takao
Apr 4, 11:58 AM
A car that gets 60 mpg will do just as much 'damage' to a road surface as a car that get 8 mpg....but the 50mpg car will pay much, MUCH less for upkeep of that road than the other in a gas-tax based situation.
damage to the road is mostly depending on vehicle weight: the biggest offender actually are trucks/semis
one point to consider: a 40 ton truck doesn't t do the same damage as 40 1 ton cars. it actually does more damage to the surface. that's why it takes only a modest increase in truck traffic to really ruin roads
damage to the road is mostly depending on vehicle weight: the biggest offender actually are trucks/semis
one point to consider: a 40 ton truck doesn't t do the same damage as 40 1 ton cars. it actually does more damage to the surface. that's why it takes only a modest increase in truck traffic to really ruin roads
beethovengirl
Feb 21, 09:50 PM
A very sad video of Steve Jobs has been posted online. I already feel like an evil voyeur for viewing it, so I don't want to link to it...but I'm almost in tears.
Actually, I see it's already being discussed on MacRumors:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1100220
Actually, I see it's already being discussed on MacRumors:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1100220
woodsey
Sep 6, 08:00 AM
When scrounging through old files on my mac, i stumbled across this strange movie. it is an advertisement for internship at apple, which i downloaded sometime last year.
Anyway, within this 1.21 min video, there is a few seconds which really stood out. it appears to show the mac os on login, with all the icons and windows falling into place. surely this has something to do with the testing, or development of quartz extreme!
ive placed a small movie showing exactly what im talking about on my mac.com home page
http://homepage.mac.com/joshwoods/iMovieTheater19.html
Anyone know what this could be? is it just a rendered movie, or is it the mac os in action?
Anyway, within this 1.21 min video, there is a few seconds which really stood out. it appears to show the mac os on login, with all the icons and windows falling into place. surely this has something to do with the testing, or development of quartz extreme!
ive placed a small movie showing exactly what im talking about on my mac.com home page
http://homepage.mac.com/joshwoods/iMovieTheater19.html
Anyone know what this could be? is it just a rendered movie, or is it the mac os in action?
macfan881
Aug 19, 02:59 PM
Ok still having log in issues removed Bite SMS reinstalled rebooted still having issues thankfully i still having synced my iPhone to my computer yet.
more...
Telomar
Sep 14, 12:08 AM
Just a few details. I can verify the subject of the post is genuine and as far I recall it has been pretty well talked about by Intel and planned for some time. It certainly hasn't been kept secret.
I would however be a touch surprised if it is called the PV. It really is very much an evolution of the PIV and nothing new.
The 1MB Level 2 cache is expected it roughly doubles every fabrication generation improvement at the moment. AMD has already planned the same for the Hammer series. The faster FSB is also nothing new or surprising.
The current PIV has ~55 million transistors though and a rough doubling over a fabrication generational change isn't unexpected.
Really there's nothing new there that Intel hasn't had roadmapped since early 2002 and before.
On the Apple side I have said this before and I will say it again. The G4 core has life. Improvements can be made to easily lift its performance substantially and there are things worth note coming :) Whether they will arrive on time is another matter and whether they will satisfy everybody I can't say but given people are rarely pleased I'd say probably not :p
I would however be a touch surprised if it is called the PV. It really is very much an evolution of the PIV and nothing new.
The 1MB Level 2 cache is expected it roughly doubles every fabrication generation improvement at the moment. AMD has already planned the same for the Hammer series. The faster FSB is also nothing new or surprising.
The current PIV has ~55 million transistors though and a rough doubling over a fabrication generational change isn't unexpected.
Really there's nothing new there that Intel hasn't had roadmapped since early 2002 and before.
On the Apple side I have said this before and I will say it again. The G4 core has life. Improvements can be made to easily lift its performance substantially and there are things worth note coming :) Whether they will arrive on time is another matter and whether they will satisfy everybody I can't say but given people are rarely pleased I'd say probably not :p
Aniej
Dec 11, 03:34 PM
I thought Microsoft already announced this? ohhh no wait my bad, what I meant was a PC to Mac conversion system, I think its codename is Windows.:D
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 4, 05:22 PM
No. A car that gets 50mpg is likely much lighter than a car that gets 8mpgs... and hence doesn't put near as much wear on the road
Consider, if all cars were the size of a Smart ForTwo, or the awaited ForFour, a two lane road could become 3 lanes. ;)
Trucks and Hummers would just drive down the middle. :D
Consider, if all cars were the size of a Smart ForTwo, or the awaited ForFour, a two lane road could become 3 lanes. ;)
Trucks and Hummers would just drive down the middle. :D
iLoveiTunes
Mar 23, 01:11 PM
I thought other players were also offering such technology... Hows airplay any different ? :cool:
Unless they want to copyright the term "AirPlay"
Unless they want to copyright the term "AirPlay"
more...
tristangage
Apr 23, 05:17 AM
Around the Manchester area, it's about �1.40 per litre of unleaded.
That's 2.3$/litre.
If I do the maths right, that's 3.7854118 * 2.3
Which equates to 8.706$/gallon.
Pretty expensive over here at the moment.
That's 2.3$/litre.
If I do the maths right, that's 3.7854118 * 2.3
Which equates to 8.706$/gallon.
Pretty expensive over here at the moment.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
more...
linkedPIXEL
Mar 4, 08:23 PM
I've never been big into handheld consoles, but the 3DS has intrigued me enough to buy it as soon as its available.
TwoSocEmBoppers
Feb 23, 01:50 PM
This is appalling. I cannot believe this government intrusion is even legal.
So...where does parenting come into the picture here?! That is the problem with this and many, many other problems in society.
Edit: Posted my response without even reading other comments. Glad to see I'm not alone on this one.
So...where does parenting come into the picture here?! That is the problem with this and many, many other problems in society.
Edit: Posted my response without even reading other comments. Glad to see I'm not alone on this one.
more...
pashazade
Sep 25, 10:57 AM
And I just picked up a copy of 1.0 on eBay for �72 :D
I was going to bid for that but called away to a meeting!
I was going to bid for that but called away to a meeting!
MarcBook
Apr 5, 11:16 AM
Capacitive home button (and volume) is the way to go. Plastic makes the expensive feeling iPhone feel cheap. and it will just look sexy having the home button flush with the glass.
Another thing which hasn't been wanted as far as I know is the home button to glow in dark as it were. Pretty annoying to press the wrong side when you are in complete darkness.
Regarding touch buttons, my post above. Regarding pressing the wrong side in the dark, although I have done that a couple of times in the past, I think they make the button concave so you can feel where it is without looking. I (personally) think that a glow in the dark button would look tacky, especially because they glow in that eery green colour. :(
Another thing which hasn't been wanted as far as I know is the home button to glow in dark as it were. Pretty annoying to press the wrong side when you are in complete darkness.
Regarding touch buttons, my post above. Regarding pressing the wrong side in the dark, although I have done that a couple of times in the past, I think they make the button concave so you can feel where it is without looking. I (personally) think that a glow in the dark button would look tacky, especially because they glow in that eery green colour. :(
more...
jake4ever
Apr 6, 01:38 AM
I first assumed the burning of luxury items was being loyal to family and tradition because the items were wicked and not traditional. I guess not.
Same here...
Same here...
tvguru
Sep 25, 11:18 AM
See the previous posts. A number of Fuji cameras that were not supported now are.
Alright, I didn't read it that way the first time, but went back over them and see how I should have read it that way. :o
Alright, I didn't read it that way the first time, but went back over them and see how I should have read it that way. :o
more...
4JNA
Apr 18, 04:58 PM
Call me ignorant, but what results has folding at home produced thus far? I'm looking for hard statistics, not "you contributed to x".
not ignorant, just didn't know where to look i guess...
now onto results which can be found at the F@H page!
LINK (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers) to the published papers (results) page, and a really cool MOVIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcp2Xpd29I&feature=player_embedded) here. might no be much to watch, but the difference between folding a couple years ago and that movie are like the difference between a paper plane and the space shuttle. we have come a long way in a short period of time, and it only gets better with new clients and more people participating.
to put it a different way, if you would have been folding in you would have been part of the record...
September 2007: Guinness World Record. From their award: On 16 September Folding@home, a distributed computing network operating from Stanford University (USA) achieved a computing power of 1 petaflop -- or 1 quadrillion floating point operations per second. The project uses the power of peoples' home computers, as well as their PlayStation3s, to simulate the processes inside living cells that can lead to diseases, such as Alzheimer's Disease.
it's real, it matters, the more people that help, the better the results.
222706
not ignorant, just didn't know where to look i guess...
now onto results which can be found at the F@H page!
LINK (http://folding.stanford.edu/English/Papers) to the published papers (results) page, and a really cool MOVIE (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gFcp2Xpd29I&feature=player_embedded) here. might no be much to watch, but the difference between folding a couple years ago and that movie are like the difference between a paper plane and the space shuttle. we have come a long way in a short period of time, and it only gets better with new clients and more people participating.
to put it a different way, if you would have been folding in you would have been part of the record...
September 2007: Guinness World Record. From their award: On 16 September Folding@home, a distributed computing network operating from Stanford University (USA) achieved a computing power of 1 petaflop -- or 1 quadrillion floating point operations per second. The project uses the power of peoples' home computers, as well as their PlayStation3s, to simulate the processes inside living cells that can lead to diseases, such as Alzheimer's Disease.
it's real, it matters, the more people that help, the better the results.
222706
Juan007
Apr 5, 10:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
CR is not qualified to review tech products. They need to stick to reviewing toasters. Any CR review of iPhone, iPad, etc is guaranteed to have 10% of the depth of a real review. Why even bother? Why give CR the page hits from being on the front page? Just let them fade into obscurity.
CR is obsolete.
CR is not qualified to review tech products. They need to stick to reviewing toasters. Any CR review of iPhone, iPad, etc is guaranteed to have 10% of the depth of a real review. Why even bother? Why give CR the page hits from being on the front page? Just let them fade into obscurity.
CR is obsolete.
DaveTheGrey
Nov 14, 03:05 PM
Well, let's see... the Zune comes out today. The iPod has been out for about 5 years (?) now. So it took Apple 5 years to have them integrate with airplanes. Shame on Apple for not innovating quicker. Shame, shame, shame. And shame on MS for not innovating quicker too. The Zune's only been out, what,... a few hours and it still can't integrate with planes? Shame on MS. :rolleyes:
Seriously.... what's with all this Zune bashing? This story isn't even about the Zune, yet someone just had to post something about it. I'm not defending MS or anyone. It's just that I get's pretty redundant when everyone praises Apple and bashes on everyone else (especially MS), like Apple can do no wrong. I bet you haven't even played with a Zune yet. It's like people who say they don't like Japanese food or something. And when asked if they've tried it, they say no. How the hell do you know whether you like somethinig or not when you haven't even tried it yet?
Apple fan boys...... :rolleyes:
i can tell you:
ms has stolen 13 years of my life with bluescreens and driver installations and because ms won't pay me for the time i spent having fun with their "os" i just love to laugh about their try to copy apple and fail, as they did for the last 20 years.
Seriously.... what's with all this Zune bashing? This story isn't even about the Zune, yet someone just had to post something about it. I'm not defending MS or anyone. It's just that I get's pretty redundant when everyone praises Apple and bashes on everyone else (especially MS), like Apple can do no wrong. I bet you haven't even played with a Zune yet. It's like people who say they don't like Japanese food or something. And when asked if they've tried it, they say no. How the hell do you know whether you like somethinig or not when you haven't even tried it yet?
Apple fan boys...... :rolleyes:
i can tell you:
ms has stolen 13 years of my life with bluescreens and driver installations and because ms won't pay me for the time i spent having fun with their "os" i just love to laugh about their try to copy apple and fail, as they did for the last 20 years.
Detlev
Oct 16, 07:37 PM
I am willing to be Apple's test market :D
Paramount
Nov 18, 06:00 AM
Nice. I should have thought about that too
eburr
Mar 15, 11:48 AM
Willow Bend did not get any today. There were at least 50 people in line.
DIGIJUNKIE
Oct 9, 04:10 PM
Studio heads are no dummies, they want to make money too and they know that the future of media is through the computers. This is just all PR crap to keep the Wall-mart and Target happy for now.
Wall-mart and Target will either live with it, or loose huge profits they can still make if they do what they say they'll do and dump all dvd's.
Don't play chicken with a tank if you are driving a motorcycle, not a very good outcome.
Wall-mart and Target will either live with it, or loose huge profits they can still make if they do what they say they'll do and dump all dvd's.
Don't play chicken with a tank if you are driving a motorcycle, not a very good outcome.
sebastianlewis
May 28, 06:34 PM
Only sysops can delete pages. If you want to create a test category I can delete it when you're done with it.
Alright, thanks for the offer, however it looks like Eraserhead already confirmed what I was thinking so I don't think there's a need to create a test one anymore to confirm myself.
Sebastian
Alright, thanks for the offer, however it looks like Eraserhead already confirmed what I was thinking so I don't think there's a need to create a test one anymore to confirm myself.
Sebastian
No comments:
Post a Comment