ThunderSkunk
Apr 9, 02:22 AM
Not saying I am a real hard core gamer
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
You mean you actually do something productive with your life, and not spend all your resources playing... a game.
Be proud of this.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 06:56 PM
nixd2001:
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
The flags don't do anything to my x86 results either. This loop is just hard to optimize. I did manual unrolling, replaced mults with adds (which we can actually do safely since the float values in the loop controlls are not factions), and even replaced one of the loop counters with an int in conjuntion with the other two above (in such a way that I needed no typecaseing)... and the resukts inproved maybe 5% on the Mac and none on the PC.
Sticman
Aug 28, 01:13 PM
it's not a sf bay area problem nearly as much as it is a san francisco problem..
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
Sorry ur SF AT&T service is lousy, but I disagree...AT&T is crappy in many parts of Santa Clara County (San Jose) as well.
And, I think its worse in NYC than in SF, based upon my personal experience.
Spanky Deluxe
Mar 18, 01:27 PM
It's only fair. After all, paying twice for our data allowance is completely fair and reasonable......
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 02:06 PM
It's a good thing he lives in Chrleston, SC. ;)
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
Saved by the typo! Yesssssss!
I'm much less worried about a the reactors onboard Naval submarines. Those can be moved or anchored in the threat of a hurricane, and are less likely to have bad things happen in an earthquake.
Ironically, nuclear reactors provide just over 50% of South Carolina's power. The two in this state are near Columbia and Greenville. Coal provides around 40%.
firestarter
Apr 23, 05:49 PM
You're quite right, and I agree that people are free to believe whatever they want. However, if they just believe something because "it's always been that way" or some other arbitrary reason then I don't have to respect them or take their beliefs seriously.
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
I've found the response of some of the devout atheist posters in this thread very interesting, some of the others are of the "God doesn't exist, meh" camp, who I just ignore.
Someone who has never been challenged in their atheist 'beliefs' (or more accurately, lack of belief) would be unlikely to engage in argument anyway. Being an atheist here in the UK isn't a particularly controversial position, and the topic of religion rarely comes up in polite conversation. In an ideal world, a 'live and let live' attitude would exist between theists and atheists, and each would just get on with their lives.
However, this isn't an ideal world - and there does appear to be a perceptible shift in the stridency of religious thought both in the East and West. Here in the UK, believers have been seen as an interesting electoral demographic, and targeted with promises of religious schooling, grants etc. In the US, it seems to be extremely difficult to enter higher political life as an atheist.
It's against this backdrop that atheists themselves have started to become more vocal, critical and radical. What someone else believes holds little interest to me, until that starts to impinge upon my own freedoms. At that point, the gloves come off...
UberMac
Sep 12, 04:02 PM
Anybody else a little suspicious of just "802.11"...I'm thinking it's got to be 802.11n otherwise they would specify extreme. (Which means new adapters for computers on existing technology)
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
AidenShaw
Oct 7, 07:35 AM
As I've explained in detail above AV, the 2.33GHz Clovertowns are the most likely candidate as they cost Apple the same $851 as the 3GHz Woodies. So Apple can give customers a clear choice of fast 4 or slower 8 for the same +$800 total $3,300.
The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.
The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.
Peterkro
Mar 12, 07:08 PM
Number three reactor at the same plant has cooling and containment issues hopefully they can get it under control.
IntelliUser
Apr 15, 10:23 AM
Whats the line in the sand? Are Gay men, simply men who find other men attractive? Do they share partial brain chemistry similar to a woman? Are some Gay Men "women trapped in men's bodies"? None of the above? We havent walked in their shoes...so defining what IS and ISNT a disease is pretty ignorant. glad we're all talking about these issues though...stay well friend and keep posting! :)
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
As long as they have a penis, gay men are men. Just like this (http://images.google.com/imgres?imgurl=http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/06/article-0-027FFAE600000578-658_468x657.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1052934/Cat-Man--human-tiger-enjoys-climbing-trees-eats-raw-meat-day.html&usg=__Ab-ZG2dpwk5CloR7Ey8dB0Cy2K4=&h=657&w=468&sz=114&hl=en&start=0&sig2=zhq5-T3iRhJWvKy7Hwtz-A&zoom=1&tbnid=17KAnJDFBLLCWM:&tbnh=156&tbnw=118&ei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&prev=/images%3Fq%3Dcat%2Bman%26hl%3Den%26safe%3Doff%26biw%3D999%26bih%3D1033%26gbv%3D2%26tbm%3Disch&itbs=1&iact=hc&vpx=131&vpy=102&dur=3662&hovh=266&hovw=189&tx=85&ty=130&oei=VWKoTYalI9Gq8APuw_3LCg&page=1&ndsp=21&ved=1t:429,r:0,s:0) guy is a man, no matter how hard he tries not to be. Thinking otherwise is a sign of delusion, of a mental problem. And psychiatrists (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender_identity_disorder) agree with that.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
wrlsmarc
Jun 19, 02:07 PM
Just spent the last week in Manhattan. Wow. Service has seriously improved. I used my data card for the week to check email and work from my hotel. Good speeds and very reliable. I lost one connection over a period of 6 days and that may have been my data card fault. I use a mifi from Novatel, the device can sometimes be quirky establishing a connection. Overall my performance was solid.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
gnasher729
Oct 28, 01:19 PM
Simple swap has already been tested and confirmed to work in early September by Anandtech (http://www.anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6).Not really. The 2.66GHz Clovertown lists @ $1172 vs. $851 for both the 2.33GHz Clovertown and the 3GHz Woodie. Since Apple charges +$800 for a 3GHz Dual Woodie, this means they will likely charge only +$1100 for the 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown - total $3599. Hardly expensive at all. I'd say they are going to be a bargain and LESS EXPENSIVE when you look at the per core price of $450 - or PLUS $275 for each of four more cores.2.66GHz is not significantly slower than 3GHz - especially when the workload can be shared among many more.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
There is one error in your calculation: The 2.33 GHz Clovertown and 3.00 GHz Woodcrest cost the same, so you would expect the same price for both systems (price of 2.66GHz Woodcrest + $800, like today). However, the price difference between 2.66GHz Clovertown and 2.33GHz Clovertown is $1172 - $851 = $321 _per chip_ which makes it $642 _per eight core system_.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:58 AM
Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
thereubster
Nov 3, 04:41 AM
OK to swerve this thread back on topic, what if Apple is planning to unleash a massive multi-core assault and fill that big middle gap in the lineup at the same time?
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
Here's the theory;
January Macworld Steve unveils the 8 core Mac Pro, no surprises there, shows off the massive power using Leopard demo's etc. Great for Pro's (like Multimedia and myself) but not much use to the average guy. Prices stay the same or even rise slightly, after all, we are talking 8 cores here. Previously you needed to spend $7-8k to get that kind of power. But what if the one more thing was a Kentsfield Mac Pro (using the C2Q6600), a i975 Mb with DDR2 ram, etc, etc . Sloting into that $1400-2000 zone? I dont see this competing with the iMac, esp. since you get a 24" screen with your $2000 iMac. It's just another choice. Use the same case, make it black or something, but you now have
Mac Mini 2 cores
iMac 2 cores + Widescreen display
Mac Prosumer 4 cores + upgradeable
Mac Pro 8 cores for ultimate power.
Sounds good......:)
boncellis
Jul 12, 10:50 AM
...So IMO, while this low-end tower would fill a gap in apple's line up and be ideal for many on this board, I'm not sure it's a gap that many consumers fit in to, or that apple particularly cares about filling.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
As much as I hate to say it, you're probably right. Apple seems to be doing rather well with their current lineup after all.
What gets me is why Apple wouldn't put Merom in the Mini? A redesigned Mini offering different processors might help close the gap for those who want a more robust solution than the current Mini but can't (or won't) shell out the money for the Mac Pro.
blackstarliner
Sep 20, 12:00 PM
It will be perfect for me. I need a video airport express type machine to connect to a big old projector in a cupboard that I want to feed dvd to wirelessly from the mini.
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
The big question in my view is whether you can indeed browse the store directly through the box itself, or whether my mini has to do that. Personally, I don't mind the mini doing it, because that's what I primarily want this functionality for.
But I reckon they would shift many, many units if they sold it as a standalone unit. Movies from your couch at any time more or less instantly, iTunes interface, no computer necessary at all. As simple as plugging in your cable box. You pay for what you want to watch, full stop. Even people without any idea about computers love movies. They would sell x*n units to the older generations, like a grey-haired 'vPod'. If they opened up the movie store worldwide with this online vPod for your fat tv, it would be very big.
The people begging for pirating capabilities are way off base. As someone mentioned earlier, Apple's interests, and the market differentiation they seek, lie in having people pay a fair price for a pleasing entertainment experience. They sell more hardware, the artists are paid for their trouble. How would they 'sell' this device to media companies that own content if it wasn't as 100% above board as buying a cinema ticket? Recording tv and burning dvds isn't what this device should be about. It should be about killing off cinemas for good, denting Blockbuster and DVD sales and appealing to a MASS market, not just hardware freaks and technology fetishists.
edit: can't spell
Lamarak
Jun 13, 01:55 PM
All I can say is AT&T in my area far better than Verizon here in San Antonio. Not saying they don't have their problems, but Verizon doesnt allow you to talk and use the web at same time, which Im sure helps some in the traffic thats on the network.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 06:16 PM
Everyone, as usual I'm answering posts in a non-chronological order. I'm not ignoring anyone. I need to think hard about what to write about a post by Gelfin. So I may need two or three days to think about it.
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
Eraserhead wants peer-reviewed scientific articles, so I'll look for them, too. I already have an article in mind by a secular author named "Spitzer" who helped the American Psychiatric Association normalize homosexuality before he changed his mind about that normalization.
Meanwhile, please listen to Nicolosi's first answer in video 3 of the first set of videos, the last part of the three-part interview, where he says that homosexuals have a right to live a gay lifestyle (http://www.josephnicolosi.com/videos2/). That doesn't sound like what a brainwasher would say, does it?
AidenShaw
Oct 29, 11:48 AM
No. All will work on Clovertown that worked on Woodcrest.
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
In theory you're correct, Multimedia.
In practice, it is possible that a multi-threaded program might have synchronization or logic bugs that don't show up with 4 CPUs, but do show up with 8 CPUs. For example:
Thread_ID tid[4];
for (i=0; i<System.CPU_count(); i++)
{
cult hero
Apr 13, 12:14 AM
Since I'm not a video editor, what I find most interesting about this product is the price. Mind you, time will tell HOW interesting the price is but if it's truly a "Pro" app (and I don't care about your current opinion on the matter since no one here has used it) and they're selling it for $300... THAT is very interesting.
I'm curious to see what Lion sells for when it's released. I think Apple's gonna start pushing software prices down. How's that for weird?
I'm curious to see what Lion sells for when it's released. I think Apple's gonna start pushing software prices down. How's that for weird?
munkery
May 2, 06:23 PM
Vulnerabilities are found in everything. It's not like sudo, RBAC or any other Unix scheme that's similar to Windows' UAC/RunAs has been vulnerability free all these years. This is besides the point that UAC is not somehow inferior. It's just an implementation of limited privilege escalation, same as you find on Unix systems. "Unix security" is not being any better here.
Really,
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey....in32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey....rivileges+2011
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used in relation to 32 bit processes.
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
Why are you going on and on about something that is not a common threat in the wild?
Really,
Here is a list of privilege escalation (UAC bypass) vulnerabilities just related to Stuxnet (win32k.sys) in Windows in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey....in32k.sys+2011
Here is a list of all of the privilege escalation vulnerabilities in Mac OS X in 2011:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey....rivileges+2011
BTW, the system call for that local in OS X was no longer needed so it was removed from OS X. It was only used in relation to 32 bit processes.
Have I claimed such a beasts exists ? No. Why should I then be made to provide an example of it ?
Why are you going on and on about something that is not a common threat in the wild?
Chappers
Mar 13, 11:38 AM
That is far more destruction than the power station could bring.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.
I'm not against nuclear power but it is a bit more difficult to clear up after a bad nuclear leak and the risks to health from that leakage have the potential to be felt for a lot longer.