killr_b
Apr 25, 02:13 PM
And the next time somebody calls you, make sure you get their permission to store their phone number. Don't want to record their data without their consent.
They consented to me retaining their data when they didn't block their number before calling. Which is possible and an option. There was no option for this "tracking list" other than a stupid TOS that you can't op out of partially.
They consented to me retaining their data when they didn't block their number before calling. Which is possible and an option. There was no option for this "tracking list" other than a stupid TOS that you can't op out of partially.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
No it isn't. They say they are not logging your location. This is correct. If it were incorrect, they would be keeping a database of your phone's exact GPS location. Instead, as they state, they are keeping a cache of the cell towers and wifi hotspots in order to aid the A-GPS system. So, no, they are not logging your (and by your, I mean an identifiable log) exact locations and beaming it home to watch you like big brother.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
georgethomas
Apr 7, 09:54 AM
haha u cant stop technology from growing. ;)
digitalbiker
Aug 27, 12:01 PM
Anyway, before you start babbling again, check the link below...these are FACTS, not whines.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,2006502,00.asp
So please, before you spit out some fire, bring me some real facts, like percentage of failures and so on...the report I've read above shows Apple as having the LOWEST repair rate and HIGHEST trust of all makers. This, for me, is relevant; not random screams in Mac forums.
While I don't disagree with what you have said, I also think this PC Mag Poll may be a little misrepresentive of the current situation.
This is a readers poll from PC Mag users, I wonder how many are Mac users compared to PC users.
Second, they also state that Apple users are so fanatical and anti-pc that they are worried that they tend to exagerate the poll numbers in favor of Apple.
Third, the only less-subjective bit of information was the repair percentage numbers and the numbers they used were for last year (2005), so they would not reflect any problems with the new mac-intel machines. It seems like most of the issues currently being discussed are with the Mac-Intels.
NewSc2
Sep 19, 02:18 AM
Does it even MATTER if Apple keeps up? Do we actually WANT Apple to release a new computer every month when Intel bumps up their chips a few megahertz?
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
See, it's easy to get lost in the specs war. The Mac Pros came out and I was salivating, even though I have a dual 2.0GHz G5 sitting at home. And then one day, as I was editing some HD footage, it occurred ot me that my G5 here - my now outdated G5 - was editing 1080p high-def footage without so much as a flinch. It was SO fast it was not even necessary at all.
So I really have to ask - does Apple really need to get into that stupid-ass PC specs war? Is it really hurting you guys that Apple has been slow to update? Are you really doing tasks that the current computer lineup cannot do?
Hm, well my Powerbook runs barely 4 instances of Sculpture on some of my works. MacBook Pros can run about 15-17, but I've been holding off on the Rev. A because of all the heat issues. Hopefully those get cleared up.
Anyways -- yes, I think we should expect Apple to update along with everybody else on the PC front. Maybe not every small speed bump, but whenever a newly designed chip comes out.
AppleFreak89
Jun 9, 08:58 AM
Everything BIBBZ is saying is correct and works the same at my store. we had a lot of people trade in their 3g for 3gs' and pay $5 out of pocket :). its a good deal.
TheAnswer
Jul 14, 09:00 PM
I'm going to guess that the power supply on top will be like the MDD models, and therefore add rooms for more hard drives and optical drives.
Either that, or the guy that made up these specs figured that mimicing the MDD structure would add street cred to the rumor of the two optical drives.
Either way, between the case redesign rumor and the Conroe vs. Woodcrest rumor, looks like WWDC will really boost the credibility of one rumors site and smash the other's credibility to pieces (unless they're both wrong).
Either that, or the guy that made up these specs figured that mimicing the MDD structure would add street cred to the rumor of the two optical drives.
Either way, between the case redesign rumor and the Conroe vs. Woodcrest rumor, looks like WWDC will really boost the credibility of one rumors site and smash the other's credibility to pieces (unless they're both wrong).
NoSmokingBandit
Sep 1, 12:40 PM
I'd rather have 1000 equally modeled cars, but when you are dealing with 1000 cars it has to be a touch decision to make. Even so, they wouldnt have to redo anything, just copy a higher res model into the resource server.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
The premium cars sure are gorgeous though.
wescravn
Apr 10, 01:49 PM
Hoping for some better multi-core support(although probably going to have to wait for Lion for the newer QuickTime engine) and a UI that isn't from the 90's:
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
LOL, if you think final cut is from the 90's then Avid Media Composer is from the 50's. It's horrible GUI. I wouldn't learn it, if they paid me big bucks. Well I take that back, I would, but I would hate it. Avid Looks like a POS, the graphics designers at Avid have always been behind though. Look at Protools.
http://www.candlerblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/03_ambit_fullscreen-300x232.jpg
^ Final Cut on Mac OS 9
Final Cut on Tiger/Leopard/Snow Leopard:
http://adobe-discount.com/product_images/o/apple_final_cut_express_hd_4__90390.jpg
Only thing that's changed is the scroll bars.
LOL, if you think final cut is from the 90's then Avid Media Composer is from the 50's. It's horrible GUI. I wouldn't learn it, if they paid me big bucks. Well I take that back, I would, but I would hate it. Avid Looks like a POS, the graphics designers at Avid have always been behind though. Look at Protools.
quigleybc
Aug 11, 11:54 AM
Oh my god....this phone....sigh....this phone...
This is the new G5 Powerbook....so many rumors/front page stories....
it's tiresome...
yes, I want one....but I'm tired of the speculation.
This is the new G5 Powerbook....so many rumors/front page stories....
it's tiresome...
yes, I want one....but I'm tired of the speculation.
freeny
Aug 11, 10:29 AM
This is just a smoke screen for something else....;)
peeInMyPantz
Jul 28, 12:50 AM
I'm hoping for Merom news at WWDC but Fujitsu announced Merom laptops that will only be available sometime in Q4 I hope the same isn't true for the MBP.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
at least they made an announcement.
do you think apple will try to release core 2 duo notebooks as soon as possible, before Leopard? so that once Leopard is released, more users have to buy it separately. the longer the wait, chances are there are less users that will switch from their current MBP to the new MBP knowing that Leopard's release date is soon.
http://www.engadget.com/2006/07/27/fujitsu-to-add-core-2-duo-options-to-lifebook-n6400-series/
at least they made an announcement.
do you think apple will try to release core 2 duo notebooks as soon as possible, before Leopard? so that once Leopard is released, more users have to buy it separately. the longer the wait, chances are there are less users that will switch from their current MBP to the new MBP knowing that Leopard's release date is soon.
Silentwave
Aug 18, 10:21 AM
http://images.anandtech.com/graphs/mac%20pro_081406100848/12798.png
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
I think this speaks for itself.
When I'm working on one project, that's all my attention to it. When I'd like to encode it, I'd like my however many cores to be at full blast. Sadly, that's not happening at the moment and will remain so until they rewrite h264 encoding.
Like I said, unless people are doing what you do (sending multiple files to be encoded at the same time all the time) they won't benefit from 4, 8, 100 cores.
Now if anyone can show benchmarks that show FCP being 40-50% faster on a quad than on a dual when working on a project, I'll shut up :)
Or maybe they have?
Didn't FCP just get updated to optimize it for the Mac Pro?
I think they need the latest version over there and should rerun the test.
neko girl
Mar 7, 07:56 PM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
We may disagree on philosophical or moral levels, but I'm not here to involve you in anything you find to be unpleasant. We're on an internet forum, a tech gadget forum of all things, and we're all here to have a good time. If the discussion agitates you (and it's legitimate to feel that way, you are human), then I would not want you to respond.
I'd rather that whatever you're participating in makes you a happy person.
I haven't read the pdf. I will do so now..
We may disagree on philosophical or moral levels, but I'm not here to involve you in anything you find to be unpleasant. We're on an internet forum, a tech gadget forum of all things, and we're all here to have a good time. If the discussion agitates you (and it's legitimate to feel that way, you are human), then I would not want you to respond.
I'd rather that whatever you're participating in makes you a happy person.
I haven't read the pdf. I will do so now..
mcrain
Mar 23, 02:59 PM
"Lying" implies intent. Are you accusing them of lying, or getting it wrong? They absolutely lied, and they got stuff wrong. I believe there was malevolent intent, and to the extent that can't be proven, there was clear reckless disregard for the truth.
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
White House Black Market Pale
White House Black Market
Dress by White House|Black
White House Black Market
Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations? There are many in the mainstream media and many on the left who are saying today that there are problems. Asking why we didn't go into other African countries, criticizing the coalition and the idea that this is "minimal" US involvement. I'm not claiming the left is perfect, but rather pointing out that your claim (re: hipocricy from 'the left in media') is far too broad and ignores the realities of the media coverage and congressional responses.
But I also think it's important (especially in this forum) to point out hypocrisy stemming from the left so that the Macrumors Echo Chamber doesn't keep you all in denial. I've been in these forums for a long time, and I can tell you that while some denial occurs, liberals are far more likely to be critical of the politicians they support than conservatives are.
DPazdanISU
Sep 19, 06:53 AM
Sorry but I've heard this so many times it gets pretty annoying. Dont assume to know what ppl want to use their Macbooks for. I want to use it for music production which can be very intensive on the processor, other people for graphics etc where a few seconds shaved off processing times when added up many times can make quite a difference to productivity.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
i agree, I need a computer to encode video in iDVD because it takes forever on my PPC. That little difference in power is a big difference.
Also, when the new chips come out it will instantly knock a chunk off the resell value - yes this is always the way with technology but buying when an update is coming soon seems silly.
i agree, I need a computer to encode video in iDVD because it takes forever on my PPC. That little difference in power is a big difference.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 12:36 PM
Even though I sometimes get bored of your constant dissing of GT5, those are my thoughts as well.
I know it probably seems, at times, like I'm just mindlessly bashing the game, but I'm not. That isn't how I intend to come across. I'm a LOOOONG time GT fan who is just really frustrated with how the whole saga of this game has played out. Too long in the making and still releasing with flaws, half-assed features, and needing patches is not what I've come to expect from PD.
My only hope is, now that they've got this out the door, they will start major work on GT6 and get things cleaned up and to customers in a couple years, not half a decade. Like I said, the core of a great game is in there, somewhere. They just need to trim off a lot of the fat, and make GT6 that great game we expected.
I know it probably seems, at times, like I'm just mindlessly bashing the game, but I'm not. That isn't how I intend to come across. I'm a LOOOONG time GT fan who is just really frustrated with how the whole saga of this game has played out. Too long in the making and still releasing with flaws, half-assed features, and needing patches is not what I've come to expect from PD.
My only hope is, now that they've got this out the door, they will start major work on GT6 and get things cleaned up and to customers in a couple years, not half a decade. Like I said, the core of a great game is in there, somewhere. They just need to trim off a lot of the fat, and make GT6 that great game we expected.
freeny
Jul 20, 08:10 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
Im due a new computer and every time I hear about whats in the pipeline I bump my purchase date ahead another 4 months:o
Im due a new computer and every time I hear about whats in the pipeline I bump my purchase date ahead another 4 months:o
Lollypop
Jul 20, 12:47 PM
As fast as possible! Don't worry I do agree that e mail and browsing has very little to do with the processor speed, still you did ask the question! Now if only I could get a fibre link to my house without it costing a few hundred thousand Pounds a year hmm :rolleyes:
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
Sort of proves the point i was trying to make, at some point mose users wil rather get a beter IO subsystem than more processing power. When last i checked most operating systems dont scale very well beyond 32 processors, I asume that they have gotten the OS scale beyond that, but wont it at some point become impossible to improve to OS to scale better on more processors?
Multitasking has be mentioned as a situation where multiple processors will be an advantage, but at the same time be real, to what level do you multitast with processor intense apps?
Most of the time I have itunes running in the background, web browser open, word, entourage, few finder windows... basics really, but even with so few things open I cant concentrate on the report im writing or the thread im reading because of everything else happening and drawing my attention. Wont the same be true if not more so for a photoshop user? Or a FCP user? So asuming that you reduce the clutter wont the level of multitasking be reduced then?
twoodcc
Aug 11, 05:30 PM
No, there has been 8 Gran Turismo games totaling 56M. If you only count the 4 full release titles, you get 46M.
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
http://www.polyphony.co.jp/english/list.html
i know there have been more 'titles'. but they are not full releases, but i did leave out Gran Turismo for PSP, so they are up to 5 full releases now.
So, I guess you aren't going to count the Need For Speed series either, are you? As a series, it is already over 100M sales.
yes i know, but there are more games in that series, and again, it's a different type of racing game.
take a look here: (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gran_Turismo_(series))
The Gran Turismo video game series has been one of the most popular over its lifetime, appealing to an audience ranging from casual gamers to fans of realistic PC racing sims. Because of the success of the Gran Turismo series, Guinness World Records awarded the series 7 world records in the Guinness World Records: Gamer's Edition 2008. These records include "Largest Number of cars in a Racing game", "Highest Selling PlayStation Game","Oldest Car in a Racing Game", and "Largest Instruction Guide for a Racing Game".
With a collective sales total of over 57 million units sold[1], it is the highest-selling PlayStation exclusive franchise of all time.
Name for me one real car that was created just for GT. Not a concept car, a REAL car.
GT by Citro�n (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GT_by_Citro�n).
granted, only 6 were made, but still, it's a real car. its not a fake one
janstett
Oct 23, 11:44 AM
Unfortunately not many multithreaded apps - yet. For a long time most of the multi-threaded apps were just a select few pro level things. 3D/Visualization software, CAD, database systems, etc.. Those of us who had multiprocessor systems bought them because we had a specific software in mind or group of software applications that could take advantage of multiple processors. As current CPU manufacturing processes started hitting a wall right around the 3GHz mark, chip makers started to transition to multiple CPU cores to boost power - makes sense. Software developers have been lazy for years, just riding the wave of ever-increasing MHz. Now the multi-core CPUs are here and the software is behind as many applications need to have serious re-writes done in order to take advantage of multiple processors. Intel tried to get a jump on this with their HT (Hyper Threading) implementation that essentially simulated dual-cores on a CPU by way of two virtual CPUs. Software developers didn't exactly jump on this and warm up to it. But I also don't think the software industry truly believed that CPUs would go multi-core on a mass scale so fast... Intel and AMD both said they would, don't know why the software industry doubted. Intel and AMD are uncommonly good about telling the truth about upcoming products. Both will be shipping quad-core CPU offerings by year's end.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
What you're saying isn't entirely true and may give some people the wrong idea.
First, a multicore system is helpful when running multiple CPU-intensive single-threaded applications on a proper multitasking operating system. For example, right now I'm ripping CDs on iTunes. One processor gets used a lot and the other three are idle. I could be using this CPU power for another app.
The reality is that to take advantage of multiple cores, you had to take advantage of threads. Now, I was doing this in my programs with OS/2 back in 1992. I've been writing multithreaded apps my entire career. But writing a threaded application requires thought and work, so naturally many programmers are lazy and avoid threads. Plus it is harder to debug and synchronize a multithreaded application. Windows and Linux people have been doing this since the stone age, and Windows/Linux have had usable multiprocessor systems for more than a decade (it didn't start with Hyperthreading). I had a dual-processor 486 running NT 3.5 circa 1995. It's just been more of an optional "cool trick" to write threaded applications that the timid programmer avoids. Also it's worth noting that it's possible to go overboard with excessive threading and that leads to problems (context switching, thrashing, synchronization, etc).
Now, on the Mac side, OS 9 and below couldn't properly support SMP and it required a hacked version of the OS and a special version of the application. So the history of the Mac world has been, until recently with OSX, to avoid threading and multiprocessing unless specially called for and then at great pain to do so.
So it goes back to getting developers to write threaded applications. Now that we're getting to 4 and 8 core systems, it also presents a problem.
The classic reason to create a thread is to prevent the GUI from locking up while processing. Let's say I write a GUI program that has a calculation that takes 20 seconds. If I do it the lazy way, the GUI will lock up for 20 seconds because it can't process window messages during that time. If I write a thread, the calculation can take place there and leave the GUI thread able to process messages and keep the application alive, and then signal the other thread when it's done.
But now with more than 4 or 8 cores, the problem is how do you break up the work? 9 women can't have a baby in a month. So if your process is still serialized, you still have to wait with 1 processor doing all the work and the others sitting idle. For example, if you encode a video, it is a very serialized process. I hear some work has been done to simultaneously encode macroblocks in parallel, but getting 8 processors to chew on a single video is an interesting problem.
Intarweb
Apr 27, 08:04 AM
I wonder if this is why I can no longer get more than a days charge on my iPhone 4 with minimal use since it seems like it's an always on thing.
freeny
Aug 7, 04:19 PM
sorry double post
kavika411
Feb 28, 08:20 PM
According to the school's website (http://www.chc.edu/News/2011/February/statement_regarding_jim_st_george/), he was not fired as the OP's article suggests. Rather, his contract was not renewed. AFAIK, adjunct instructors do not enjoy the same privileges as tenured professors. If his contract ran out and was simply not renewed, then that's that, unless it can be argued that the college has some legal obligation to offer a new contract.
But threads like this are above further research. Not sure why you'd want to mess up a perfectly good party.
But threads like this are above further research. Not sure why you'd want to mess up a perfectly good party.
No comments:
Post a Comment