highdefw
Apr 11, 10:23 AM
One more day and we'll know... Seriously, this better be one hell of an update.
vand0576
Aug 11, 01:46 PM
...There's no way in the world Apple would make as much money off of this as if they got in with one of the big guys. Just ask Disney - ESPN mobile is bombing as is Disney mobile....
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
gnasher729
Jul 27, 05:59 PM
but is still more productive because it handles more calculations per clock cycle
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
I'm no processor geek. I have a basic understanding of the terminology and how things work so correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this one of the advantages that the PPC had over Intel chips? Does this mean Intel is moving toward shorter pipes? Are we talking more instructions per clock cycle or what? What does "calculations" mean in this context?
With most processors, especially the Intel/AMD processors, "instructions per cycle" is not a useful number. These processors have both simple instructions (add register number 3 to register number 6) and complex instructions (add register number 3 to the number whose address is in register number 6). A PowerPC has the simple instructions, but not the complex ones. Instead it would need three instructions "load the number whose address is in register number 6, and move it to register 7", "add register 3 to register 7", "store register 7 to the location whose address is in register 6". But the Intel processor doesn't magically do three times as much work. Instead, it splits the complex instruction into three so-called "macro-ops", and does exactly the same work. So in this case, the PowerPC would execute three times as many instructions per cycle (3 instead of 1), but because it doesn't do more actual work, that is pointless. Instead you would count the number of operations, and they are more or less the same.
Intel is indeed moving towards shorter pipelines. They have done that already with the Core Duo chips. Longer pipelines have the advantage that each pipeline step is a bit faster, so you can get higher clockspeed. Shorter pipelines have the advantage that they take much less energy (very important; at some point your chips just melt), they are much faster handling branches, and they are just much much easier to design. Pentium 4 needed absolutely heroic efforts to produce it, and would have needed twice the heroics to improve it. Instead, the Core Duo has a much simpler design, that is just as powerful, and because it was so simple, Core 2 Duo could improve it.
And Core 2 Duo can now execute up to four "micro-ops" per cycle, same as the G5, compared to three for Core Duo, Pentium 4 and G4. It also has some clever features that reduce the number of micro-ops needed up to 10 percent, and some other improvements.
bobthedino
Apr 27, 08:28 AM
And here I thought that data wasn't sent to Apple? At least they encrypted it so that you can't tell what actually is sent.
You should read Apple's reply to a query from two Congressmen in July 2010: http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf
Apple clearly states that location data is being collected anonymously and is being used to maintain Apple's database of cell tower and Wi-Fi hotspot locations. Prior to iOS 3.2, Apple made use of similar databases provided by Skyhook and Google, but now Apple has created its own.
You should read Apple's reply to a query from two Congressmen in July 2010: http://markey.house.gov/docs/applemarkeybarton7-12-10.pdf
Apple clearly states that location data is being collected anonymously and is being used to maintain Apple's database of cell tower and Wi-Fi hotspot locations. Prior to iOS 3.2, Apple made use of similar databases provided by Skyhook and Google, but now Apple has created its own.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 10:23 AM
Hilarious!!!!! We're not tracking you but we're going to provide a patch soon.......typical Apple response......just DENY!!!!!
There is no antenna issue with the iPhone 4 but we'll give you a free bumper for a limited time, act quickly while supplies last LMAO!!!!!
Laugh all you want, but they are being sensible. If the media hype gets too great, they act, as they should.
I have no antenna issue with my iPhone 4, and I don't use a case or a bumper. I understand what Apple meant by calling it a non-issue.
Apple did not track you, it sent anonymized cell tower location information back to itself. But there was a bug that kept a locally-stored database file from being culled from all but the most recent data. So they will now provide an update to fix that bug.
But if you want to pretend that Apple is in denial mode, and use exclamation points as if your hair were on fire, go right ahead. You nicely prove the point I was just making with samcraig.
There is no antenna issue with the iPhone 4 but we'll give you a free bumper for a limited time, act quickly while supplies last LMAO!!!!!
Laugh all you want, but they are being sensible. If the media hype gets too great, they act, as they should.
I have no antenna issue with my iPhone 4, and I don't use a case or a bumper. I understand what Apple meant by calling it a non-issue.
Apple did not track you, it sent anonymized cell tower location information back to itself. But there was a bug that kept a locally-stored database file from being culled from all but the most recent data. So they will now provide an update to fix that bug.
But if you want to pretend that Apple is in denial mode, and use exclamation points as if your hair were on fire, go right ahead. You nicely prove the point I was just making with samcraig.
jalman11
Apr 25, 01:41 PM
there is fine print somewhere about this...
I'm presuming that this data is not transmitted back to apple, therefore, should we also be upset that our own apple iphones and our own itunes backups "secretly" log our text messages and call logs... the horror.
I'm presuming that this data is not transmitted back to apple, therefore, should we also be upset that our own apple iphones and our own itunes backups "secretly" log our text messages and call logs... the horror.
louis Fashion
Apr 11, 12:01 PM
Hope to see VZ convergence in 2012. Hate to wait tho.....
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 02:38 PM
I'd like something upgradeable, where I could replace/upgrade HDDs, optical drives, and most importantly the display - yet a PowerMac is overkill for my needs. It sure would be nice to see, but I doubt Apple will do it... :cool:
I doubt they'll do it too. For some reason this idea has come up over and over again during the last few weeks, and I'll continue to say what I've been saying - I don't see why apple would do that. It's a very appealing idea for a lot of MR folks because a lot of us are knowledgable users but not really professionals. But beyond that group, which is prevalent at MR but fairly rare in the real world, I don't see the appeal.
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
I doubt they'll do it too. For some reason this idea has come up over and over again during the last few weeks, and I'll continue to say what I've been saying - I don't see why apple would do that. It's a very appealing idea for a lot of MR folks because a lot of us are knowledgable users but not really professionals. But beyond that group, which is prevalent at MR but fairly rare in the real world, I don't see the appeal.
Also, think about what apple would be doing with such a machine - selling you a low cost, low margin mac that you could nonetheless upgrade with 3rd party components for years. Meaning that apple doesn't make a lot off you up front and doesn't get you coming back again for 5-ish years. Great for you, not so great for them. Whereas if they sell you a mac pro, they make a killing up front, so it's ok if you keep it for years, and if they sell you anything else you'll be back a lot sooner.
jaksta
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Lack of Flash support is the achilles heel of iPad. I hope Jobs gets off his high horse and relents.
uv23
Jul 31, 12:07 PM
Apple will never ship a desktop machine so close in size to the mini. Impractical and too much market confusion. I'm expecting a ~25% decrease in size of the current G5 tower, making it more mid-tower sized. This would still be an improvement to the current behemoths.
intlplby
Nov 28, 09:53 PM
i would love if the government changed the royalty law to extend only to the artists and not the record companies.....
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
i.e. "okay, we'll extend the copyright to 50 years or the life of the artist, but the catch is that only the artists gets the royalties"
i'd love to see the big record companies cut out.....
it's totally possible for artists to get more and for us to pay less.....
i'd include the mastering technician in there too.... they are very important as well
Multimedia
Jul 21, 04:58 PM
One way to get eight cores is to get 4 Mac Minis (just wait for the lowest model to become dual core), stack them up, and put them on a KVM. You get 8 cores, and 4 optical drives for *cheap*. Just a thought.;)Problem with that arrangement is that you are limited to the use of two cores for any one appication and there are already several I use that can use up to almost 3 at once. It would also get very confusing which mini you are on at a given moment.
Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D
Yeah I could also get a second G5 Quad. But that would be cheating. :D
BeefUK
Jul 27, 09:59 AM
Merom in a macbook is all I want, add in 2GB of RAM, and that'll do me. Although they'll be released in the MBP first............looks like more waiting for my first mac!!!:(
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
PLEASE PLEASE hurry, I wanna get rid of my PC. The case in like a wind turbine and the CRT monitor is like a heater!
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.
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
cljmac
Apr 7, 11:21 PM
i talked to a friend of mine thats a GM of a bestbuy store. He or his regional manager didnt know why or who put the stop sell order
on the ipads this morning. At 6pm they still didnt know why.
The email only said dont sell new in the box ipad 2s, sell through
your preorders and open items. no other instructions
were given. i think they over sold there preorders at some locations.
on the ipads this morning. At 6pm they still didnt know why.
The email only said dont sell new in the box ipad 2s, sell through
your preorders and open items. no other instructions
were given. i think they over sold there preorders at some locations.
�algiris
Mar 31, 02:30 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Doesn't mean he's not right on this one.
OutThere
Apr 27, 09:13 AM
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2711155/posts?q=1&;page=101
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
The tinfoilhatism in the comments on that link is out of hand.
There you have it. The birthers aren't satisfied. I knew it.
The tinfoilhatism in the comments on that link is out of hand.
findpankaj
Aug 25, 04:11 PM
Dotmac has been a HEADACHE this last year...they have lost my e-mail and webpages, and now somehow seem to be prying into my personal life!
I was planning to buy a .mac account for e-mail , blogs through iWeb, web pages etc. I am more aware now about it.
I was planning to buy a .mac account for e-mail , blogs through iWeb, web pages etc. I am more aware now about it.
Kingsly
Aug 11, 12:40 PM
:eek: :)
I hope it is released sooner than later. My Z500 only has about a month of life left in it....
I hope it is released sooner than later. My Z500 only has about a month of life left in it....
Cruzer442
Apr 11, 11:52 AM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
I'm in this boat to. I'm noticing my battery life is deteriorating also - never owned an iPhone this long. Also my GF has Verison Droid that just kicks my ass; better reception, faster, cool apps -e.g. voice to SMS. I can wait until July but late fall? IDK.
I'm in this boat to. I'm noticing my battery life is deteriorating also - never owned an iPhone this long. Also my GF has Verison Droid that just kicks my ass; better reception, faster, cool apps -e.g. voice to SMS. I can wait until July but late fall? IDK.
calderone
Mar 25, 10:47 PM
This is known as a release candidate. No reason to be throwing around "Golden Master" at this point, it is clearly just confusing people.
SuperCachetes
Mar 23, 06:42 PM
That's what it might look like from your shores. Fortunately, the world and life isn't so black and white.
I don't know what shores you think I live on, or what is fortunate about being subjective in terms of intervening into security concerns or human tragedy.
I don't know what shores you think I live on, or what is fortunate about being subjective in terms of intervening into security concerns or human tragedy.
ugp
Jun 22, 09:26 PM
Ugh! Lucky!! I think I'm going to just keep calling my local radioshacks and head to one at least an hour before they open on Thursday!
Well being Best Friends has it's advantages. And his DM is actually pretty cool. The store that received 5 of them that he is getting the 2 from, they are all idiots in that store. The Manager is literally Cross-Eyed, Employees don't even greet you when you walk in and are not very knowledgable. It's a shame too because I use to work at that store for several years. Received many trophies for sales. Including this one...
http://i48.tinypic.com/24fjhvm.jpg
What's really sad is that it's a Mall store. Use to be a Million Dollar plus store. Now it has dropped well below that. Although it was back in the day when they actually cared about their employees. They have such a high turn over rate anymore. I had quit because I got tired of the DM (Different DM then) threatening us with our jobs everyday during Golden Quarter. I left my keys on the desk and never returned along with a few others Managers at the time.
Well being Best Friends has it's advantages. And his DM is actually pretty cool. The store that received 5 of them that he is getting the 2 from, they are all idiots in that store. The Manager is literally Cross-Eyed, Employees don't even greet you when you walk in and are not very knowledgable. It's a shame too because I use to work at that store for several years. Received many trophies for sales. Including this one...
http://i48.tinypic.com/24fjhvm.jpg
What's really sad is that it's a Mall store. Use to be a Million Dollar plus store. Now it has dropped well below that. Although it was back in the day when they actually cared about their employees. They have such a high turn over rate anymore. I had quit because I got tired of the DM (Different DM then) threatening us with our jobs everyday during Golden Quarter. I left my keys on the desk and never returned along with a few others Managers at the time.
No comments:
Post a Comment