puma1552
Mar 15, 09:23 AM
Yes. All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
I shouldn't even be taking the bait from someone who's posting with such a jackass style, who doesn't even know hydrogen is flammable (helium my ass), but here's a nuclear expert and fellow telling it to you, exactly like it is:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/13/stevens.grimston.japan.nuclear.cnn.html
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
I don't think you understand how minute that still is. I don't think you understand that it still would need to be magnitudes higher to even be remotely harmful.
Move along.
---------
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
I shouldn't even be taking the bait from someone who's posting with such a jackass style, who doesn't even know hydrogen is flammable (helium my ass), but here's a nuclear expert and fellow telling it to you, exactly like it is:
http://edition.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/video/world/2011/03/13/stevens.grimston.japan.nuclear.cnn.html
Yes. Radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits.
I don't think you understand how minute that still is. I don't think you understand that it still would need to be magnitudes higher to even be remotely harmful.
Move along.
---------
As was quoted in my quote of the quoted article you quoted:
You want to be pedantic about 'front door' and 'outside the plant'?
I think we all already know without requiring puma's three degrees in atom science that the further away from it you are the less radioactivity there is. Hence the word 'evacuate'.
What the hell are you talking about? You don't even make any sense.
latergator116
Mar 19, 08:51 AM
No it is not. It's not theft in any defnition of the word! Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?
I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven. Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others. Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"
Well said. I have a feeling that the people blindly defending Apple and calling it "theft" don't quite understand how this program works. At least I hope that's the case.
gauriemma
Sep 20, 01:48 PM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
That's what we need here in the US. I have a Comcast DVR and I have no way to save any of the programs to my Mac's hard drive. It's getting kind of pointless. The DVR's drive is constantly filled to 85% or more of capacity, and I'm starting to have to delete things that I really would like to have been able to keep. I can't even get the damned programs onto a VHS.
Does anyone know how to save Comcast DVR 'files' to an iBook?
archipellago
May 2, 05:10 PM
What are you even talking about?
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
I simply commented on the fact that you must ask Google why they abandoned MS Windows for commercial use and that Google knows better.
You come with an insulting post claiming they know more than me.
Good if they know more than me and I don't have an issue but mind your own business sir.
Sorry, I find you hard to comprehend, maybe because English is my first language?
anyway...
Google employees must use Macs...?
probably tells you all you need to know about their internal IT team.
a nonsensical decision given that IE still has more than half the browser market and Macs can't run it.
security issues are staff issues...
Mord
Jul 12, 09:01 AM
Name another consumer workstation with a XEON Processor in it. For XEON based machines, the Apple's will be a deal, much like the XServes were the cheapest 1u you could get with the power.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
the powermac/mac pro is not a consumer mac they are workstations and are priced and specced accordingly.
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:55 AM
I hate how these carriers work in the US.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
If you give us a data allowance, that is what you give us - regardless of how we use it.
If you were giving us unlimited data, then I could understand why you would be charging for tethering. But that would go bad anyways.
I agree.
I completely understand the idea that unlimited data should have to pay for tethering, although I think there should just be a cap prior to additional charges like verizon does.
What I dont understand is how they think charging tiered data customers for tethering is fair.
neko girl
Mar 24, 11:55 PM
People can BELIEVE whatever they want.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
The reason why people have a problem with what the Vatican BELIEVES it is because it is so frequently converted into something that PHYSICALLY restricts the rights of other adults.
Stop imposing on people's rights, and you can go ahead and continue believing whatever you do.
Whether or not their beliefs are bigoted are a side issue and only strays from the actual reason people don't like the Vatican.
ImageWrangler
Oct 9, 03:33 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 08:13 AM
The iPod was not a fad by any sense of the word. Once you reach a decade of popularity, it's not a fad. It's like calling land line phones a fad because there was a time when they didn't exist, then they did exist and were popular, and now they are fading due to cell phones. Ridiculous.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it. That isn't the case with the iPod which still sells in the millions.
Amazing to see how people will resort to anything to make Apple look less popular than they are.
SimD
Apr 12, 10:45 PM
This is not really true. You need to know the software to make it do what you want to do. You don't need to be an expert certified user, but you need to know your way around.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Of course you do. I agree completely. Obviously the poster is exaggerating. I assume he means that the editors he speaks of aren't techno geeks like a lot of us here on MacRumors.
I seem to have misspoken. I meant they don't need to know the acute technical details of their software.
Mord
Jul 12, 04:12 PM
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
lazyrighteye
Oct 7, 12:21 PM
The SDK is limited only to the Apple OS, granted, it relies on hooks, however, you are alienating a hell of a lot of people from developing on the platform.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
You say that like it's a bad thing.
Don't we already have enough junk in the App Store?
If not, there are now millions of Flash developers eagerly waiting to do their best (worst?).
In most every other scenario, I'm very liberal... very supportive of openness. But when it comes to developing a tool or utility, like a computer, a phone, etc., I very much fall in the category that appreciates Apple's closed system approach over an Open Source approach. The closed approach helps ensure an efficient & consistent user experience. But I'm also a quality over quantity kind of guy - which clearly does not represent everyone.
damnyooneek
Mar 18, 04:26 AM
stop gouging the customer. first we pay for 'unlimited' data thats capped at 5gb then they limit it to 2gb and force you to pay more to tether.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 07:14 PM
Do you really think it's DRM lock-in that's fuelling those sales?
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
Because personally I think it's the integration and "it-just-works" aspects, combined with a superior product.
It's not the only thing fueling those sales, but yes. That IS iTMS's purpose. It has been stated several times before. Apple doesn't make tons of profit off of the music sales, its the iPods that they make the money off of.
And the DRM lock-in DOES play a factor in this. Remember, Apple is a big corporation... they're out to make money, just like everyone else.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 05:26 PM
Ahem, the CANDU reactor design is the 'common rail diesel' of the nuclear World.
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
It will burn the equivalent of cooking oil. :p
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:18 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
aah yes of course.. (slap on forehead). hmm.. then adding DRM on fly before delivering might be the workaround apple does... although as noted in my previous post, that can be defeated too.
dethmaShine
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
Android is the best and Apple is losing marketshare.
Simple.
I must go back to my basement now. :o
Simple.
I must go back to my basement now. :o
JnericMBP
Sep 1, 12:43 AM
Another fallout from terrible AT&T service is that in many shops and restaurants, at least in the San Francisco area, and especially Berkeley, you can't check in using location services like Foursquare or Facebook Places since there isn't adequate coverage- eg: no service, no signal etc.
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
That's bad for business.
Merchants too should press AT&T and local authorities for more towers and better connections.
I'd think that for the "check in" portion of those apps, that would be a good thing. I don't know about you but I don't want big brother knowing everywhere I go. Just a thought...:cool:
jettredmont
May 3, 03:44 PM
Of course, I don't know of any Linux distribution that doesn't require root to install system wide software either. Kind of negates your point there...
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
I wasn't specific enough there. I was talking about how "Unix security" has been applied to the overall OS X permissions system, not just "Unix security" in the abstract. I'll cede the point that this does mean that "Unix security" in the abstract is no better than NT security, as I can not refute the claim that Linux distributions share the same problem (the need to run as "root" to do day-to-day computer administration). I would point out, though, that unless things have changed significantly, most window managers for Linux et al refuse to run as root, so you can't end up with a full-fledged graphical environment running as root.
You could do the same as far back as Windows NT 3.1 in 1993. The fact that most software vendors wrote their applications for the non-secure DOS based versions of Windows is moot, that is not a problem of the OS's security model, it is a problem of the Application. This is not "Unix security" being better, it's "Software vendors for Windows" being dumber.
Yes and no. You are looking at "Unix security" as a set of controls. I'm looking at it as a pragmatic system. As a system, Apple's OS X model allowed users to run as standard users and non-root Administrators while XP's model made non-Administrator access incredibly cumbersome.
You can blame that on Windows developers just being dumber, or you can blame it on Microsoft not sufficiently cracking the whip, or you can blame it on Microsoft not making the "right way" easy enough. Wherever the blame goes, the practical effect is that Windows users tended to run as Administrator and locking them down to Standard user accounts was a slap in the face and serious drain on productivity.
Actually, the Administrator account (much less a standard user in the Administrators group) is not a root level account at all.
Notice how a root account on Unix can do everything, just by virtue of its 0 uid. It can write/delete/read files from filesystems it does not even have permissions on. It can kill any system process, no matter the owner.
Administrator on Windows NT is far more limited. Don't ever break your ACLs or don't try to kill processes owned by "System". SysInternals provided tools that let you do it, but Microsoft did not.
Interesting. I do remember being able to do some pretty damaging things with Administrator access in Windows XP such as replacing shared DLLs, formatting the hard drive, replacing any executable in c:\windows, etc, which OS X would not let me do without typing in a password (GUI) or sudo'ing to root (command line).
But, I stand corrected. NT "Administrator" is not equivalent to "root" on Unix. But it's a whole lot more "trusted" (and hence all apps it runs are a lot more trusted) than the equivalent OS X "Administrator" account.
UAC is simply a gui front-end to the runas command. Heck, shift-right-click already had the "Run As" option. It's a glorified sudo. It uses RDP (since Vista, user sessions are really local RDP sessions) to prevent being able to "fake it", by showing up on the "console" session while the user's display resides on a RDP session.
Again, the components are all there, but while the pragmatic effect was that a user needed to right-click, select "Run as Administrator", then type in their password to run something ... well, that wasn't going to happen. Hence, users tended to have Administrator access accounts.
There, you did it, you made me go on a defensive rant for Microsoft. I hate you now.
Sorry! I know; it burns!
...
Why bother, you're not "getting it". The only reason the user is aware of MACDefender is because it runs a GUI based installer. If the executable had had 0 GUI code and just run stuff in the background, you would have never known until you couldn't find your files or some chinese guy was buying goods with your CC info, fished right out of your "Bank stuff.xls" file.
Well, unless you have more information on this than I do, I'm assuming that the .zip file was unarchived (into a sub-folder of ~/Downloads), a .dmg file with an "Internet Enabled" flag was found inside, then the user was prompted by the OS if they wanted to run this installer they downloaded, then the installer came up (keeping in mind that "installer" is a package structure potentially with some scripts, not a free-form executable, and that the only reason it came up was that the 'installer' app the OS has opened it up and recognized it). I believe the Installer also asks the user permission before running any of the preflight scripts.
Unless there is a bug here exposing a security hole, this could not be done without multiple user interactions. The "installer" only ran because it was a set of instructions for the built-in installer. The disk image was only opened because it was in the form Safari recognizes as an auto-open disk image. The first time "arbitrary code" could be run would be in the preflight script of the installer.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 15, 01:20 PM
We're placing more importance on the bullying of gays because of the historical and widespread discrimination, hatred, and violence that gays have had to endure (and still endure) that obese people have not. We discussed this 8 pages ago.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
So let me get this straight.
Fat people are CONSTANTLY harassed but because the media doesn't report on every fat persons suicide or pain we are now directing to to the Gay community because the media jumps on it. I find this absolutely trash. How about we do something about suicide in America period. Soldiers killing themselves, teens killing themselves over Facebook.
Refers back to my previous post, the Gay community needs to stop singling themselves out.
Thunderhawks
Apr 28, 08:35 AM
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
There are people who still have their pet rock, so to them it's not a fad.
In general who $%%$@#% cares where Apple stands in rankings, especially if done by quarters.
Only thing that matters is $$$$$ in the bank.
Looks like they are ranking fine in that department:-)
gwangung
Apr 15, 09:41 AM
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Then widen the focus on your own.
You're not powerless on this, you know.
ShnikeJSB
Oct 26, 05:16 PM
My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
