kingtj
Aug 29, 12:54 PM
The fact is, Apple computers make up well under 8% of the total world computer marketplace. FAR less if you include all the mainframes and minicomputers in that estimate.
If Apple did absolutely *nothing* special to please environmentalists... no recycling programs whatsoever, etc. - it would have relatively little impact on the overall situation. The fact is, they DO take some steps towards being environmentally responsible anyway.
Truthfully, it's a much more serious issue if a *large* computer supplier like Dell scores badly in this area. They pump out MANY more PCs on corporate desktops all over the world. Apple has to showcase it when they can find a business that bought thousands of their computers at a time. For Dell or IBM, they could point to that in several companies in any major American city.
Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical....
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
If Apple did absolutely *nothing* special to please environmentalists... no recycling programs whatsoever, etc. - it would have relatively little impact on the overall situation. The fact is, they DO take some steps towards being environmentally responsible anyway.
Truthfully, it's a much more serious issue if a *large* computer supplier like Dell scores badly in this area. They pump out MANY more PCs on corporate desktops all over the world. Apple has to showcase it when they can find a business that bought thousands of their computers at a time. For Dell or IBM, they could point to that in several companies in any major American city.
Groups like Greenpeace border on fanatical....
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
asdf542
Apr 13, 12:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life. Anyone else notice it's fcp x. No pro mentioned.
...what?
"The new version of Final Cut Pro has been renamed to "Final Cut Pro X" and is described as a complete rewrite of the original application. "
Only thing that's changed in the name is the number. What do you think FCP stands for?
Just left. Waiting at the airport with some huge questions as a commercial editor. No talk of motion. If it's an app store download might be a small program no motion presets or content. I honestly wonder if there is a tape capture window. I didn't see a filters tab XML support or any kind os manager. Seems you edit color and export. I'm hoping it was just the sneakest of peeks and that there's a lot more hiding in there. Otherwise I'm holding onto fcp7 for dear life. Anyone else notice it's fcp x. No pro mentioned.
...what?
"The new version of Final Cut Pro has been renamed to "Final Cut Pro X" and is described as a complete rewrite of the original application. "
Only thing that's changed in the name is the number. What do you think FCP stands for?
ezekielrage_99
Jul 11, 11:27 PM
I wonder I they put a Xeon in a Mac will it come with Intergrated graphics :confused: ;)
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
I sure hope Apple don't put intergrated graphics in the Mac Pros as ANY sort of an option......
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.
archipellago
May 2, 04:47 PM
Really? Find a source that makes the statements you suggest above that is unbiased. By unbiased, I mean a source that doesn't sell vulnerabilities to ZDI which then produces and markets specific hardware security appliances to generate revenue.
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Hooking the APIs to log protected passwords in Mac OS X requires privilege escalation.
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
MagnusVonMagnum
May 4, 02:39 PM
You're making a huge assumption that the people who vote on posts are the same people who are posting in a thread.
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
lood circulatory system,
The Circulatory System
No, I'm making an assumption that fanboys are voting down all the anti-Apple posts in droves. Whether they have posted in the thread is completely irrelevant. The point is you don't see people voting in droves for logical posts, but you do see negative votes in any post that speaks either for Microsoft or against Apple, regardless of the content of that message. That implies emotional reaction which implies fanaticism. You can argue semantics, but 1+1 still equals 2. Sherlock Holmes didn't have to do a poll to figure things out.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 07:43 PM
What about this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
ehm, it is slightly more complex than that.
Think of earth as one big very very complex dynamical system. You change one varible and all the other variables will change too. If you are lucky the system will converge back to the original equilibrium. However, if you change a/some variables sufficiently much, the system will:
a) converge to a new equlibrium
or
b) oscillate
All serious climate researchers claim that we are about to change a/some variables sufficiently much (read. CO2) The fact that we already have chopped down large protions of the rain forrest doesnt help us since CO2 are used in photosynthesis.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_cooling#1975_Newsweek_article
Cooling, warming, cooling, warming...Sheesh, it's almost like it's mother nature, NOT us. Doesn't she know it's US! And that little ice age in the 16th to 18th centuries? what's that all about?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Little_ice_age
Again, sheesh. It's like mother nature is doing it herself!!! And jeez, how about the greenhouse effect? I thought it was bad until my college Blue Planet teacher told us that if we didn't have it, the planet would be one big snowball. None of the students knew what to think, after years of telling us greenhouse effects are bad. Thank god all those carbon dioxide emissions are breathed up by plants...
ehm, it is slightly more complex than that.
Think of earth as one big very very complex dynamical system. You change one varible and all the other variables will change too. If you are lucky the system will converge back to the original equilibrium. However, if you change a/some variables sufficiently much, the system will:
a) converge to a new equlibrium
or
b) oscillate
All serious climate researchers claim that we are about to change a/some variables sufficiently much (read. CO2) The fact that we already have chopped down large protions of the rain forrest doesnt help us since CO2 are used in photosynthesis.
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
Blood Vascular System: Blood
circulatory system make up
of the Circulatory System
WHAT IS THE CIRCULATORY SYSTEM
The lood then reaches the
with a circulatory system
Large arteries leave. An image
The circulatory system is the
Blood circulatory system
THE CIRCULATORY SYSTEM
circulatory system. Blood
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
jobesucks
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Also mac networking sucks, pc,s rarely show in finder, sometimes do sometimes dont, have to cmd k far too often, well in my experience anyway.
Other than that not much else
Funkymonk
Apr 28, 10:13 AM
Agree. Too bad the iMac never took off in the enterprise sector. I remember when I was going to the university in the 90's I saw plenty of macs all around campus. Now the times I've gone all I see are Dell's, and HP's.
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
It's too expensive. as a business, why buy an imac when I could but a dell or hp for a fraction of the price to do the same job?
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 06:19 PM
We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
Ah, the glory days of the British Raj. LOL Thanks for the laugh.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
skunk
Mar 26, 10:04 AM
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?There is no good reason why priests are expected to do it. Peter was married, as were many of the apostles and the priests of the early church. Nor was this confined to the early church:
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Married before receiving Holy Orders
It was within canon law, and still is, for priests to have once been married before receiving Holy Orders. In the Eastern Rite branches of the Catholic Church, it is within canon law to be a priest and married (but one may not marry after ordination).
Saint Peter (Simon Peter), whose mother-in-law is mentioned in the Bible as having been miraculously healed (Matthew 8:14–15, Luke 4:38, Mark 1:29–31). According to Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, vi, ed. Dindorf, II, 276), Peter was married and had children and his wife suffered martyrdom. In some legends dating from at least the 6th century, Peter's daughter is called Petronilla.[2][3] Pope Clement I wrote: "For Peter and Philip begat children; [..] When the blessed Peter saw his own wife led out to die, he rejoiced because of her summons and her return home, and called to her very encouragingly and comfortingly, addressing her by name, and saying, 'Remember the Lord.' Such was the marriage of the blessed, and their perfect disposition toward those dearest to them."[4]
Pope Siricius (384–399), where tradition suggests that he left his wife and children in order to become pope. The number of Siricius' children is unknown. Wrote a decree in 385, stating that priests should stop cohabiting with their wives.
Pope Felix III (483–492) was a widower with two children when he was elected to succeed Pope Simplicius in 483. It is said that he was the great-great-grandfather of Gregory the Great.
Pope St. Hormisdas (514–523) was married and widowed before ordination. He was the father of Pope St. Silverius.[5]
Pope Silverius (536–537) may have been married to a woman called Antonia. However this remains debated by historians.
Pope Agatho or Pope Saint Agatho (678–681) was married for 20 years as a layman with one daughter, before in maturity he followed a call to God and with his wife’s blessing became a monk at Saint Hermes’ monastery in Palermo. It is thought his wife entered a convent.
Pope Adrian II (867–872) was married to a woman called Stephania, before taking orders, and had a daughter.[6] His wife and daughter were still living when he was selected to be pope and resided with him in the Lateran Palace. His daughter was carried off, raped, and murdered by former antipope Anastasius's brother, Eleutherius. Her mother was also killed by Eleutherius.
Pope John XVII (1003) was married before his election to the papacy and had three sons, who all became priests.[7]
Pope Clement IV (1265–1268) was married, before taking holy orders, and had two daughters.[8]
Pope Honorius IV (1285–1287) was married before he took the Holy Orders and had at least two sons. He entered the clergy after his wife died, the last pope to have been married.[9]
Sexually active before receiving Holy Orders
Pope Pius II (1458–1464) had at least two illegitimate children (one in Strasbourg and another one in Scotland), born before he entered the clergy.[10]
Pope Innocent VIII (1484–1492) had at least two illegitimate children, born before he entered the clergy.[11] According to the 1911 Encyclop�dia Britannica, he "openly practised nepotism in favour of his children".[12] Girolamo Savonarola chastised him for his worldly ambitions.[13] The title Padre della patria (Father of the Fatherland) was suggested for him, precisely with suggestions that he may have fathered as many as 16 illegitimate children.[14]
Pope Clement VII (1523–1534) had one illegitimate son before he took holy orders. Academic sources identify him with Alessandro de' Medici, Duke of Florence.[15][16]
Pope Gregory XIII (1572–1585) had an illegitimate son before he took holy orders.[17]
Sexually active after receiving Holy Orders
Pope Julius II (1503–1513) had at least one illegitimate daughter, Felice della Rovere (born in 1483, twenty years before his election). Some sources indicate that he had two additional illegitimate daughters, who died in their childhood.[18] Furthermore, some (possibly libellous) reports of his time accused him of sodomy. According to the schismatic Council of Pisa in 1511, he was a "sodomite covered with shameful ulcers."[19]
Pope Paul III (1534–1549) held off ordination[20] in order to continue his promiscuous lifestyle, fathering four illegitimate children (three sons and one daughter) by his mistress Silvia Ruffini. He broke his relations with her ca. 1513. There is no evidence of sexual activity during his papacy.[21] He made his illegitimate son Pier Luigi Farnese the first Duke of Parma.[22][23]
Pope Pius IV (1559–1565) had three illegitimate children before his election to the papacy.[24]
Sexually active during their pontificate
Along with other complaints, the activities of the popes between 1458 to 1565 helped encourage the Protestant Reformation.
Pope Sergius III (904–911) was supposedly the father of Pope John XI by Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] as well as the Liber Pontificalis.[26] However it must be noted that this is disputed by another early source, the annalist Flodoard (c. 894-966), John XI was brother of Alberic II, the latter being the offspring of Marozia and her husband Alberic I. Hence John too may have been the son of Marozia and Alberic I. Bertrand Fauvarque underlines that the contemporary sources backing up this parenthood are dubious, Liutprand being "prone to exaggeration" while other mentions of this fatherhood appear in satires written by supporters of late Pope Formosus.[27]
Pope John X (914–928) had romantic affairs with both Theodora and her daughter Marozia, according to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis:[28] "The first of the popes to be created by a woman and now destroyed by her daughter". (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope John XII (955–963) (deposed by Conclave) was said to have turned the Basilica di San Giovanni in Laterano into a brothel and was accused of adultery, fornication, and incest (Source: Patrologia Latina).[29] The monk chronicler Benedict of Soracte noted in his volume XXXVII that he "liked to have a collection of women". According to Liutprand of Cremona in his Antapodosis,[25] "they testified about his adultery, which they did not see with their own eyes, but nonetheless knew with certainty: he had fornicated with the widow of Rainier, with Stephana his father's concubine, with the widow Anna, and with his own niece, and he made the sacred palace into a whorehouse." According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, John XII was "a Christian Caligula whose crimes were rendered particularly horrific by the office he held".[30] He was killed by a jealous husband while in the act of committing adultery with the man's wife.[31][32][33][34] (See also Saeculum obscurum)
Pope Benedict IX (1032–1044, again in 1045 and finally 1047–1048) was said to have conducted a very dissolute life during his papacy.[35] He was accused by Bishop Benno of Piacenza of "many vile adulteries and murders."[36][37] Pope Victor III referred in his third book of Dialogues to "his rapes, murders and other unspeakable acts. His life as a Pope so vile, so foul, so execrable, that I shudder to think of it."[38] It prompted St. Peter Damian to write an extended treatise against sex in general, and homosexuality in particular. In his Liber Gomorrhianus, St. Peter Damian recorded that Benedict "feasted on immorality" and that he was "a demon from hell in the disguise of a priest", accusing Benedict IX of routine sodomy and bestiality and sponsoring orgies.[39] In May 1045, Benedict IX resigned his office to pursue marriage, selling his office for 1,500 pounds of gold to his godfather, the pious priest John Gratian, who named himself Pope Gregory VI.[40]
Pope Alexander VI (1492–1503) had a notably long affair with Vannozza dei Cattanei before his papacy, by whom he had his famous illegitimate children Cesare and Lucrezia. A later mistress, Giulia Farnese, was the sister of Alessandro Farnese, who later became Pope Paul III. Alexander fathered a total of at least seven, and possibly as many as ten illegitimate children.[41] (See also Banquet of Chestnuts)
Suspected to have had male lovers during pontificate
Pope Paul II (1464–1471) was alleged to have died of a heart attack while in a sexual act with a page.[42]
Pope Sixtus IV (1471–1484) was alleged to have awarded gifts and benefices to court favorites in return for sexual favors. Giovanni Sclafenato was created a cardinal by Sixtus IV for "ingenuousness, loyalty,...and his other gifts of soul and body",[43] according to the papal epitaph on his tomb.[44] Such claims were recorded by Stefano Infessura, in his Diarium urbis Romae.
Pope Leo X (1513–1521) was alleged to have had a particular infatuation for Marcantonio Flaminio.[45]
Pope Julius III (1550–1555) was alleged to have had a long affair with Innocenzo Ciocchi del Monte. The Venetian ambassador at that time reported that Innocenzo shared the pope's bedroom and bed.[46] According to The Oxford Dictionary of Popes, "naturally indolent, he devoted himself to pleasurable pursuits with occasional bouts of more serious activity".
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_sexually_active_popes
Mr. Gates
May 2, 03:59 PM
Macs are more vulnerable than people think.
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
Cyrax
Apr 6, 01:32 PM
What if I just want my top 10 favorites? In Windows I just drag the icon (of whatever I want) to the Start button, then drop it into the list of my favorites (I'm not sure of the actual term for this). Can this be done on a Mac?
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
Since I open the same 10 or 12 programs or folders or files many times throughout the day, every day, this is pretty important to me. It would absolutely mess up my work flow to lose this feature.
Those programs are the ones you would put on your Dock.
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:36 PM
Currently the biggest threat to freedom and democracy is Islam.
Freedom comes under threat when we use force and aggression as a socio-political tool.
No matter who is on the receiving end of it, the chances are they will respond in a like manner.
And so the cycle of violence turns.
Who will have the wisdom, compassion and courage to see through this and bring it to an end?
Freedom comes under threat when we use force and aggression as a socio-political tool.
No matter who is on the receiving end of it, the chances are they will respond in a like manner.
And so the cycle of violence turns.
Who will have the wisdom, compassion and courage to see through this and bring it to an end?
Aduntu
Apr 23, 02:16 AM
the word day is used over 2000 times in the old testament, and you want to change the meaning of only six of them? Especially since the creation passages define the light as "day" and the darkness as "night", day is clearly defined as 24hrs
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
The six creative "days" occurred after the creation of the "heavens and the earth." That means the universe (and the earth) was in existence for an indefinite amount of time before the creative days began.
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period. Genesis 2:4 refers to God creating the "heavens and the earth" in a single day, yet Exodus 20:11 says it took six days to create the "heavens and the earth." By calling light day and darkness night, it's actually showing that only a portion of a 24-hour period is defined by the term "day." When the sun comes up at your house and then goes down, does that equal an entire day, lasting 24 hours? Psalms 90:4 says that a thousand years to man is merely a day to God. So how can you logically conclude that the term "day" is strictly indicating a 24-hour period?
manhattanboy
May 5, 05:38 PM
iphone user since day 1.. I was verizon prior.. I live in central NJ, commute into NYC.. my service is so awful that I no longer talk on the phone.. seriously, my communication habits have changed.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
You are talking logically and trying to make sense of what AT&T is doing.
Good luck with that!
Now that the 3G iPad is out, you can say goodbye to those fast data speeds.
AT&T blows, but that said, I have noticed faster connection rates with phones other than the iPhone using the same sim, just never in NYC.
At home, I drop literally half of my calls inside and out, on the road, a little less but still a joke by any standard. If you check the map, I live in a high coverage, full 3G zone, it's not like I live in the sticks....
When I first upgraded to the 3GS from my 2G, I noticed a marked improvement so I thought maybe it was the original 2G phone, but now, over the last few weeks the service has gotten so bad that I am ready to dump it and move on. I really just need a phone that works and doesn't give me high blood pressure every time I pick it up to get on a call.
The problem is that the iPhone and some of the apps I utilize have become integral parts of my workflow, so it won't be an easy change.
Yesterday I called AT&T for the first time in months and just yelled at everyone I could until I was good and satisfied. I've already gotten them to give me refunds (several time) it's not about the money anymore.
I just really wish they'd invest some of the loads of cash they're taking to upgrade their network, especially in the busiest metro areas that are the hardest hit. Or perhaps maybe even invent a new method relieve pressure on their network (something along the lines of the micro-cell but more widespread)?
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
You are talking logically and trying to make sense of what AT&T is doing.
Good luck with that!
Now that the 3G iPad is out, you can say goodbye to those fast data speeds.
AT&T blows, but that said, I have noticed faster connection rates with phones other than the iPhone using the same sim, just never in NYC.
peharri
Sep 24, 05:08 PM
The iTV most definitely requires a computer.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
There's no evidence of this. Nothing has been said suggesting anything of the sort.
The iTV is a like a suped up Airport extreme for video.
No, it isn't. It's not remotely like an Airport Extreme.
It has already been demoed and it requires a computer. The computer streams the iTunes content to the iTV and the iTV receives the stream and translates it into video and audio out via an HDMI or SVGA connection to your TV.
This is not the case. There's only been one demonstration so far, and the controlling part was the iTV, not the server.
The iTV also supports front row and allows remote control of the iTunes source machine.
What was demonstrated was a box that can view iTunes libraries on the local network. There's no evidence it "controls" the source machine beyond telling it to send a stream (like any iTunes client.)
There maybe more features in the future but those are the reported and demoed features.
The reported and demo'd features are of a standalone box that can access iTunes libraries. The box is reported to have storage (which is what this entire thread is about!)
It most certainly is not of some souped up Airport Extreme. That was what was widely rumoured before the Showtime presentation, and it turned out to be completely false. Whatever the debate of the precise capabilities of the iTV may be, the device demo'd couldn't be further from being an Airport Extreme if it tried.
sawah
Mar 18, 08:55 AM
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:31 AM
sounds like someone on here thinks he's a lawya! Must have stayed in a holiday in last night.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 03:31 PM
Just like Mac OS X would gain market share if you could install it on any PC.
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
No, they most likely wouldn't. There is no reason to think that it would - it's conjecture. (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay)
supermacdesign
Sep 12, 06:20 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
Please?!
No comments:
Post a Comment