Don't panic
May 4, 10:50 AM
The other downside is we have half our health and action points. I'm not sure how big of a trap we can see early in a game, but if it has 3 or more that wipes out a whole team possibly.
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
damnyooneek
May 7, 11:01 AM
Well put.
amen.
amen.
rinconj
Aug 7, 07:37 PM
Is this whole heat sinked ram issue for real?
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
Their estimated shipping date is on the safe side that it's how long it'll take if it has to be shipped from Mars. I ordered two BT mighty mice the day it came out and the shipping date was said to be some time late Auguest, but it arrived two days later ( late July).
I just ordered the top o line, Macpro. but with base ram as usual onoly to see the FB- blah blah heat sinked, get nothing else or your computer will become the wind tunnel of hell, Is this true.
Should I get a 2gig base and try to work up from there?
Hellllpppp!
OMG estimated shipping date Sept 12th, they gotta be kidding!
Their estimated shipping date is on the safe side that it's how long it'll take if it has to be shipped from Mars. I ordered two BT mighty mice the day it came out and the shipping date was said to be some time late Auguest, but it arrived two days later ( late July).
ezekielrage_99
Aug 7, 08:48 PM
These sound sweet, I want one.
But it's funny how the whole Mac Pro is a killer machine but they still neglect the video cards, seriously a nVidia Geforce 7300GT.
But it's funny how the whole Mac Pro is a killer machine but they still neglect the video cards, seriously a nVidia Geforce 7300GT.
Piggie
Apr 23, 04:52 PM
What is the point in this?
For a phone and an iPad which has fixed resolution graphics, yes fine, but on a computer desktop which just scales to whatever resolution you have?
I don't get it?
Sure, yes, increase the resolution, but why not increase it to an industry standard instead?
We have 1920x1080 for many widescreen monitors these days.
We also have 1920x1200 for a bit more height.
In the future we will be moving to 4K resolutions for video & computer graphics.
4K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Then one day we can dream about 8K ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_Video_Format
For a phone and an iPad which has fixed resolution graphics, yes fine, but on a computer desktop which just scales to whatever resolution you have?
I don't get it?
Sure, yes, increase the resolution, but why not increase it to an industry standard instead?
We have 1920x1080 for many widescreen monitors these days.
We also have 1920x1200 for a bit more height.
In the future we will be moving to 4K resolutions for video & computer graphics.
4K http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/4K_resolution
Then one day we can dream about 8K ;)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8K_Video_Format
rhinosrcool
Apr 20, 01:29 AM
iPhone 4 with 3.5" screen: 115.2mm x 58.6mm x 9.3mm
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
weight: 137 grams
HTC Thunderbolt with 4" screen: 122mm x 66mm x 13mm
weight: 164 grams
I am not sure about you, but on composite that HTC with a 4" screen is noticeably larger in every possible way over the iPhone 4.
Sure it is only 5% taller, but 12% wider and almost 50% thicker as well as 15% heavier.
Perhaps you don't know anything about Apple, but they take the size of their devices very seriously.
I also don't understand how some of you think it is possible to have a significantly larger screen without making the phone bigger. It is not like the current iPhone has a lot of space. Again it seems people just read a bigger number and think it must be better. If we left it up to other companies smartphones would all be twice as thick and weigh twice as much as they do now, while being massively unwieldy. Apple actually has an aesthetic set of benchmarks that are important to them as anything else. It is not only aesthetic either, but actually using the device and carrying it around, the size makes a big difference.
My 3.5" iPhone 4 screen is pretty amazing, especially considering the size and weight of the device. Much more impressive than any 4" screened device I have seen.
Edit: In case anyone is wondering the 4" Samsung Galaxy S specs: 122.4mm x 64.2mm x 9.9mm weight 118 grams. It weighs less, but the physical dimensions are larger in ever way.
Please! Make the damn phone bigger! Oh no, it may weigh a few more grams. Currently, the iphone4 is a tiny phone. For us adults, please increase the screen size, and probably, the width.
Freis968
May 7, 01:14 PM
This would be great. I cancelled my home phone a couple years back and also cable TV. These cuts saved me close to $100 per month. To save an additonal $69 per year, the amount I paid last year on Amazon for MobileMe, would be another great savings.
spacemanspifff
Mar 31, 07:45 AM
Oh and spacemanspifff, please, use Google, the solution has already been provided - talking about ancient problems hardly bolsters your case. Yes, a solution posted 12 or so hours ago is ancient - keep up with the play.
Kindly enlighten me as to which "Solution" you are talking about? If it's the font cache thing, then guess what? That was the first thing I tried, and I didn't need google to help me there - it does nothing to fix it. You seem to be confusing me with someone who has no knowledge of mac systems. I'll have you know I've been using macs since the SE, so I know a bit about them. My business depends on them working. I'm not some dumb kid who just uses a computer to play games and waste time on the net.
If you're going to post replies, then please provide clarity. otherwise people will think you're an idiot.
Kindly enlighten me as to which "Solution" you are talking about? If it's the font cache thing, then guess what? That was the first thing I tried, and I didn't need google to help me there - it does nothing to fix it. You seem to be confusing me with someone who has no knowledge of mac systems. I'll have you know I've been using macs since the SE, so I know a bit about them. My business depends on them working. I'm not some dumb kid who just uses a computer to play games and waste time on the net.
If you're going to post replies, then please provide clarity. otherwise people will think you're an idiot.
ucfgrad93
May 4, 10:35 AM
I'm ok with Don't Panic as a leader. Explore the room first though, don't split up.
coder12
Apr 18, 04:14 PM
Don't bite the hand that screws you. :eek:
That's what she said?
That's what she said?
Daveoc64
May 4, 03:15 PM
That's NOT the context here.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
I'm the one that raised the point in the first place! I think I set the context!
And don't tell me you take the EULA seriously.
I do. I don't have any need to violate it. I only have one Mac.
All of my computers have a fully licenced copy of Windows XP or 7 on them.
iPhonedHome
Mar 28, 10:24 AM
If no new iPhone until 2012, then this further exemplifies Android = WINNING!
This makes no sense and thus hope it's just another BS rumor.
This makes no sense and thus hope it's just another BS rumor.
HecubusPro
Sep 15, 05:01 PM
The MBP already feels like its about to literally melt on my desk now, and that's with the 31W Core Duo.
What's gonna happen when they drop in a 34W C2D? That's 9.6% more wattage, means more heat.
I really think the MBPand MB are under-engineered to remove the heat from the Core Duo. I hope they re-engineer the cooling before releasing the MBP C2D. IMHO, Apple has a black eye over the heat issues with their notebooks.
According to this review, it runs measurably (not necessarily significantly) cooler with longer battery life, etc.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288
What's gonna happen when they drop in a 34W C2D? That's 9.6% more wattage, means more heat.
I really think the MBPand MB are under-engineered to remove the heat from the Core Duo. I hope they re-engineer the cooling before releasing the MBP C2D. IMHO, Apple has a black eye over the heat issues with their notebooks.
According to this review, it runs measurably (not necessarily significantly) cooler with longer battery life, etc.
http://www.pcper.com/article.php?aid=288
BlizzardBomb
Jul 21, 03:25 PM
something to remember about product update cycles:
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
Remind us about what? Please be a little less cryptic because some people are tired here :p
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
Remind us about what? Please be a little less cryptic because some people are tired here :p
ptaylor874
Nov 3, 10:11 AM
DOH - Not sure how this double posted - I wrote it and after submitting it I had to sign back in. Looks like my session timed out...
gkarris
Mar 26, 10:24 PM
But what's this about an iPad 3? I find that very hard to believe, since Apple clearly said that 2011 will be the Year of the iPad 2.
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
Probably iPad 2.5 - better cameras in 32, 64, and 128...
Chef Medeski
Aug 11, 10:28 PM
I'm not interested in purchasing a laptop yet... I was waiting for merom to make its way into a MB.... but also for Leopard so I don't have to pay $100 to upgrade in 4 months.
But, I also think the real update is with the Santa Rosa chipset... faster FSB... more ram.... 802.11N!!!!
Thats a big update compared to this.
I'm watching this though to see how quickly they update their models after a new product is announced, I mean its no longer like PPC days when they would be sitting waiting for the chip to arrive ... late....delayed...and generally just missing.... now they have to keep their computer up to date with the chips.
A quicker roll-out really would ease my mind, since that hopefully shows that Santa Rosa will be equally swiftly doled out.
Merom
802.11n
Blu-ray
Leopard
HD screen
7 hr battery for bare min. use
Thats the sweet spot. The last two would be icing on the cake... that would be wonderfully sweet from the blu-ray...
but hey... I think that will really show that apple is on the forefront of technology ... the EXTREME EDGE...
But, I also think the real update is with the Santa Rosa chipset... faster FSB... more ram.... 802.11N!!!!
Thats a big update compared to this.
I'm watching this though to see how quickly they update their models after a new product is announced, I mean its no longer like PPC days when they would be sitting waiting for the chip to arrive ... late....delayed...and generally just missing.... now they have to keep their computer up to date with the chips.
A quicker roll-out really would ease my mind, since that hopefully shows that Santa Rosa will be equally swiftly doled out.
Merom
802.11n
Blu-ray
Leopard
HD screen
7 hr battery for bare min. use
Thats the sweet spot. The last two would be icing on the cake... that would be wonderfully sweet from the blu-ray...
but hey... I think that will really show that apple is on the forefront of technology ... the EXTREME EDGE...
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
thederby
Apr 25, 08:52 AM
So Steve is saying there is no database of locations? Thats just an outright lie.
there's a big difference between the device knowing where it is/has been and that information actually being uploaded to "the mothership".
there's a big difference between the device knowing where it is/has been and that information actually being uploaded to "the mothership".
mixel
Apr 26, 02:38 PM
I voted positive.. It's only good for us that there are multiple modern, solid, successful handheld OS around. I hope Win Mobile gets some share too.
Quite funny seeing Symbian dying by the side of the road too, I've never liked it much despite loving some of Nokia's hardware choices.
I prefer my Apple-land devices but I can see why some people don't. :) Bring on the competition. I like Apple's slow but steady and generally well implemented feature roll-outs too.. Agree about the notification system though, it needs replacing.
Quite funny seeing Symbian dying by the side of the road too, I've never liked it much despite loving some of Nokia's hardware choices.
I prefer my Apple-land devices but I can see why some people don't. :) Bring on the competition. I like Apple's slow but steady and generally well implemented feature roll-outs too.. Agree about the notification system though, it needs replacing.
frankie
Sep 16, 10:10 AM
The 2GHz downgrade is $300 not $75. Where did you get that number? Apple probably pays a lot less for each so this discount seems fair to me. Oops, right, it's -$75 for the smaller HD. Nevertheless -$300 for the slower Xeons is at best HALF of what Apple is saving. For the CPUs I'm quoting from Intel's published wholesale prices, in lots of 1000, which is officially what their major customers pay.
Lots of people assume that Apple is getting a huge discount off that; not a single one of them has professed to inside knowledge of facts. I don't have any connections either, but without direct info on either side I think it's more likely that Apple is paying pretty close to what Intel says they're paying. Even if Apple is somehow getting a 20+% discount, the price difference between 2.0 Xeon and 2.66 is over $300 each, $600 per Mac Pro.
But in any case, I agree it's true that BTO laptops would be harder to manufacture, so it probably isn't worth it for either Apple or the customer.
Lots of people assume that Apple is getting a huge discount off that; not a single one of them has professed to inside knowledge of facts. I don't have any connections either, but without direct info on either side I think it's more likely that Apple is paying pretty close to what Intel says they're paying. Even if Apple is somehow getting a 20+% discount, the price difference between 2.0 Xeon and 2.66 is over $300 each, $600 per Mac Pro.
But in any case, I agree it's true that BTO laptops would be harder to manufacture, so it probably isn't worth it for either Apple or the customer.
Cougarcat
Apr 26, 02:48 PM
I like to come here every once in a while, checkout the logic behind some of the comments. More interest in the psychological aspect of the comments.
You might be interesting reading this (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/25/is-reasoning-built-for-winning-arguments-rather-than-finding-truth/). MR makes so much more sense after having read it.
You might be interesting reading this (http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/intersection/2011/04/25/is-reasoning-built-for-winning-arguments-rather-than-finding-truth/). MR makes so much more sense after having read it.
digitalbiker
Aug 11, 03:36 PM
Jesus! How much more expensive do you want it to be! the price diff is already almost �500 from top whitebook to bottom MBP!
You are quoting out of context. The original post was about lowering the MB cost and retaining the Yonah cpu.
The MBP would move to Merom and stay near the same price. Therefore the result would be a larger price differentiation and a larger performance differentiation.
You are quoting out of context. The original post was about lowering the MB cost and retaining the Yonah cpu.
The MBP would move to Merom and stay near the same price. Therefore the result would be a larger price differentiation and a larger performance differentiation.
LionsKiss
Sep 16, 02:36 PM
Current MBP specs 12" would be perfect for me, fast, portable. Of course if a 12" MBP comes then a C2D comes.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar