ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
Clive At Five
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
no no no no no.
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
The things that are bad for the environment are also used intensively in the PRODUCTION of materials used in computers, the Mo-Boards, the Processors, anything solid state. Sure the things contain trace amounts of Lead and other crap but they aren't nearly as harmful to the environment as, say MAKING a microprocessor. Thus, I have no idea why on Earth Intel isn't #1 based solely on the sheer volume of byproduct they produce.
And if Greenpeace is going after PC makers, Dell, again just by their VOLUME, dwarfs Apple in toxins used in their products. Apple, however, makes a noticable effort (i.e. free disposal w/a new Mac, iPod) to ensure that people don't just toss their computers in a way that will hurt the environment. Dell has a service as well, but it isn't free.
I think Greenpeace just spun the roulette wheel and it landed in Apple's disfavor.
I care about the environment, but Greenpeace is out of hand. It's the little things like free disposal that make the difference. It might be what keeps some people from slipping pieces of old computers in their trash can week-by-week.
... oh come on, like you've never done that...
-Clive
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:36 PM
All this is just a more convenient way to get the same result as running your purchased music through Hymn or JHymn. It's not quite the same as burning and ripping a CD though, since that is lossy.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
It's not really the same, because Apple will know (most likely) who has use this software to violate the TOS. It's pretty much like I said earlier:
It's almost like you were planning of going online to one of the illegal music sharing sites, documenting your activities, and then sending that information directly to the RIAA with your name and address with a note asking them to prosecute.
skunk
Mar 27, 07:46 PM
If I've harmed anyone in anyone in any way, I want to hear about that from the harmed ones. Everyone here is welcome to his opinion about me. If anyone here hates me, he's welcome to say so publicly or privately. But I think I'm the only one here who knows whether I hate anyone. We're strangers to one another.I do not hate you in the least, but I do recognise hateful, dogmatic propaganda when I see it.
AtomBoy
Oct 9, 11:01 PM
I'm kind of caught between a rock and a hard place.
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
Speed is important for me: CD-burning, video-editing, animation-rendering. For that reason the last computer I bought was a Quicksilver. It was the obvious choice at the time.
I imagined that my next computer would be another Mac to replace my ageing PC. Now it's not so clear. From the informed posts by new P4/XP users on this site it's clear that PC could do the things I want it to do more quickly and, arguably, with comparable stability.
BUT, I'm an expat living in Japan. One huge advantage of OSX is unicode. My Mac has a Japanese OS, which is great for my wife, but when I'm using the Mac I can switch the user language to English. Much of our Japanese software is also unicode compatible, so we can buy one program that can be used in either of our native languages. This is very cost-effective in the long-run.
I'm prepared to wait until next year when, hopefully, Apple will be using G5 chips from IBM that are much closer to those from Intel/AMD. I don't need my Mac to be the fastest computer out there (the advantages of OSX would bridge the gap) but I want it to be comparable if I'm going to shell out the extra bucks.
I don't really want to use XP. On-line activation and security issues still put me off.
If, however, Apple fail to deliver an impressive new hardware set next year, my next computer may well be PC.
I hope not, but you have to be realistic...
Ateazz
Oct 9, 01:57 PM
Hi guy's
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
A job has to be done so use the best software to do that.
In my case OS-X can't be beaten.
Look at "The Knowledgenavigator", not about speed but easy to use.
Make life easy, and Think different.
greetz
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 02:04 PM
Lets just ignore that technologies such as solar have advanced in leaps and bounds in the last decade and move on to the important stuff:
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
If you want to go free market, I suggest we stop subsidizing the oil industry in this country (how do they need it when posting historical profits year after year?) and let gas prices rise from the ridiculous artificial ones they're at now. America has amazingly cheap gas compared to most of the rest of the world, and its not because of a free market at all.
Deal. Let's stop subsidizing it all. May the alternatives be plentiful, and may the best tech win.
This isn't about competition. Coal, oil, gas and nuclear have already lost the competition because they run out. We need to prepare for that now, even if the most optimistic estimates of our non-renewable enrgy reserves are accurtate.
You also forget (or refuse) to recognize the possiblity that our current level of energy usage is wholly unsustainable and should not be considered a baseline target for future energy projects. The fact is we use far too much power per capita and we all need to use less, so that existing non-renewable resources can be stretched further, and so that renewable sources will eventually be sufficient to meet our needs. Someday the party will be over.
Worrying about wealth before all as usual - it says so much about you, fivepoint.
The free market cares about risk, profit and cost. It doesn't give a damn about the fact that non-renewable sources are limited. Your vaunted free market teaches the adage "make hay while the sun shines" (or oil flows). The fact that expensive, currently unprofitable but extremely far-sighted planning for the future must be done just doesn't compute for people like you who think only in terms of cost and profit. The free market should never be allowed to dictate energy policy on it's own because its focus is singularly narrow and shortsighted.
Under this scenario there is no incentive for increased efficiency in fuel consumption, only increased efficiency in petroleum extraction. From a business perspective it's great (Hooray Exxon). Apart from than that its damnably irresponsible.
What you still fail to realize is that the creation of wealth happens when something of value is introduced into society. What do you have against giving people things they value/want/need?
You stated that the free market cares about risk... I wholeheartedly agree. This is a fact of the real world. As such, I'm going to have to believe the tens of thousands of capitalists over the flailing hippie alarmists when analyzing such facts in regards to whether or not we're on the verge of 'running out' of oil. If you choose to go another route, that's fine... just realize that their track record isn't very good. What you have here is the perfect example of a 'solution in need of a problem' and all of the waste that comes with.
You also talk about being short-sighted... this is something I don't think capitalists get accused of very often. They're constantly looking towards the long term, constantly looking to find the next big thing. Timing is everything in business. If people in the field honestly thought we'd be out of oil in 10 years, they'd immediately quadruple their efforts in the 'alternatives' segment and prepare to dominate the new market when the transition takes place. The free market is the opposite of short-sighted if it's allowed to live free of government. The banks for instance were very short-sighted becasue they knew that they could sell the loans to Fannie and Freddie, and Fannie/Freddie knew that they were backed 100% by the federal government. Furthermore, many of the largest banks knew full well that they were perceived to be 'too big to fail'. There was no perceived long-term risk, so they lived it up. All due to government manipulation... in the free market, they would have gone bankrupt, and taught the rest of the banking industry a big lesson.
go4koko
May 31, 06:53 PM
Ok...so here's the deal...
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
I've been on AT&T for over a year now, using an iPhone 3g. No dropped calls at all, 5 bars everywhere in my area, and full 3G coverage.
Verizon has 0 bars in my area, and their phones are crap...
Way to go AT&T!
WTF? Why do people buy phones without knowing if they work in their areas first? If I went by what people say on these boards, I'd have bought a Verizon phone that wouldn't work in my area, and on a phone that's crap....
STOP MAKING PURCHASING DECISIONS BASED ON OTHER PEOPLES OPINIONS!
:apple: How would you go about finding out if a phone or carrier service worked in a certain area if you didn't consult other people or credible sources? Wouldn't you have to make a decision based on 'Other Peoples Opinions' in order to find out? If you know Verizon service yields 0 bars in your area do you know this as a previous Verizon service customer, consult someone directly or take the 'Opinion' of the AT&T salesman?
Are you so inflexible as to believe no one in the universe has occasional connection problems? Do you live under an AT&T tower and never stray far from it? I'm looking to get an iPhone in 2 months and I hope it really is as reliable as you describe.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:56 AM
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Intel will give Apple volume-discounts. it does matter that do they order 100.000 CPU's or 800.000 CPU's
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
Which is why I believe that macPro's will be all dual-duals. single Woodcrest makes no sense, and splitting MacPro-lineup between Woodcrest and Conroes doesn't make much sense either. Remember: MacPro's are hi-end workstations. so dual-dual makes sense there.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:47 PM
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
Huntn
Apr 25, 08:41 AM
As soon as you start down the slippery slope of stating that some things in the Bible (I use the Bible as an example but this applies equally to all religions) are not true (i.e the world was created in seven days) or that certain parts are meant to be interpreted by the reader (who's interpretation is correct?) you lose all credibility. If you are so determined to change your religion so that it fits in with modern science what is the point of being religious?
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
This is an excellent point. If you go with the all or nothing, then as soon as anything is suspect in your favorite holy document, then it all is. If any logic prevails then one must admit they don't know as much as they thought they did. Unfortunately this area is not a place where logic shines.
Part of the problem is that God has always been a terrible communicator. ;)
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
When someone talks about "not believing" my initial knee jerk reaction is to think this is a threshold as strong as "belief" but in actuality it's simply anything short of reaching the threshold of believing. In my case instead of saying "I don't believe" I think it is more accurate to say "I don't know."
Hisdem
Mar 15, 01:39 PM
Are you drunk?
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
Looks like it. And BTW, I don't think the Japanese people would think leaving their homeland and going to the USA is a good idea. Not saying they don't like the US, but generally, just generally, people tend to care more about their own countries and cultures than about the American ones. Just saying.
danpass
Mar 18, 01:47 PM
If I was tethering I would already know and I already pay for the full data plan thankyouverymuch.
Its not the price that bothers me ......... its the nickel and diming.
Grandfather plan: unlimited but no tethering
Now tethering is available but now its limited.
*&^% :rolleyes:
Its not the price that bothers me ......... its the nickel and diming.
Grandfather plan: unlimited but no tethering
Now tethering is available but now its limited.
*&^% :rolleyes:
PCUser
Oct 7, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by gopher
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
Well so can the G4 be overclocked. So what's your point? Big whoop, overclock all you like, but we are talking about systems sold by manufacturers. To learn more about overclocking Macs, visit http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/
No, no, the Athlon in the test was overclockled. That Athlon would not be sold by system manufacturers overclocked that far.
Added: The guy who ran this test even states that a dual 1GHz G4 rig is equal to 2GHz, which it isn't.
On the graphics test, he doesn't even give the Athlon and P4 the same graphics card. That's a very innacurate testing site, IMO.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 03:41 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
wlh99
Apr 6, 11:27 AM
Mac:
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
cmd-shft-3 to get a screen shot *instantly* on your desktop
Windows:
Opening snipping tool
switching to full screen mode
click
choosing a file name
quit the app
Or press print-screen. It puts the screen capture on the clipboard instead of saving to the desktop, but just as easy. AFAIK there is no simple equiv. to cmd-shft-4. I usually open in Paint and crop.
R.Perez
Mar 14, 02:17 AM
I understand your point abut Japan.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
You're facts about solar and wind are both wrong, and I think you dismiss "bogus green technology" too quickly. That said, I still get what you are saying about Japan.
However, I think this thread applies more to Europe, and EVEN more so to the US. In the US we have 5% of the worlds population and use well over 30% of the worlds energy. We also have an abundance of space, and countless amounts of aging infrastructure that needs investment anyway. The US is actually in a very good position to switch towards much more renewable energy while at the same time, upgrading our aging infrastructure. That said, what we lack is the political will and political capital to actually push such initiatives.
Nuclear is not a necessity in the US like it MAY (I say may because I am skeptical but will take your word for it) be in Japan, and I think the current crisis going on there should make us seriously stop and think for a minute. The combination of wind, solar, tidal and geo-thermal could be quite effective here. Especially when you start consider the option of offshore wind farms which they have already approved in some parts of the NE.
~loserman~
Mar 20, 05:17 PM
The trouble with DRM is that it often affects the average Joe consumer more than it hurts those it's intended to stop.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
CDs that don't play in a PC annoy Joe Public who buys a CD and wants to listen to it on his office PC while at work. The guy who planned on pirating it can easily get round the DRM and go on his merry way.
DRM embedded in iTunes annoy Joe Public who burned a track onto his wedding video and now can't distribute it to the wedding guests without working out an authorise/deauthorise schedule.
The record companies assume everyone is out to be a criminal while the 'criminals' don't bother buying DRMed files or strip out protection and do what they want so just as many files end up on P2P networks and on dodgy CDs on street corners.
Therein lay the problem. Most people are using the music illegally.
The record industry is right.
In your own analogy of Joe Public burning a track on his wedding video.
Guess what? when he distributes those copies to wedding guests he breaks the law.
It's illegal for him to do that. It is stealing. He pirated it.
The problem is we have become so used to stealing that we don't recognize it as such anymore. We justify it away.
Almost no one would even consider it to be wrong if they bought a cd copied it and gave it to their friends. It is wrong. It's stealing/pirating.
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
lilcosco08
Apr 8, 11:33 PM
WHAT?! the best thing about the iphone IS TOUCH!!!! NO MORE BUTTONS!!!
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
Touch is generally terrible for gaming
Black94TSi
May 5, 03:01 PM
I live in an area where there are 4 towers within 3 miles. I have usually 2 bars in my house and 5 bars outside.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
In any given day I drop at least 60% of my calls. I will get around 10 failed calls too(goes against my minutes).
I am a new att customer too, just signed up in November.
I am really thinking of going back to sprint where I never had dropped or failed calls.
THX1139
Jul 13, 03:15 AM
We were talking about MacPro's when you basically asked "well, what about Adobe?". Well, what about it? Why does everything have to be about Adobe, when the fact is that macs are used for zillion other things besides running Photoshop?
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work. Sad but true and I wish Apple would release something to go up against Photoshop. Having worked the past 10 years in graphic design, I have never come across any studio or designer that didn't rely on at least one Adobe product. Adobe is pretty entrenched in the creative industry and to think otherwise is short-sighted. Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers. I think it would be enough loss to make Apple take notice. Why do you think Steve mentioned Adobe during his MWSF keynote? Sure there are a few pros who don't need Adobe or get by on other products, but that is few and far between. So in support of what the OP said, I agree that the Intel migration is going to be hindered by Adobe when it comes time for most studios to buy new machines. Thinking otherwise is not looking at the big picture.
No comments:
Post a Comment