brepublican
Aug 29, 11:07 AM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
Yeah its a business. But you gotta give back to the community. Whats the point in reaping huge profits off consumers then destroying the earth? It's not that drammatic, but if every company were like Apple, it'd definitely not bode well for the environment :mad:
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Maybe because the majority of atheists tend to have an attitude of more "religion sucks, I'm atheist" whereas religious people do not have an "atheism sucks, I'm theistic" attitude for the most part.
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
.
Wow. I see it completely the other way. The religious people look at the atheists as lost souls, sinners, who need to be saved. They want their beliefs to be the basis for our laws. They need to have god thrown in our faces, on our money, in our pledges, in our courtrooms, etc. etc. And this is in the land of the free where separation of church and state is supposed to be one our most basic rights!
Don't believe me, check any poll about who people in the United States trust or who they would vote for. Atheists are always at the bottom of both lists!
KingYaba
Aug 29, 05:30 PM
GreenPeace's new agenda: Save the iPods :rolleyes:
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 10:46 PM
You're all far too willing to accept the RIAA's iron grip over downloading music. Apple's DRM is disgusting - but you want to say "shut it down! or our prices will go up! or they'll make the DRM worse!" Well, you've got to do better than that - because they owe it to us to sell a better product. I want to own my music - I know the paradigm is new, I know it's a virtual product any way you slice it, but DVD Jon is doing the right thing, and we need to send a message.They owe it to us? The only people Apple owes anything to is their shareholders.
Multimedia
Oct 25, 12:33 PM
Just noticed Apple has added 750GB HDs to the Mac Pro configure page recently. Only a few weeks left 'til the Dual Clovertown Mac Pros ship.
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
2.33GHz C2D MacBook Pros announced yesterday shipping today. Only MacBook & mini left to complete the Core 2 Duo transition. Should be all in place by Thanksgiving including 8-core Mac Pro. Very exciting. :)
Sirmausalot
Apr 13, 05:49 AM
A professional is someone who makes money from their work. So someone who gets paid for a project they make in iMovie is a professional. Perhaps you need to make a living at it though to be a true professional :-)
As for Final Cut Pro X, jury is still definitely out. We all need to try it, make sure the features we still need are there and make sure the new features don't make our computers crash.
No mention of delivery (DVD Studio Pro or Compressor functions) nor enough information about sound editing. So again, the jury is still far, far out.
As for Final Cut Pro X, jury is still definitely out. We all need to try it, make sure the features we still need are there and make sure the new features don't make our computers crash.
No mention of delivery (DVD Studio Pro or Compressor functions) nor enough information about sound editing. So again, the jury is still far, far out.
Multimedia
Nov 3, 04:12 AM
Try reading what you are responding too. I'm fully aware of the consumer software that's available, but I also know the general consumer is not going to be archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
I clearly was discussing quad core chips' appeal to the masses, and I'm correct that most software out isn't written for more than 2 cores.
Sure you and others have uses for quad core and more processors but don't act like a complete idiot and try and convince us that most people do. It's just stupid.
I'm all for advancing technology but I also understand that most poeple don't ever push their computers to the limit. You are a small niche, stop acting like you are an average Mac consumerI could not disagree with you more. So let's leave it at that.
Th3Crow
Apr 28, 08:13 PM
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
That's hilarious! Do you really believe that? Half of the people I know started out with Windoze, and have since migrated to Mac. They've never looked back. None of them would think of contaminating their Mac with Winblows. I don't know a single person that started out Mac and moved to PC. Not one. And none of them feel any need to run Windows.
Nermal
Oct 7, 06:48 PM
I had a couple apps brick my i730 back when I was on Verizon. I ended up having to hard reset and resync all my contacts.
If you were able to reset and get it working again, then it wasn't bricked. "Bricked" means that the device now has the functionality of a brick. You cannot reset a brick, and certainly can't synch contacts with one :)
If you were able to reset and get it working again, then it wasn't bricked. "Bricked" means that the device now has the functionality of a brick. You cannot reset a brick, and certainly can't synch contacts with one :)
Sheebahawk
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
that needs to be accounted for... the lifespan of an apple computer. Its about 3 times that of a dell, at least in my experiance. I've saved all my old macs cuz they still work.
triceretops
Apr 28, 12:32 PM
I'm sure if you rated all the companies on profit, Apple would be #1. Apple's margins are better.:)
Grimmeh
Mar 18, 11:11 AM
AT&T will never have my business anymore. I used AT&T’s service for my older iPhone 3G I had bought off eBay. After a year, they decided to take it upon themselves to have me buy their data plan. I have, and never have had, a need for a data plan. I rarely find myself without Wi-Fi or I do without for those rare occasions (as if their service never has it’s outages). I told them I don’t need it, or ever use it.
They feel it’s fair to require me to pay for service I don’t need. My phone’s hardware is no different than the dinky little flip phone I’m forced to use until the contract expires (it was the only way for them to keep from charging me for data). Just because of the name of my phone they are telling me I need to buy more from them. That is terrifying if it’s legal.
Now, they are telling people that because their service is split amongst devices you need to pay more, too? Hah! What if you had to pay extra to have more than one phone on your land line? Or you had to pay extra for having more than one computer on your home Internet? Or more if you use a wireless router?
Wireless service companies in the U.S. (can’t speak for elsewhere) have people by the balls. I don’t like it.
P.S. Isn‘t it illegal if they sniff your data? Against privacy laws?
They feel it’s fair to require me to pay for service I don’t need. My phone’s hardware is no different than the dinky little flip phone I’m forced to use until the contract expires (it was the only way for them to keep from charging me for data). Just because of the name of my phone they are telling me I need to buy more from them. That is terrifying if it’s legal.
Now, they are telling people that because their service is split amongst devices you need to pay more, too? Hah! What if you had to pay extra to have more than one phone on your land line? Or you had to pay extra for having more than one computer on your home Internet? Or more if you use a wireless router?
Wireless service companies in the U.S. (can’t speak for elsewhere) have people by the balls. I don’t like it.
P.S. Isn‘t it illegal if they sniff your data? Against privacy laws?
edesignuk
Oct 8, 03:33 AM
I'm looking forward to it :D
Huntn
Apr 23, 10:39 PM
This goes back to an earlier discussion where people were talking about the kinds of atheists that are out there. I've run into very few (none) who would describe themselves in the way you describe. And again, proving "a lack" of God is proving a negative, a logical fallacy.
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
Most atheists are open-minded people, besieged by people of faith who though out history have made countless claims of deities and demons. All we ask is for some form of proof before we commit ourselves to accepting those claims. If requiring proof is your definition of faith, then you don't agree with the dictionary. But if it makes you feel better, then by all means, call it whatever you like.
As an Agnostic, my take is that I don't know enough to believe or not believe, but to remain non-committal. I am repeating myself, but if I live in a room with no doors or windows, I'm not about to say there is nothing outside the room. The only reasonable answer is "I don't know what is there." I do admit to feeling spiritual, but I feel no compunction to claim any truth associated with my feelings. :D
Man4allsea
Feb 15, 04:24 PM
Erm.. you're being closed minded.
cute hairstyles for prom long
cute long hairstyles for prom.
cute long hairstyles for prom.
Cute Long Hairstyles Women
rdowns
May 5, 12:00 PM
FWIW, I got many more dropped calls with Verizon than I do with ATT in the Queens-Long Island NY areas.
Interesting how iPad 3G owners are claiming that signal strength and speed are much better than on their iPhones. Couldn't possibly be Apple's doing. :rolleyes:
Interesting how iPad 3G owners are claiming that signal strength and speed are much better than on their iPhones. Couldn't possibly be Apple's doing. :rolleyes:
ohio.emt
May 5, 12:02 PM
I haven't had any dropped calls yet. I think the problem is more the iPhone, than AT&T's network . If I drive out of 3G service my iPhone drops service and says no service on it, doesn't revert to the Edge network most times. I have to turn 3G off or turn airplane mode of then on to get service on Edge. IMHO apple needs to fix the software in order to make the switch to and from Edge and 3G like other phone, no drop in service it just switches over. Sitting at home if I turn 3G on I get 3G signal and speed with 4 bars, but after about 5 minutes it switches to Edge. Any other phone besides the iPhone stays on 3G.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
There are quite a lot of people in this thread who sound like AT&T employees trying to add to the scare tactics.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
entatlrg
Apr 24, 11:55 AM
It's just another way of the 'stronger minded' to power and control the 'weaker minded' in the world. That's it.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Thoughts?
What do you thnk the iTV offers that a Mini doesn't? I'm not sure it offers anything other than freeing the Mini so it can be used as a computer in front of a computer monitor somewhere else (which is apparently Jobs' view of where a computer should be).
I might have the wrong end of the stick though.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 10:31 PM
lol ... there are some weird things on the US currency ... what is with the floating eye on top of a Pyramid?
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
Don't open that can of worms. We'll get the trilateral conspiracists all excited.
firestarter
Mar 16, 11:36 AM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
aristobrat
Mar 18, 09:37 AM
What contract did I physically sigm when I got my phone? The only thing I signed was a credit card receipt.
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
Where'd you buy your iPhone?
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
But how do you proponents of nuclear power discount the very real risks it poses to mankind itself? War and terrorism especially. HUGE accident(s) waiting to happen.
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
If you choose not to have nuclear power, you're choosing to have oil - and all the problems that brings with it.
I can't recall a war fought over nuclear power, but we're living through one driven by our need to access cheap oil (http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/article2461214.ece).
Do you think that our heavy handed approach to Persian Gulf politics increases or decreases the threat of terrorism? Although we've been keen to see regime change in Egypt and Libya, there's no way we'll assist any sort of change in Saudi - since we need the oil. Yet most of the 9/11 hijackers were disaffected Saudi men! (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hijackers_in_the_September_11_attacks)
So I think your argument that nuclear power increases the threat of terrorism and war is naive, given that the only other option is oil - which most definitely does!
No comments:
Post a Comment