AppliedVisual
Oct 28, 01:03 PM
Probably true, and quite sad really. SGI was a heck of a company in its day. I'm not sure they could have adapted. Once everybody else abandoned MIPS SGI couldn't afford new processor revisions by themselves, and the false promise that was (and is) Itanium irrevocably doomed them. Itanium basically killed off all the competition when the Unix vendors all hopped on the Itanium bandwagon, and Intel's complete failure to deliver on Itanium's promises looks in hindsight to have been Intel's plan all along. Just think of the performance a MIPS cpu would have were it given the development dollars x86 gets.
SGI tried to build more popularity for MIPS by spinning it off as a totally separate company in the late '90s. But other than embedded applications and various closed architecture implementations, the MIPS CPUs became a dead product line. Too bad, they were always fairly nice CPUs... As for the Itanium deal, the only major UNIX vendor that essentially sunk with the Itanic was SGI. Sun just brushed it off and moved on, as did HP and IBM. SGI's ship was sinking long before thier jump to IA64... They initially started to even go x86 and it was totally obvious that this would work for them. But I think their corporate leadership and investors panicked when suddenly they had two Windows systems on the market that were outperforming their current model Irix workstations for less than half the price. If SGI was smart, they would have dug right in and milked that cow for all it was worth and continued to expand their x86 lines... 64bit x86 was already on the drawing board back then so it wasn't an unknown factor. SGI would have done well to port Irix to x86, too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Altix is nice, but hardly unique in todays marketplace. That and it's still Itanium based, which is a glaring red flag. I'd much rather go for one of Sun's large-scale solutions based on Opteron CPUs. It may only give me 90% of the per-CPU performance with 70% of the bandwidth across the entire cluster, but it's also half the price and I know that the CPU architecture will still be supported several years from now. Itanium is all but dead and Intel doesn't even seem interested in supporting it anymore. Most major workstation and server vendors have dropped it already and Intel has missed ship dates for most of the IA64 products on their roadmap. SGI claims they came out of bankruptcy a very focused and agile company... Yet they're still producing products based on a CPU architecture most the rest of the industry has already written off. So yeah, niche market for sure. SGI can't even muster the resources to continue development of Irix and it's being discontinued this year. So now all they have is some overgrown IA64 Linux boxes. What's going to happen if their current sales figures stay about the same and their own technologies dry up? They're just going to become another business-oriented Linux server vendor placing off-the-shelf components in some of the prettiest boxes around for a super-premium price. ...That's practically all they are now and the only thing that really differentiates their products (other than the cool system bezels and rack enclosures) is their NUMALink design.
I used to be very fond of SGI and their products, but that was years ago... The past 6 years have been a continuous downhill spiral and the company I once loved has been dead and gone for a long time now.
SGI tried to build more popularity for MIPS by spinning it off as a totally separate company in the late '90s. But other than embedded applications and various closed architecture implementations, the MIPS CPUs became a dead product line. Too bad, they were always fairly nice CPUs... As for the Itanium deal, the only major UNIX vendor that essentially sunk with the Itanic was SGI. Sun just brushed it off and moved on, as did HP and IBM. SGI's ship was sinking long before thier jump to IA64... They initially started to even go x86 and it was totally obvious that this would work for them. But I think their corporate leadership and investors panicked when suddenly they had two Windows systems on the market that were outperforming their current model Irix workstations for less than half the price. If SGI was smart, they would have dug right in and milked that cow for all it was worth and continued to expand their x86 lines... 64bit x86 was already on the drawing board back then so it wasn't an unknown factor. SGI would have done well to port Irix to x86, too bad they didn't have the foresight to do it.
SGI's technology isn't so much obsolete (who else sells systems with the capacity of an Altix 4700?) as it is unnecessary. 4 CPU Intel machines do just fine for 99.9% of people these days, and the kind of problems SGI machines are good at solving are a tiny niche. That's not just number crunching, a big SGI machine has I/O capacity that smokes a PC cluster.
Altix is nice, but hardly unique in todays marketplace. That and it's still Itanium based, which is a glaring red flag. I'd much rather go for one of Sun's large-scale solutions based on Opteron CPUs. It may only give me 90% of the per-CPU performance with 70% of the bandwidth across the entire cluster, but it's also half the price and I know that the CPU architecture will still be supported several years from now. Itanium is all but dead and Intel doesn't even seem interested in supporting it anymore. Most major workstation and server vendors have dropped it already and Intel has missed ship dates for most of the IA64 products on their roadmap. SGI claims they came out of bankruptcy a very focused and agile company... Yet they're still producing products based on a CPU architecture most the rest of the industry has already written off. So yeah, niche market for sure. SGI can't even muster the resources to continue development of Irix and it's being discontinued this year. So now all they have is some overgrown IA64 Linux boxes. What's going to happen if their current sales figures stay about the same and their own technologies dry up? They're just going to become another business-oriented Linux server vendor placing off-the-shelf components in some of the prettiest boxes around for a super-premium price. ...That's practically all they are now and the only thing that really differentiates their products (other than the cool system bezels and rack enclosures) is their NUMALink design.
I used to be very fond of SGI and their products, but that was years ago... The past 6 years have been a continuous downhill spiral and the company I once loved has been dead and gone for a long time now.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
Theres ways to express your opinion (even if its pretty unpopular) without stooping to this. Not Cool
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
kas23
Apr 28, 08:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
That is true, but I would argue that Apple likely sold more iPad 2s through the end of march than during the whole month of April.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not? Therefore, even will that binge of iPad 1 purchases during Christmas, these numbers are still surprisingly unimpressive.
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
You apparently missed the part of the report that says:
A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers.
Interpretation in english:
Two major factors contributing to the sequential decline of iPad sales this quarter:
1) A lot of consumers received an iPad 1 as a holiday gift and did not need a 2 and
2) Apple's larger multi-country launch caused inventory constraint and Apple was unable to sell more because they didn't have any excess to sell; i.e., it's a really popular device and we anticipate that being reflected in next quarter's sales report.
That is true, but I would argue that Apple likely sold more iPad 2s through the end of march than during the whole month of April.
As for too many people buying iPad 1 for Christmas, thus denting iPad 2 sales, well, all previous iPad 1 sales are included in these numbers, are they not? Therefore, even will that binge of iPad 1 purchases during Christmas, these numbers are still surprisingly unimpressive.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 05:19 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
FightTheFuture
Feb 26, 05:31 AM
The thing is, do Apple care about being outpaced sales-wise? They may just be content to make their products smoother and sexier than the better Android phones and be the Mercedes.
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
If they want to be in the sales race they need to get the 32MB iPhone free on �30 per month contract like other top-end smart phones, not �230 on a �35 per month contract. As Android and Maemo and tothers improve that massve Apple tax won't wash.
They also need an iPhone nano to compete with the HTC hero type phones.the iPhone is getting outpaced in sales by Blackberry and symbian. nothing will change that. if android eats away at symbian sales, they'll definitely be ahead of the iPhone. but what's more important to Apple? selling 8 million iPhones a quarter? or selling the cheapest phone to everyone?
i'm also wondering, do we think there will be a better android based phone than the nexus one? i'm not talking about adding more pixels or an incremental spec bump. where do they plan to go next? i don't know what apple plans for the 4th gen iPhone, but i doubt it'll just be the iPhone 3.0 + "features that Google has."
faroZ06
May 2, 06:27 PM
I just received an email with this site
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
Eh, I'll see after 5 years how much my computer has been successfully attacked. :cool:
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/bott/coming-soon-to-a-mac-near-you-serious-malware/3212?tag=nl.e589
Mac getting targetted after many years
Bert
Eh, I'll see after 5 years how much my computer has been successfully attacked. :cool:
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Queso
Oct 26, 09:56 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 11:17 AM
Will never happen. The contract you signed with AT&T specifically says the required data plan cannot be tethered without an additional fee. You agreed not to do it, they have every right to punish those that break the contract.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
I have seen this repeated several times throughout the thread. Can someone actually post the relevant contractual section? Thanks.
Fwiw, I think AT&T is bluffing people who are suddenly using significantly more data.
Liquorpuki
Mar 14, 08:27 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
No it's not. That would be architects, and only some of them. And maybe Steve Jobs, if you wanted to call him an engineer.
Engineering - everything is quantified down to tedium. Every single variable in a design has a reason for being a specific value.
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
Eraserhead
Mar 16, 01:29 PM
expand biofuels,
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
How's that going to work? People have to be fed too...
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:09 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
bartzilla
Apr 20, 08:17 AM
One thing I would say, as someone who didn't "switch" but who uses both quite comfortably, is that you need to appreciate how the system works and try and work with it rather than against it, so rather than saying "This is how I used to do things in Windows, now what can I do on a Mac that's similar to the way I used to do it in Windows" you need to think about what you're trying to achieve and find out what neat ways the mac has of getting that done.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
This goes both ways, trying to use Windows as if it was Mac OSX isn't much fun, either.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 04:47 PM
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
the actions of "a few countries" that are many miles apart (so by all rights should have different cultures) but have one thing in common, ie islam, are a representation of the effects of islam.
islam is unpleasant and, i guess for want of a better word, evil.
kdarling
Jul 10, 09:18 AM
Is the battery life as bad as I've heard? I think I prefer the Incredible to the Droid X (mainly because of size), but I hate not being able to make it through the day without charging my phone.
The Incredible lasts all day (or even two) for me with an internal-sized extended Seidio. If I Slingplayer'd more, I'd get a physically larger one.
The first thing I get for any smartphone (if the maker allows it) is an extended battery. Not only do I immediately get longer usage time, I still have the original as a spare to swap in if necessary (like coming home after using up my phone and wanting to go right back out again - great on vacations).
It took a few days to adapt to Android, but if you've used lots of smartphones it's not a difficult transition. Especially once you discover the joy of universal voice input.
The Incredible lasts all day (or even two) for me with an internal-sized extended Seidio. If I Slingplayer'd more, I'd get a physically larger one.
The first thing I get for any smartphone (if the maker allows it) is an extended battery. Not only do I immediately get longer usage time, I still have the original as a spare to swap in if necessary (like coming home after using up my phone and wanting to go right back out again - great on vacations).
It took a few days to adapt to Android, but if you've used lots of smartphones it's not a difficult transition. Especially once you discover the joy of universal voice input.
JediZenMaster
May 6, 10:13 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
True and look at the European Carriers like 02 that have the iphone. They have the same issue. And if verizon ever gets the iphone they will have the same issue too.
True and look at the European Carriers like 02 that have the iphone. They have the same issue. And if verizon ever gets the iphone they will have the same issue too.
deannnnn
May 5, 05:46 PM
i live in one of att's top 3 markets and havent dropped a call for a year. and both me and my dad (who also doesnt drop calls) are on the phone a lot.
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
My phone doesn't work on the street in New York.
That's not AT&T's fault?
Coverage tends to be better in America's suburbs like say... Long Island?
for all the people saying they have a bad signal just in your house its your own fault. not att's.
also to this chart thing i bet most of the people on that chart are att haters just cause the iphone is att only. FYI dont get a phone if its service doesnt work near you. you have no right to complain if there are other carriers to choice.
My phone doesn't work on the street in New York.
That's not AT&T's fault?
Coverage tends to be better in America's suburbs like say... Long Island?
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
Not at all. I think anyone who identifies as a Christian is a Christian by definition. I just think that the lengths some goto rationalise their beliefs are ridiculous. Why bother being a Christian at all if you are going to change some of the core tenants of the belief.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
Perhaps you should define what you mean, then. Definitionally, to be a "Christian" generally means a belief in God, a belief that Jesus was God's son on earth, and a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as expiation of humanity's sins. Everything else is open to interpretation--even those denominations you think believe the Bible "literally" do not.
I am mean I heard the other day (second hand so apply salt liberally) that some Christians are even changing the whole holy trinity thing so that it is less "way out there".
My general thinking on this is that if you can "interpret" so much of the Bible then why do you need a centralised religion at all? Why isn't anyone who believes in a god (any god) a Christian if the definition is so liberal? The only thing that seems constant in Christianity is that every denomination considers the Bible to be their holy book. Everything else, including the meaning whether literal or interpreted is completely up for grabs.
Perhaps you should define what you mean, then. Definitionally, to be a "Christian" generally means a belief in God, a belief that Jesus was God's son on earth, and a belief in the death and resurrection of Jesus as expiation of humanity's sins. Everything else is open to interpretation--even those denominations you think believe the Bible "literally" do not.
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:47 PM
Again, I could care less what they say.
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Why would you not care? Regardless of what you may think, the reality is that what they say encourages others to act, whether those people are Catholic or otherwise. Because it's a major religion, it gives a lot of people encouragement and an excuse to act.
Let me know when they start to act on what they say.
Again, not some extremist minority, the actual mainstream body of Catholicism.
Again, why do you think the extremist minorities do what they do? Where do you think the encouragement comes from? Gelfin just explained this to you and you completely ignored it.
Of course not, but then again, I've never needed a license to vote. Have you?
You have to register. If you don't register, you don't vote. What's the difference between that and a license? And again, marriage is a right, as has been pointed out clearly in this thread. Yet you continue to ignore that fact. Why?
Apple OC
Apr 22, 08:44 PM
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Interesting...
Do you mean some Magical force creating Eve from Adam's rib?
not even interesting :cool:
Anonymous Freak
Sep 26, 11:17 AM
Therefore current Mac Pro users may be able to upgrade to 8-core machines upon availability of the new chips
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
Emphasis mine. Whaddaya mean 'may'? Anandtech (http://anandtech.com/mac/showdoc.aspx?i=2832&p=6) confirmed that they work.
Oh, and as for quad-core laptops? Not any time soon. Sorry. We'll see quad-core Xeons this year, maybe a quad core 'Core 2 Extreme' this year, followed by a few desktop 'Core 2 Quadro's next year.
The big problem is that the early quad-core chips are really just two dual-core chips in the same package. So not only are they big (you CAN'T fit four Conroes on a Socket 775 package, so we WON'T be seeing similar eight-core chips until a die shrink,) but they draw almost exactly twice as much power as the same GHz dual-core chip. That already will already push the Xeons and Core 2s to the thermal envelope that was hit by the NetBurst based models. So we'll have to wait for a die shrink before we see quad-core in any of the 'consumer' desktop Macs or laptops. (The die shrink is scheduled for late next year.)
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
