinct from releasing new development in carefully contrived ways, or their price-point?? :p
Not a hope.
We are suckers, lick us.
Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
As distinct from releasing new development in carefully contrived ways, or their price-point?? :p
Not a hope.
We are suckers, lick us.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 09:23 AM
If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
If homosexuality has no genetic component, why do twins raised separately have a greater chance of sharing an orientation? Why do homosexuals disproportionately display a variety of physical traits from handedness to hair whorls? I suppose lack of masculine identification at precisely two years of age makes men left-handed as well.
But I forget, you're Catholic. You probably still favor beating children until they stop using "the devil's hand" too.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
You're damned right it is, because sometimes the person earns the attack. Nicolosi is a monster who encourages homophobic parents to commit their children involuntarily to a regimen of religiously-themed brainwashing. He can legitimately claim almost negligible success rates, and his organization is staffed by convicted con artists and desperately self-hating homosexuals who crash spectacularly in public. The "new discoveries" he claims sound strangely identical to rejected post hoc rationalizations of stereotypes formerly applied to homosexuals back when they were a disparaged and poorly understood group. We now understand that homosexuality is not effeminacy, and that when not being tormented by people who hate them and encourage them to hate themselves, homosexuals show no independent signs of psychological distress related to their orientation.
This man is a charlatan. And it is clear you believe him because he tells you what you'd like to hear. You are following the pattern of every follower of quacks and quackery: you cling tenaciously to obscure and debunked ideas, hearing and accepting them without question, but then defend them against criticism by suddenly becoming almost comically hypercritical, citing the slim chance that not only that the overwhelming scientific consensus might be wrong, but that the overwhelming scientific consensus is driven by a massive conspiracy to prevent your huckster from selling his snake oil to the world. Your responses in this thread make it clear you have no intention of undertaking any critical thought. You'll just accept whatever somebody tells you if you feel like it makes it okay for you to not like gay people.
Notice, your APA contradiction contradicts Gelfin's opinion the homosexuality has no psychological/environmental causes. Gelfin says there's no evidence that it has those causes.
Notice, Gelfin said no such damned thing. Do not put words in my mouth.
mikethebigo
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
All this stuff sounds pretty cool. Lots of modern enhancements to an already popular product. It is just as SJ said, the Macs aren't going anywhere as they are needed to be the "trucks" of the world - all the conspiracy theorists that say Apple with replace OSX with iOS can just chill out :cool:
bommai
Sep 12, 04:30 PM
Seems to me this could be done without Apple having to open up Front Row. If Elgato added some sort of "export recording to iTunes Video Library" option (that also deletes the original file after export completes), you could have your stuff recording on your mac and ready to stream to iTV. I'd imagine you could also set up some sort of Smart Playlist in iTunes to show unwatched recordings that carries over to the iTV interface.
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
I have a Sony HD-DVR I use to pause live HDTV as well as record. While having a Elgato tuner hooked up to the mac and recording programs there and then streaming it to the iTV box is doable, you won't be able to pause live TV. That is the kind of integration Apple needs to bring to the table. Even if they don't want to make this iTV expensive, they should just let you record to your computer from your TV. So the hard drive could be on the computer but the tuner and program selection has to be available on iTV. Almost like VNC.
Another idea is a DVD drive on iTV. This drive should let users play normal DVD as well as iTunes movies bought DVD. The DRM can be maintained by authenicating against the store when you play. This way, normal people can burn their movie purchases to DVD or keep them in their hard drive. Their choice. They could even let iTunes move the movie to a disk to make room. For example, let us say you run out of HD space on your computer that you use to buy movies. Now you tell iTunes to move a movie to a disk. iTunes guides the user to create a DVD backup. Then it automatically makes space on the HD. However, the iTunes library keeps the information about this movie in its database so that it is available through Frontrow on the Mac itself or another device like iTV. When the user tries to play that movie, it says insert the disk. Now the user can insert the disk into iTV and voila play. This is an ideal balance between DRM, online purchases, data backup, etc.
Movie studios don't mind because the DVDs created by iTunes 7 will only play on computers or iTV for which the purchase has been authenticated.
I would assume this box is running an OS smarter than the iPod so it should not be hard to add all these features especially since it is not yet ready!
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:58 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
ender land
Apr 23, 09:15 PM
Why is the PRSI attitude 'religion is wrong'?
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
I have no idea. I'm not one of those perpetuating that attitude. All I know is that this is the attitude, regardless as to the "why" it exists. Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
If these forums reflected US religious belief, atheist opinions would be vastly outnumbered by theists, wouldn't they? Why is this?
Honestly, if you really believe in Christianity or any other religion you won't waste your time posting on some internet forum under anonymous names discussing things which ultimately will benefit no one save providing some cheap entertainment. This is because people who are religious more often think their life has meaning outside what meaning they create for it. As such, self indulgence for the sake of entertainment is not normally valued in religion.
In general the internet is also ripe with issues that are not desired for nearly all religions (porn, suggestive pictures, swearing, etc). This is a key part of why I actually have avatars disabled on all forums I go to, many people like using really suggestive images as avatars. Some forums I will even disable images in posts.
Time spent on forums rarely results in any sort of benefit other than cheap entertainment. Granted, you can make friendships from it and even meet people you previously knew online (I'm guilty of this :eek:), but in general, the overwhelming majority of the time spent is "wasted." A single face to face meeting with a friend provides more long term value than hours upon hours of reading forums and posting.
The atheists I have known over the years tend to be far more bitter towards the world than theists. This does NOT mean everyone here is bitter towards the world. But it is a general trend I have noticed with the many atheists I have interacted with over the years and a trait I once shared. Bitterness tends to make you a loner. Loners seem to gravitate towards the internet because it is a place people accept you, at least somewhat, regardless of whatever reasons you are that way. I am in many regards a loner; I have probably 20k or 25k posts on forums over the past years as a result. I suspect this is also true of the majority of posters here, deep down, we do not naturally form relationships quickly and it's way easier to get cheap social interaction online than in the dreaded Real Life.
I guess the overarching generalization is that people with theistic beliefs have greatly different priorities than those who do not. More often than not, there are things in people's lives they value much more than cheap online entertainment, and as a result, tend to stay away from it as such. Those without such beliefs/convictions/etc are far more likely to do things which are a waste of time. The stronger someone's theistic beliefs are, the more likely they are to both defend them as well as believe what I just wrote, so all you normally will find online is people who are halfheartedly theistic or are the "sunday morning Christian" or "twice a year Christian" types.
btw, thank you for making me think through this answer, it has made me aware just how much of a waste forums like this in fact are. I can list dozens of things which are more valuable, fulfilling, and beneficial longterm than browsing macrumors or the other forums, yet for some reason I still spend time here. I definitely will be evaluating this time...
ddtlm
Oct 12, 05:31 PM
JustAGuy:
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
macenforcer
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
When this thing surpasses the capabilities of my Windows media center and Xbox 360 combo then I will be impressed. Until then Apple is playing catch up to MCE and playing it poorly.
No comments:
Post a Comment