Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 30, 04:22 AM
Most classic geophysicists & geologists do not believe man is causing global warming.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
Absolute nonsense.
Global warming is a natural process and has happened many times over the lifespan of the earth. Sometimes it precedes an ice age sometimes it is ralated to internal changes within the earth core. It has occured in our past and it appears to be occuring now. The real reason for cooling and warming of the Earth are not well understood.
You are here talking about the natural oscillation of temperature (see my previuos post) geophysists often talk about which leads to an occasional ice age now then. There is a natural CO2 variation in the atmosphere which have been studied over extremely long periods by studying ice core samples from e.g. Greenland.
Every single well-founded theoretical model over natural CO2 variation model predicts we are outside the natural variation.
That is a fact.
We also know that CO2 is very potent greenhouse effect.
Thus we also know that the earth is getting warmer due to the increased CO2 level.
The increased CO2 level coincides with the industrilization when man began to burn fossile fuel in a historically unprecedented manner.
Mankind is causing the increased CO2 level. CO2 is a greenhouse gas.
This can of course not the explain the natural variation of temperature, but the fact remains our activities here in earth is causing an increased temperature.
Environmental scientists agree that man is causing global warming. All of their theories are based on models.
All scientific models are just theoretical models and can not be prove themselves. (see Gödel 1931)
But these models are designed trying to prove that man's production of greenhouse gas is the cause and they are way too simplified. We do not have enough information on all of the critical factors affecting climate change to build proper models.
In consequense of your argument and Gödel, it follows that we never can say anything about science. This is the same argument tobacco lobbyists have been using in defence of cigarettes.
Reality may be somewhere in between. However global warming has taken place on Venus and is currently taking place on Mars. Man obviously did not cause thes activities and it may or may not be related to the Earth's current episode of warming.
Again, you are talking about natural variations. But again, not a single theretical model predicts the current CO2 level to be natural variation.
I am not arguing with the idea of reducing greenhouse gas emissions if we can practically. Why contribute to a problem. I just don't think that we can effect climate change on a global scale and if the Earth choses to warm for whatever reason we will not be able to stop it.
No one is claiming to have the final model explaining the temperature on earth. Nevertheless, the fact remains, we are outside the natural CO2 level. CO2 is a powerful greenhouse gas. There is a significant lag between the level of CO2 and the temperature on earth. Hence, if we don't do something now it might be late tomorrow. I wrote might, because, as you said, noone knows for sure. But are we really interested in playing dice with our own existence?
Sidenote: In science, the name of the game is getting publications. The sorry fact is that you don't get publications by singing with the choir. Since this debate is considered both important and urgent, it is easier to get a not-so well-founded-model published right now. I have seen crazy ideas published explaining the incrased temperature on earth as cow flatulence and rotting trees at bottoms of lakes (methane gas is also a potent greenhouse gas)
These publications makes it unfortunately even harder to sort out the real facts about this issue which very well might be the most important issue mankind has been faced with here on earth.
firestarter
Mar 13, 03:42 PM
A large (think 100milesx100miles) solar array in death valley for example, could power the entire Continental US.
One word.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
One word.
Night (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night).
javajedi
Oct 10, 04:46 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
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.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
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.
If you recall the java program I created ran without modification on a p4/g4, in addition others on this board have ran it on their Athlon systems. The code is unbelievably simple, I did not give the p4 any "software advatage" whatsoever (and as I said, the code remained changed).
The only difference (and this could be a big difference), is the different versions of the jvm on the mac, and on windows. On my p4 pc I was using jvm version 1.4.x, while Mac OS X is limited to 1.3.x. To factor this variable out of the equation I decided to port it directly to Mac OS X and created a cocoa application. Java is now out of the equation.
The cocoa version, as well as it's source is located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi/FPMathTest.dmg.gz
My PowerBook G4 800 now takes *only* 94 seconds running natively. The P4 running the slower java version (slower because it�s interpreted and the byte code translation) finishes it in 5.9 seconds. Please feel free to take a look. I don't see how the P4, or any other of the x86 processors are cheating. I've tried to make it as fair and possible - to the extent of creating a cocoa app.
Thanks for your thoughts!
Kevin
Pgohlke
Apr 5, 05:25 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
skunk
Apr 24, 07:20 PM
Those verses you quoted are, as I said, historical.They purport to be the historical record of the exhortations to kill of El himself, much as the Quran.
kingtj
May 6, 09:27 AM
Ultimately, yes - that's probably the only realistic solution AT&T has, and they *are* adding new cell towers all the time. I got SMS messages a couple of times announcing new ones they put online in my city, over the last year or so.
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
But there's a technology battle here they're on the losing end of, as well. The CDMA network providers have an advantage automatically, because the frequencies they use penetrate structures better than the GSM network frequencies used by AT&T and T-Mobile. (Note that T-Mobile was the other carrier with equal customer dissatisfaction to AT&T in the bar graph ranking that metric.)
I have Verizon and I think I've had two dropped calls in years.
AT&T really needs to get more towers up, that's the only solution in my mind.
Kayle
Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 02:08 PM
This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.
Black94TSi
May 5, 03:01 PM
I live in an area where there are 4 towers within 3 miles. I have usually 2 bars in my house and 5 bars outside.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
itickings
Apr 15, 07:09 AM
I still miss the ability to easily control the computer with only a keyboard without reaching for the mouse/trackpad all the time.
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
Sure, there are many shortcuts, but no real equivalent to the underlined entries in menus, and the obvious keyboard navigation in dialogs. But then again, I'd been primed to that since Windows 3.0 through XP and other systems.
I'm sure some people will want to correct me now by pointing out the keyboard control possibility available in the accessibility settings, but that'll only end with uncontrollable laughter...
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:34 PM
Does a partial melt-down equate with being a little bit pregnant?
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
firewood
Apr 28, 11:44 AM
I dont think iPads should be included. A computer shouldn't need a computer to be usable.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
It doesn't matter what you think. It only matters what people are buying. Many are buying iPads for browsing/facebook/farmville instead of another HP or Dell laptop.
And a Mac or Dell PC needs a computer to be usable. Several of them. There's a computer (maybe two) inside the disk drive that it boots from, the mouse, and any access points or routers that it uses to connect to the net. Etc.
TennisandMusic
May 2, 11:43 AM
I'm well aware of UAC. UAC also just happens to be "that annoying popup thing" that has become extremely popular for users to disable entirely since the debut of Vista.
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
Uh huh. And OSX doesn't ask you to manually enter a password every time you install or change something? Windows only asks you to authorize...which is technically more "annoying"?
I actually don't know anyone who has ever disabled UAC.
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
I've never seen the UAC when "opening some files" and of course you get it when opening some apps for the first time, since those times are often akin to installing...you know, like when you install an OSX app and it requests your password?
So now the argument is that the OSX's password requests are logical and thereby the UAC is illogical? Yeesh. :rolleyes:
These are just computers people. Not magic. They are here to help us get work done. Quit trying to prove your platform of choice is superior to someone else's platform of choice, it's really not worth it. ;)
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:08 AM
Oh, please.
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
No, without pre-Islamic Persian and Arabic sources the renaissance wouldn't have happened.
Arabic numerals actually come from India.
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria. He's quoted as saying: "�If the books agree with the Qur�an, they are superfluous. If they disagree with it, they are heretical.�
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin, remember, that great 7th Day Adventist conueror of the Middle-East) used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
EDIT: whoops, I just double-checked, Saladin was an Islamic conqueror... my bad!
We would all be speaking German I expect.
Why? Or is this another bid for attention and I'm falling for it by giving you the attention you so desperately craved?
The Islamic World today doesn't have much resemblance to the Islamic World of antiquity. Don't forget that a vast majority of ancient Greek texts would have been lost to the ages if not for Islamic scholars, to say nothing of (relatively) advanced mathematical concepts and a symbol for zero.
No, without pre-Islamic Persian and Arabic sources the renaissance wouldn't have happened.
Arabic numerals actually come from India.
Don't forget it's thought the Caliph Umar ordered the burning of the Library at Alexandria. He's quoted as saying: "�If the books agree with the Qur�an, they are superfluous. If they disagree with it, they are heretical.�
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin, remember, that great 7th Day Adventist conueror of the Middle-East) used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
EDIT: whoops, I just double-checked, Saladin was an Islamic conqueror... my bad!
We would all be speaking German I expect.
Why? Or is this another bid for attention and I'm falling for it by giving you the attention you so desperately craved?
EricNau
May 8, 05:08 PM
I can honestly and without exaggeration say that over half of the calls placed with my iPhone drop, and it's been getting progressively worse in both cities where I use my phone. It's practically unusable.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:48 AM
So getting to my point, it would seem like this guy is spending a lot of energy trying to piss off media corporations. The only conclusion I can see is that he wants the attention. Flirting with lawsuits sounds as crazy as publishing trade secrets on your website. :D There's also this pro-Real Networks thing I think I am getting from his site, but that's for another thread...
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.
Actually from what I know about the DCESS thing is that he is just a linux geek who wants to use mainstream products on his linux box. It has nothing to do with attention or media companies.
G58
Oct 18, 07:56 AM
If I thought it was Relevant to mention the people, I would have.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 29, 11:17 PM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
zarusoba
Aug 30, 08:48 AM
The fact is that there is no industry or organisation that does not depend on healthy ecosystems for its survival and growth. Therefore, even those who lack any moral imperative to protect the environment must surely choose to do so out of sheer logic.
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
Greenpeace's report is not necessarily correct. Lest we forget that old adage: "You can't believe everything you read." However, organisations like Greenpeace fulfill an essential role and provide an opening for debate and for the development of effective environmental standards.
The Montreal Protocol that prohibited CFC production is an example of a successful environmental treaty that benefits everyone by placing appropriate limitation on industry.
"Wealth can provide no shield from pollution."
Ronald Wright, "A Short History of Progress" (http://www.cbc.ca/ideas/massey/massey2004.html)
flopticalcube
Mar 13, 03:36 PM
True, but the total deaths from Chernobyl are unknown. Many people dying in Russia, Norway and other affected countries from cancers or other conditions caused by the contamination aren't included in the totals.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
I would still place automobiles as at least an order of magnitude or two greater. No contest.
AppliedVisual
Oct 21, 12:42 PM
I'm Speechless. All I can think of is "Wow!"
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
Makes 20" 1600 x 1200 look puny and the 24" 1920 x 1200 modest.
Yep. Now that I've gone with the 30", I feel so cramped on anything smaller. The dual 30" config is awesome... More than enough space to leave all kinds of stuff accessible - it's insanely wonderfully cool.
...Which brings up my little learning experience over the past couple days. I fired up my 30" as the second display on may G5 quad and all was well. But I was starting to have second thoughts about crowding my desk at home. I packed it back up and took it to the office, plugged it in. Came right up, but I couldn't set the resolution on it to anything higher than 1280x800. Hmmm.... Both had the same video card, (or so I thought), both were the same system, the one at the office was manufactured 12/05, the one at home was 10/05. So I try some different software re-installs and whatnot can't figure it out. so I jump online and research until I'm blue... The 7800GT only has a single dual-link DVI port. Weird, I thought it had two? So I packed the monitor back up, took it home to see what was up... Before plugging it into my quad at home, I started to move the system to open it up and noticed the extra fan openign next to the DVI connectors and the round mini-din style connector. WTF! So I popped the lid real quick to make sure I wasn't hallucinating. This system has the FX4500 and I never even noticed until now. I guess I never checked. :o I had to dig out my invoice, it was a refurbished system I bought from a local dealer -- system was a lease return that made it back to them after only 3 months. It supposedly had the 7800GT in it, but nope - FX4500.
Lucky me. :D My resale value on this system just went way up. ;)
How do I look for dead pixels AppliedVisual? Yes I want two. :)
Two kinds of bad pixels usually show on LCD monitors. Dead pixels are pixels that are black and won't do anything, somewhat rare, really. Stuck pixels are pixels where one of the R, G or B elements is "stuck" at a certain color value and won't change. Typically stuck pixels are stuck full-on and will stand out against dark backgrounds. The best way to check for them is to run a full-screen game or program that can show a black background, other color backgrounds can be helful at times too. Stuck pixels will be visible pixels in these situations. Usually, you'll see them when they show up as they do tend to stand out against contrasting backgrounds. Other types of anomalies on these displays are white pixels or sparkles, which can either be static like a dead/stuck pixel or they can move or come and go. These are usually caused by a poor video signal or too much power over the video interface. Sometimes can even be a faulty GPU. Multi-component pixels - where more than just one R, G or B component is stuck on at the same pixel location are often a faulty GPU. But sparkels and multi-component pixels can still be a defective display... I ordered a Dell notebook for an employee a couple years ago and it arrived with hundreds of stuck/multicomp. pixels all around the screen edges. Dell swapped it out, but I know it was caused by the system sitting on a loading dock or in a truck overnight when it got to -25F here. The LCD screen literally froze all around the edges causing irrepairable damage!
The 30" makes such a huge difference in managing windows of different applications simultaneously. I can see why you wanted 2 AV. Tell me, is there a significant improvement inthe design of your 3007 vs the 3005
AFAIK, there never was a 3005 model, only the 3007. Dell didn't announce their 30" display until last December. I ordered mine on Christmas Eve last year and received it the first week of January. It's a 3007 model as well, Rev.A00. The new one is Rev.A02. Both are identical except I find the old one to have a slight tint to the whites. I had to tweak the color profile for the old one a bit to match the new one, but now it's fine. I don't know if it's a difference in revisions or just normal variation between models or what. The difference is slight, and is only noticeable when the two are side by side, which they are. :D On the bright side, with that Dell forum coupon, my new one was nearly $1K cheaper than the first one.
Macaddicttt
Mar 18, 02:35 PM
Anyone care to make this interesting? I'm taking all bets. How long until Apple fixes the problem?
torbjoern
Apr 24, 11:56 PM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
1macker1
Mar 18, 12:49 PM
This will cause a major problem for apple. Cant wait to see the fallout.