snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Plymouthbreezer
Mar 24, 03:28 PM
Well, happy birthday, Mac OS X.
My my, how you've grown. :)
My my, how you've grown. :)
baummer
Mar 17, 11:34 AM
Go back and pay the balance. Explain what happened. At least try to pay what you OWE. What you've done is essentially theft, even moreso by the fact that you know how much it costs and know how much you paid.
technicolor
Nov 24, 10:18 AM
I am looking forward to hear the follow up on this story. I really doubted you can get both EDU and Thanksgiving discount together, even in store.
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
Or you could call the store.
Apple does not suspend normal discounts because they are having a "sale".
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
Or you could call the store.
Apple does not suspend normal discounts because they are having a "sale".
more...
linux2mac
Mar 30, 09:12 AM
This is why I switched to Mac. I don't miss these Windows headaches or spending money on anti-virus software every year. :D
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
3soteric
Mar 17, 06:42 AM
Not to condone OP's actions in any way, but karma isn't real.
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
But thats so sad....to be all alone...Is there really no higher power? Not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
People should conduct themselves according to their moral code, not out of fear that the universe will somehow reward or punish them. This is the 21st century, it's time mankind grew up and took some personal responsibility. There is no "higher power" judging our actions.
But thats so sad....to be all alone...Is there really no higher power? Not even the Flying Spaghetti Monster?
more...
Chrismcfall
Mar 30, 10:31 AM
Very interesting thread. It's a shame that you cant narrow it down to just one house. I'd be straight over, and the door would be kicked in. But...You dont really know whats on the other side of that door, so you should really take the police route. Then you can see the door be hoofed in. :D
thejadedmonkey
Apr 12, 09:05 AM
Agreed. I feel like Wordpad, with the ability to open .doc and .docx files, would suffice.
And have Graphpad, a basic spreadsheet app, with the ability to open .xls and .xlsx for excel. :)
And have Graphpad, a basic spreadsheet app, with the ability to open .xls and .xlsx for excel. :)
more...
Atlasland
Aug 7, 02:25 PM
Makes them a little more attractive to the penny concious buyer.
More importantly, cutting price of the current design signals the arrival of a new design in the not-too-distant-future.
More importantly, cutting price of the current design signals the arrival of a new design in the not-too-distant-future.
Patrick J
Apr 29, 04:26 PM
I wish they would keep the slider buttons. I really really liked them :/
Don't you think they were really unintuitive? It works on a touch screen. Not on a OSX device.
Don't you think they were really unintuitive? It works on a touch screen. Not on a OSX device.
more...
jackc
Jan 11, 06:41 PM
Someone should have got their asses kicked
Chris Bangle
Oct 14, 09:04 AM
Im hoping and I think that there will be a new ipod by december.. but lack of ipods at a retailer doesnt signify anything... John Lewis and Amazon every so often run very low on stock, but releases never follow. An example of this, which I mae a big fus about was during either WWDC or the hi-f1 launch, or probably both when shipping dates were 4 weeks or somthing.... But there were no updates...
Also I think that apple will sell the full screen one alongside the 30/80gb ones, so there will be no reson for the lack of 30/80gbs... The fullscreen one wont replace the present one.
Also I think that apple will sell the full screen one alongside the 30/80gb ones, so there will be no reson for the lack of 30/80gbs... The fullscreen one wont replace the present one.
more...
liketom
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
can we confim the what countrys itunes stores are down ?
usa/uk ...
usa/uk ...
Gloor
Jan 15, 04:52 PM
Can somebody tell me why there was no update or price drop on ACD? Why is the PRO market left to the most critical point and then updated? Mac Pro is the best example. Its a brilliant machine now but 2 weeks ago? Some of the parts were 2 years old and they still charged the same amount of money for it. Dell, HP etc. are releasing new and updated displays whilst Apple ...........sleeps?
more...
MacNut
Jan 12, 02:20 AM
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?And only 200 new patents.
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 01:12 PM
You're basically saying we're not women/men by having such strict and naive definitions of gender, thankfully you're in the minority.
Why is it so difficult to simply broaden your understanding of what woman/man actually means? If you want to point out that I'm genetically XY like it means a damn be my guest, otherwise your whole viewpoint can get stuffed.
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" , having successfully lived as gender "X" for years, despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that? Any MDs care to chime in?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
EDIT: So let me clear it us as exhaustively as possible---
I understand that people are born feeling that they were put in the wrong body.
I understand it is not a choice, that these people are born like this, just as I was born with lots of moles. Not my choice, not their choice.
I understand that these people have sex reassignment surgery, or may dress/act like the opposite sex.
I understand and support full rights for these people.
I understand and support a person such as this living as the opposite gender.
BUT
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
Does that really make me a narrow minded biggot? Seriously?
Why is it so difficult to simply broaden your understanding of what woman/man actually means? If you want to point out that I'm genetically XY like it means a damn be my guest, otherwise your whole viewpoint can get stuffed.
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" , having successfully lived as gender "X" for years, despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that? Any MDs care to chime in?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
EDIT: So let me clear it us as exhaustively as possible---
I understand that people are born feeling that they were put in the wrong body.
I understand it is not a choice, that these people are born like this, just as I was born with lots of moles. Not my choice, not their choice.
I understand that these people have sex reassignment surgery, or may dress/act like the opposite sex.
I understand and support full rights for these people.
I understand and support a person such as this living as the opposite gender.
BUT
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
Does that really make me a narrow minded biggot? Seriously?
more...
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:26 PM
well i'm about to leave my apartment tonight again for the next 2 months. this time i'll only be 2 hours away, so i can come back on the weekends if something messes up again. we'll see.
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
ngenerator
May 3, 01:48 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Maybe to let us know they're not just cracking down on iPhone owners?
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Maybe to let us know they're not just cracking down on iPhone owners?
ciTiger
Apr 29, 03:57 PM
More great news I hope!
zMacintoshz
Apr 10, 05:12 PM
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?id=cat13506&type=page&h=387&skuId=1000917&productId=1218207307591&viewtype=angleView&count=0
24" dynex 1080p hd tv for $200 at best buy.
24" dynex 1080p hd tv for $200 at best buy.
takao
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
Make a Custom Class with Ghost, problem solved. Hell, equip that same class with the Strela, and not only will the various Choppers not shoot you, but you can then bring it down so it stops killing your team as well.
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
vixapphire
Jan 15, 03:29 PM
While I thought the movie rental idea is a good one, the pricing is way off-base.
Why should I have to pay $4 to rent a new-release movie I can only watch within a 24 hour window, when I can go to Blockbuster, pay the same $4, and watch the film over several days if I want to (grace period included)?
For my $4 at Blockbuster, I pay for the real estate, the electricity, and all the employees working there, not to mention use of the little plastic disc, and the company gets some profit to boot. If Apple wants to convince me that they need the same amount of money just to park the compressed file on a server somewhere, they'll have to try a little harder. This pricing scheme reeks...
I see an iPhone-like price reduction in the near future, when the rental idea stalls out of the gate. People aren't that stupid, Stevo.
Why should I have to pay $4 to rent a new-release movie I can only watch within a 24 hour window, when I can go to Blockbuster, pay the same $4, and watch the film over several days if I want to (grace period included)?
For my $4 at Blockbuster, I pay for the real estate, the electricity, and all the employees working there, not to mention use of the little plastic disc, and the company gets some profit to boot. If Apple wants to convince me that they need the same amount of money just to park the compressed file on a server somewhere, they'll have to try a little harder. This pricing scheme reeks...
I see an iPhone-like price reduction in the near future, when the rental idea stalls out of the gate. People aren't that stupid, Stevo.
Chosenbydestiny
Nov 25, 09:44 AM
Bought my very first mac, core 2 duo macbook 2 ghz white. Didn't know they would be on sale, I had been saving this cash for a mac since the rumors of core 2 duo laptops started. I'm so happy to have finally switched now, hopefully the results of my music projects will be better. Although right now.... I'm pretty much just playing with widgets, lol.
tny
Nov 16, 04:26 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
No. The AMD processors we're talking about have the same instruction set as the Intel processors Apple is currently using; in fact, the 64 bit extensions were written by AMD, not Intel (Intel's original 64-bit solution is Itanium, which on the seamier side of the computer trade - for instance, in the Register - is called the Itanic, because it is still sinking; eventually, Intel was forced to adopt AMD's extensions because the architecture is more compatible with the Pentium/x86 architecture).
Such a switch would be comparable in terms of technological impact to the switch from IBM for the G3 to Motorola for the G4, and then to IBM for the G5.
Now, if Apple switched to Intel Itanium or (if it were ever released again) the Digital Alpha, yes, a new form of Universal Binary would be needed. I suspect that the Cell processor is not completely compatible with the G5, so it's possible that a switch to Cell would require a new form of UB, too.
