bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:32 AM
Nah. All those games you mentioned would be part of a pack of 25 on Nintendo for 19.99 like Namco museum.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
63dot
Mar 15, 07:33 AM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
While I am not 100% percent against nuclear and see the pluses with the minuses, and I realize how much blood has been shed over oil, so I hope this article has some truth to it.
If solar takes off with these types of salt plants, then we can rely less on nuclear and oil. I am all for solar.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
While I am not 100% percent against nuclear and see the pluses with the minuses, and I realize how much blood has been shed over oil, so I hope this article has some truth to it.
If solar takes off with these types of salt plants, then we can rely less on nuclear and oil. I am all for solar.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
MacRumors
May 5, 10:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/05/05/atandt-customers-continuing-to-experience-excessive-dropped-calls/)
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
vin diesel fast and furious 4
vin diesel fast and furious 5.
vin diesel fast and furious
vin diesel fast and furious 4.
vin diesel fast and furious 1.
vin diesel fast and furious.
vin diesel fast and furious
Vin Diesel#39;s
Cast: Paul Walker, Vin Diesel,
vin diesel fast and furious
Oh Vin you little trickster.
vin diesel fast and furious 1.
vin diesel fast and furious 1.
vin diesel fast and furious 5.
vin diesel fast and furious
A new survey (http://www.investorplace.com/experts/jeff_reeves/att-dropped-calls-t-stock-verizon-vz-sprint-nextel-s-t-mobile-deutsche-telecom-dt.html) from ChangeWave Research reveals that the firm's business-focused survey base is seeing the highest percentage of dropped calls (4.5%) on AT&T, easily exceeding performance leader Verizon (1.5%), as well as Sprint (2.4%) and T-Mobile (2.8%).
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/05/05/111315-dropped_calls.gif
polaris20
Apr 21, 03:14 PM
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
Well, there are a few problems with your theories. First of all, there are vulnerabilities in Windows that merely visiting a web page clicked on from a Google search gets your machine infected. Or, you could visit a legitimate website that has mistakenly sold ad space to people hosting malware (this has occurred with both Foxnews.com and NYTimes.com), or you can download an app that you think is legitimate, but has spyware (like PrimoPDF).
I love seeing this "As long as you know what you're doing, and you're not an idiot, you're fine" attitude.
ratzzo
Apr 20, 08:45 PM
I guess, the "learning curve." While the OS can perform the same functions as say, Windows, things may not be where you'd normally look for them as, granted, you're on another platform now. But Apple does great in this sense, by adding a search function to most OS options (System Preferences).
I guess the other thing you might not like might be the fact that, after switching, you will want (or try) to keep up with Apple yearly hardware updates :p
I guess the other thing you might not like might be the fact that, after switching, you will want (or try) to keep up with Apple yearly hardware updates :p
Eaon
Apr 19, 02:12 PM
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
I don't think that's so much the Mac's fault as it is the general design of Windows networking in the Workgroup configuration that Apple continues to have to rely on to talk to Windows systems.
Windows in a workgroup mode uses a method of "broadcast my presence on the network" that you might think is like what Bonjour does for pure Mac networks, but it's of a Windows 95 vintage. Try setting up a pure Windows network using workgroups, not Active Directory, and watch how it can take around 20 minutes for systems to start showing up in each other's network neighbourhoods. It's lame. I know in Vista or 7 Microsoft added a new "homegroup" system, not sure if that's any better.
I guess you could complain that Apple should try to get up to speed on the homegroup thing, but it's not like Microsoft is overly forthcoming with their specs for their networking. Maybe if the rumours of Apple ditching Samba for something built in-house are true, maybe that means they've licensed tech from Microsoft to make this work better, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
From my own personal experience, I bring my MBP in to work and plug it in to the AD-based network, and system names start filling up my sidebar faster than I can get the mouse over there to close the Sharing section so I don't have to see them all. :cool:
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 06:19 PM
We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Hodapp
Sep 26, 04:57 PM
And you can swap 'em right in. If Apple doesn't release a Mac Pro upgrade with some other goodies (I'm personally hoping for DDR2, as the 8GB of goofy RAM in my Mac Pro cost me an arm and a leg.) I'm just going to buy a couple quad core chips and toss them in my machine.
skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
EmilH
Apr 6, 12:01 PM
I switched about a year ago and don't regret anything. Apple have to screw up big time to make me switch back to windows:)
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
You do realize the phone, aka the system, was designed to do this and that AT&T is going out of their way to charge people double for what they are paying for?
It would be no different if your home ISP tacked on a $20+ charge each month for having a router at home.
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
I am amazed people keep justifying their actions. Phone companies are like insurance companies, they balance service with costs to make profit. They tailor their plans to do so. Making profit is in the consumers best long term interest. Unprofitable companies go out of business.
They can calculate if they introduce certain plans just how much gets used and not used and base costs accordingly. When people break the contracts to do whatever they want, it eventually costs the rest of the consumers in increased rates. The reason there isn't unlimited data plans is some people would go out of their way to use as much bandwidth as possible just because they could. So AT&T had to put on limits. But they did so with a business model in hand.
It would be no different if your home ISP tacked on a $20+ charge each month for having a router at home.
I'm waiting for the class action lawsuit as this is wrong. The service that people have bought is not somehow giving them more bandwidth or a higher amount of download data simply because they are tethering through the phone. The phone can only download so fast to begin with so any device you connect to it will still be limited.
I am amazed people keep justifying their actions. Phone companies are like insurance companies, they balance service with costs to make profit. They tailor their plans to do so. Making profit is in the consumers best long term interest. Unprofitable companies go out of business.
They can calculate if they introduce certain plans just how much gets used and not used and base costs accordingly. When people break the contracts to do whatever they want, it eventually costs the rest of the consumers in increased rates. The reason there isn't unlimited data plans is some people would go out of their way to use as much bandwidth as possible just because they could. So AT&T had to put on limits. But they did so with a business model in hand.
javajedi
Oct 13, 05:48 PM
ddtlm,
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
I have my theory as to why java took the lead over C in the sqrt example. There is quite a common misconception about Java that it's always slow, and there is a reason for it. Back in the early days prior to 1.2, it wasn't uncommon to see something like we did here run 10,20, or even 30 times slower then C. VM's today (1.4 /w hotspot) are much smarter than they were years ago. IMO, Hotspot makes the conventional "just in time compilers" look like a thing of the past.
Anyways, when you really think about it, Java really has an extra card up it's sleeve. Sure we tell GCC we want max optimizations, (03, etc), but GCC is limited to compile-time optimization. I think since java has adaptive runtime optimizations, specifically hotspot, the runtime optimization is what really makes the difference.
The reason why it's called "HotSpot", is literally because it looks for "hot spots" by profiling on the fly at runtime. Pretty cool, huh? Your first adaptive optimizations kick in second time the loop is ran. Not to mention the conventional JIT optimizations... code will natively compile and so you eliminate the costly overhead of bytecode translations.
Lastly, I am going to do the matrix operation you spoke about, I have to finish up some course work, so I may not get to it tonight, but as soon as I can devote some time to it, I will.
Gelfin
Mar 27, 12:12 AM
I don't know whether homosexuality is a mental illness. But I do know that doctors and other professionals sometimes make mistakes.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
About 25 years ago, an acquaintance of mine told my mother that for about 15 years, a doctor treated her, my acquaintance, with the wrong medicine because her illness had been misdiagnosed. Unfortunately, after another doctor discovered the misdiagnosis, he also discovered that the medicine was worsening her symptoms.
When I was about 17, my optometrist realized that, if I kept wearing the glasses an opthamologist prescribed for me, they would blind me. The optometrist prescribed the lenses I needed and corrected the vision problem for which I visited him. Thanks to the optometrist, I can drive.
You are seriously comparing single incidents of medical errors by individual practitioners to the overwhelming consensus of an entire scientific discipline? But I guess you have a point. There are examples of an entire discipline being wrong about something. I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
Dr. Joseph Nicolosi disagrees. So does another psychologist who gave a lecture series called "Homosexuality 101." If the lecture series interests anyone here, I'll post links to its Youtube videos, or I'll try to explain the lecturer's theory. But I prefer to let the lecturer speak for herself because I'm not an expert in psychology.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
Although that's true, it doesn't show that homosexuality is a healthy quality to have.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
blastvurt
Apr 10, 01:10 PM
This is Apple of and this is the iPad and iOS.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
Your right, it is a entirely different ballgame, other handhelds are dedicated for gaming, the ipad and iphone is not.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
There are limits to touch based gaming and always will be
The same way the Xbox 360 controller is more limited than the PS3 controller with 6 axis
The same way the Wii controller is limited at with many types of games compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 conventional button based controllers
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Sort of like what Nintendo did with the Wii. With its excellent libary of good games, oh wait it has a few good games and a large amount of shovelware. Compare that to something like the PS3 or XBOX 360, a lot of good games and some shovelware
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Yes we have, they haven't replaced physical keyboards. They may have become more popular than keyboard based devices, but keyboard based phones are still released.
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
There is good change, bad change and what many people want on here change for the sake of change
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Considering tablets had been around for many years before the ipad but never really made it into the consumer realm. It is understandable why many would assume it a failure.
Many people on here are more tech minded, something like the ipad would not look like a successful product due to its limited capabilities, compared to what they want from a device
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Ipad is for general consumers, the same way the netbook was. Good for consumption of the web, ebooks etc (better than the netbook for ebooks and reading due to form factor). Limited uses for real work though.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
Your right they are not factors anymore. It is now 3DS, PSP NGP, HP veer and Pre 3.
Today iphone tomorrow something else. There is nothing stopping Apple from failing. It is sheer blind stupidity to think they can't fail and that they will always be successful.
Entirely, entirely different ballgame from any other handheld on the market.
Your right, it is a entirely different ballgame, other handhelds are dedicated for gaming, the ipad and iphone is not.
As far as the limits of touch-based gaming goes . . . come back in 2-3 years and *then* keep telling me about limits.
There are limits to touch based gaming and always will be
The same way the Xbox 360 controller is more limited than the PS3 controller with 6 axis
The same way the Wii controller is limited at with many types of games compared to the Xbox 360 and PS3 conventional button based controllers
Interesting how Apple is turning non-gamers in to gamers, and we're not hearing about the alleged horrid limits of touch-based gaming.
Sort of like what Nintendo did with the Wii. With its excellent libary of good games, oh wait it has a few good games and a large amount of shovelware. Compare that to something like the PS3 or XBOX 360, a lot of good games and some shovelware
Yes, and touchscreens on smartphones will *never* replace physical keyboards. We all know how that turned out, right?
Yes we have, they haven't replaced physical keyboards. They may have become more popular than keyboard based devices, but keyboard based phones are still released.
Fear of change? It's thick in these forums.
There is good change, bad change and what many people want on here change for the sake of change
In January 2010 people looked at the iPad and didn't quite understand what was going on. Didn't know where to put it, what category to fit it into. To some it was amusing at best. To others it was ridiculous and redundant. To a few it was total genius.
Considering tablets had been around for many years before the ipad but never really made it into the consumer realm. It is understandable why many would assume it a failure.
Many people on here are more tech minded, something like the ipad would not look like a successful product due to its limited capabilities, compared to what they want from a device
Today it's a household name and a device millions upon millions of people have and use every day - many of them just average, non tech-savvy folks. And it's the device that drives the post-PC era. And demand by both consumers and developers and content providers is exploding, and will continue unabated for the foreseeable future.
Ipad is for general consumers, the same way the netbook was. Good for consumption of the web, ebooks etc (better than the netbook for ebooks and reading due to form factor). Limited uses for real work though.
PSP Slim? DS? LOL is all I have to say. Like the Palm Centro and Cli� before the iPhone. These aren't even a factor anymore.
Your right they are not factors anymore. It is now 3DS, PSP NGP, HP veer and Pre 3.
Today iphone tomorrow something else. There is nothing stopping Apple from failing. It is sheer blind stupidity to think they can't fail and that they will always be successful.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:33 PM
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
*LTD*
Apr 9, 06:03 PM
You mean game developers are redefining it. What was the last game Apple released? Texas Hold'Em with no online multiplayer? Riiight.
It's all about the platform.
It's all about the platform.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 09:17 PM
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
On modern platforms, the OS will "cache" (in reality it's a bit more complicated, but the effect is the same) the executable(s) and library(/ies) necessary for an application to execute at runtime and keep them in RAM unless the system is memory starved. As such, the only thing a RAM drive should speed up on a modern system is initial program load times.
RAM drives are (outside of corner cases like, say, for something like DB rollback logs) a crutch for systems with either insufficient real RAM (in which you should get more and let every aspect of the system benefit) or broken VM systems (in which case you should upgrade your OS and let every application benefit). Many of the methods you might have used to make your Mac II running System 7 faster don't really apply to modern OSes - RAM drives are one of them.
gospel9
Apr 9, 12:31 AM
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Oh you have absolutely no idea how to play Infinity Blade. Sure you can win like that in the beginning... It is like saying a racing game is turn turn turn brake turn long brake turn turn next.
skottichan
Apr 15, 12:12 PM
Right, because civil marriage is required for gays to have sex with each other. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. You can have sex with whomever you want to.
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
We're talking about gay Catholics here, who ostensibly value being Catholic more than they value satisfying their sexual desires in a manner compatible with their sexuality. There is no theocratic regime forcing them to live as Catholics in good standing - it is a personal lifestyle choice, if you will.
The problem is, I can't get married. I'm not allowed. Adopt? Not allowed (and the Catholic church has fought some very public battles to stop gays from adopting).
Plus, the Church does not recognize gay marriage where it is allowed.
I miss the good old days where I was sent to a parochial girl's boarding school, to "help me come back to God", by my step-father. Probably the best thing he unintentionally did for me. Thankfully, I suffered no bullying in school, since most of the other girls were there for similar reasons.
I am a gay woman in her 30's, and I was devoutly Catholic until about 25 (my grandparents still hold leaving the Church against me).
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:26 PM
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
dudemac
Mar 19, 07:51 AM
As of this morning sometime it seems that it is no longer able to download, but still allows browsing and account login.
skunk
Mar 15, 06:48 PM
I've found that most people don't care as much about their country as people believe (or say they do). They and their families well being come first above all else in almost ALL cases of people. They only care about the "country" when it benefits them in a way that they know (or are used to).What evidence do you have for this beyond the purely anecdotal?
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures.You think there wasn't a nuclear threat in 1945?
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity".Usually either because their country was in ruins or because they were under threat. Neither of these things applies in Japan. There has been a major natural catastrophe, possibly more to come, but if they managed to rebuild and thrive after the wholesale destruction of WW2, they will manage this time, too. If your thesis were true, then Japan, Germany (and most of the rest of Europe) would be depopulated wasteland. Some people clearly feel heavily invested in their local cultural values.
Not that I hope there is, but if there is nuclear a threat to their health, or their (future) children's health, you better bet they will move along to better pastures.You think there wasn't a nuclear threat in 1945?
As for "moving to the US" one of the reasons why the US is so "advanced" is not because of age old traditional Americans' feats, but the immigrants who were given the opportunity to migrate here to "escape" their country. You didn't think we invented rockety, did you? What about nuclear power? E=mc2 itself was discoverd by someone who really didn't love his country! And a whole slew of other things...like the early computers. Mostly all of this was by immigrants who left their country to go to "the land of opportunity".Usually either because their country was in ruins or because they were under threat. Neither of these things applies in Japan. There has been a major natural catastrophe, possibly more to come, but if they managed to rebuild and thrive after the wholesale destruction of WW2, they will manage this time, too. If your thesis were true, then Japan, Germany (and most of the rest of Europe) would be depopulated wasteland. Some people clearly feel heavily invested in their local cultural values.
