kainjow
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
skunk
Mar 27, 08:51 AM
That's obviously ad hominem.Sometimes it's the homo that's the problem.
phantomsd
Jun 19, 10:51 PM
Haven't experienced a dropped call yet... then again, I barely use my minutes.
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
BUT...
I've been noticing A LOT of 3G dropped signal/reception lately. The bars just disappear... then "Searching..." appears then its back to full bars again.
Get your act together AT&T... you're gonna have possibly 1 MIL+ iPhones on the network come the 24th. :confused:
blackpond
May 2, 09:29 AM
People use Safari? ... :confused:
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.
R.Perez
Mar 13, 03:57 PM
That's fine for soaking up occasional peak demand (I linked to 'vehicle to grid' techology a few posts back), but not providing energy for a full night... unless you have a link that says otherwise?
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Well here is a solution to your "problem" at least.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
The biggest limiting factor is cost, but when you factor in the cost of the environmental impact, it becomes cheap in comparison.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 08:22 AM
Good stuff, Spaceman, very helpful.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Question: where can I go online to learn about some of these "more advanced" things? Not just the basic "Why a Mac?" videos, but the good stuff.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 12:50 PM
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
A person being raped, is by definition, being forced. A person willfully having sex is not being forced. That scripture is expressing the importance of resiting when possible, while also preventing a willful participant from claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences. What it is not doing is claiming that there are different kinds of rape. You are either raped, or you aren't.
True Christians know that they are no longer subject to the laws associated with the Davidic covenant. Jesus Christ instituted a new covenant, which does not condone death for any person for any crime. So to directly answer your question, a true Cristian wouldn't support that. A true Christian doesn't hate a gay, lesbian, bisexual, or transgendered person. They would respect and love their neighbor regardless of their sexual preference. A Christian doesn't have to agree with their lifestyle choices, but they are in no way permitted to judge or hate someone for those choices.
D4F
Apr 28, 07:41 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Macky-Mac
Mar 26, 09:27 PM
The Church wont bend on certain issues. This is one of those issues.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
really, I don't think anybody would care, so long as the church didn't try to impose its views on people who aren't believers in your religion.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:18 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
toddybody
Apr 15, 11:02 AM
You're entitled to your own beliefs. You're not entitled to your own facts, however.
It's not "up to each person to decide, and make true in their own lives." God either exists or not; full stop. Even if it were "up to each person", how does telling other people that they will burn in hell for their beliefs fit in with this? If it's a personal thing, then KEEP IT PERSONAL.
Nothing is wrong with expressing such personal beliefs...as evident we are all doing right now :rolleyes: the only thing I think is requisite is a tone of civility...I don't think MacVault's paste of scripture was equivalent to a personal opinion of hatred. But then again, that last part was one of those silly "opinion" things :p
Anyhoo, Ive got to bump this thread...we should get back to complaining about Apple's GPU choices :D
What about the ugly kids?
Plastic surgery? :D
It's not "up to each person to decide, and make true in their own lives." God either exists or not; full stop. Even if it were "up to each person", how does telling other people that they will burn in hell for their beliefs fit in with this? If it's a personal thing, then KEEP IT PERSONAL.
Nothing is wrong with expressing such personal beliefs...as evident we are all doing right now :rolleyes: the only thing I think is requisite is a tone of civility...I don't think MacVault's paste of scripture was equivalent to a personal opinion of hatred. But then again, that last part was one of those silly "opinion" things :p
Anyhoo, Ive got to bump this thread...we should get back to complaining about Apple's GPU choices :D
What about the ugly kids?
Plastic surgery? :D
myamid
Sep 12, 06:21 PM
I have seen this stated a few time - but not stated anywhere by apple.
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
queen elizabeth wedding
queen elizabeth wedding. queen
queen elizabeth wedding. queen
queen elizabeth wedding
queen elizabeth wedding day.
Queen Elizabeth used a hat for
All I picked up form SJ was " we are pleased with the quality"
Lord Blackadder
Aug 29, 03:55 PM
I dislike Greenpeace - their list may or may not have some relevance but this is one messanger I wouldn't mind shooting.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:29 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
MattInOz
Apr 20, 11:54 PM
Outside of Apple's app and music apps, all other applications go into a saved state; i.e. not running in the background.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
Yes well sort of they can launch a task to complete background.
They can keep a track of GPS co-ords. Ask to be woken based on events like distance or time, various location criteria, then ask to complete a task based on that wake up or to ask the user to make them key.
For a skilled developer this limilted multi-tasking seems to have opened up lot of function that is useful to me as a user. While being respectful of my battery and more importantly what i want the processor to be doing.
So I'm still confused as to what real world use advantage "Real" multitasking brings. I mean Android has it so there must be examples. What function do i miss out on.
Admitting that the only answer I've ever gotten in the past is to have two apps active on the screen so you can reference one will working in another.
Not sure why that needs the reference app to be active just needs to hold that view so I can scroll or copy and paste plus a UI that lets me pop that view in and out to suit.
ChazUK
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it.
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Wetapples
Jun 12, 11:29 PM
I find this topic to be really interesting I have called the AT&T service department enough times they said there is nothing they can do to fix the problem and recomended that I look into porting my number and changing providers!! AT&T has me cornered though because the next best option is verizon and they do not carry the iPhone!!! Please Steve Jobs divorce at&t they are doing very little to promote your product image! I know there are thousands like me who would drop AT&T in a heart beat if another company aquired the iPhone!!
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
ddtlm
Oct 10, 03:50 PM
MacCoaster:
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
(Don't be offended if I repeat myself a few times, I want to make sure everyone gets it. Not trying to say anything about you in particular.)
Anyway, you missed my point. I know very well that the G4 is at a hardware disadvantage. I pretty much said that when you see a G4 being beat by margins greater than 4x or 5x, then you can be pretty sure there is ALSO, note ALSO, a software disadvantage. Hopefully everyone will see what I meant that time. :)
I'm glad to see that many people here agree that the G4 isn't really a faster chip than the x86 competition, but I want to see moderation and understanding of the "benchmarks" that have popped up showing an unbelievably bad situation for the G4.
Remember folks, if the test shows a G4 slower than a P4 per clock cycle then the test probably is handing the software advantage to the P4. Note, for perfect clarity, that I said per clock cycle performance and not overall performance.
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:57 AM
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
Calling you out on your religious garbage is not bigoted.
It's merely pointing out that until you provide some evidence for the existence of your invisible god, it might be a good idea to stop treating people like second-class humans based on the writings of 1st century nomads who didn't know enough about the realities of the universe to keep their food supplies away from their toilets.
It's pointing out that this Earth is littered with the bones of people who have been killed in the name of what you find 'sacred'.
bartelby
Mar 12, 03:47 AM
The main island of Japan, the complete land mass, has moved sideways by eight feet (about 2.5 metres). And the earth, the entire planet, has shifted on its axis by about four inches (10cm)... according to geophysicists reported over at CNN. (http://edition.cnn.com/2011/WORLD/asiapcf/03/12/japan.earthquake.tsunami.earth/index.html)
:eek:
That's insane!
:eek:
That's insane!
Popeye206
Apr 21, 09:03 AM
So are you going to tell me that paying for tethering ON TOP OF DATA YOU ALREADY PAID FOR is fair? Data is data is data... 4gb is 4gb no matter how I use it. Tethering cost are a joke!:mad: /end rant
You are joking right?
Fair or not, it's not Apple's fault. It's the carriers who have imposed this structure and probably fair. They do have to be able to support the extra data traffic if tethering was just open for anyone without paying. Personally, I think it's a waste anyway. At home it's WiFi... on the road it's my iPhone or I find WiFi if I need it for my laptop which is not hard to do.
Anyway... like it or not, it's not a free service today. Is it fair? I don't think so either and I think in the long run phone companies will bundle it in with the data packages. As well as having multiple devices assigned to the same plan so you can have one data plan that your smart phone and tablet can share.
But for now... it is what it is and if you're not paying for it, well, what can I say... good for you.
You are joking right?
Fair or not, it's not Apple's fault. It's the carriers who have imposed this structure and probably fair. They do have to be able to support the extra data traffic if tethering was just open for anyone without paying. Personally, I think it's a waste anyway. At home it's WiFi... on the road it's my iPhone or I find WiFi if I need it for my laptop which is not hard to do.
Anyway... like it or not, it's not a free service today. Is it fair? I don't think so either and I think in the long run phone companies will bundle it in with the data packages. As well as having multiple devices assigned to the same plan so you can have one data plan that your smart phone and tablet can share.
But for now... it is what it is and if you're not paying for it, well, what can I say... good for you.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. 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.
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. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
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. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
No comments:
Post a Comment