Huntn
Mar 13, 08:27 AM
might be better suited to the political forum
In hindsight, I'd move it if I could. Maybe the moderators will help.
It is a risk vs reward situation. Is the risk worth the reward? Until they find an answer for spent fuel rods, I'm mostly against. Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
In hindsight, I'd move it if I could. Maybe the moderators will help.
It is a risk vs reward situation. Is the risk worth the reward? Until they find an answer for spent fuel rods, I'm mostly against. Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Popeye206
Apr 15, 09:20 AM
This is good to see. Seems as though teens are under many social pressures that didn't seem to exist when I was a teen (in the 70's). Knowing there is a light at the end of the tunnel may help a few from making the ultimate bad choice.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
Good on Apple, all the other companies, and the employees for participating in this type of project.
skunk
Mar 14, 06:34 PM
James Lovelock described nuclear as 'the only green choice'.Would that be an "unearthly" green choice? As in "glow-in-the-dark"?
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
Then you're probably more shocked at the Canadians, Norwegians, and Swedes, who consume more power per person than Americans do. Iceland consumes twice as much per person than us. And they don't even use AC.I guess keeping warm is more expensive than keeping cool. I thought their insulation was so much better. :confused:
askthedust
Sep 20, 08:39 AM
...but in order for me to buy this box I want it to work without connecting to a computer. Just an easy (read Front Row interface) that would let me buy and watch or listen to my purchased content. Wireless would be perfect. plug this in hook it up to my tv and stereo and all my movies and music are on it. I can buy content and save it there. The only time I would want to connect to a computer would be to back up files and to make room for new content or find old content to stream into the box. I could then take this box with me to a friend's house to watch my movies there.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 PM
Of course it did. I think at one point or another all of us experienced some type of emotional pain where our sexuality is concerned. Who wants to be different? Or preached to? Or told by people like you that we may have some type of mental health issue? Or be discriminated against? It's scary and painful.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.[/quote]
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
From what I know about repairative therapy, persuasion doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
I can only imagine what the people you know felt conflicted about. I hope that they can find themselves in a place where they will be accepted for what they are, and not what those around them think they should be. Am I wrong to think that if you know these people, their homosexuality wasn't readily accepted by those around them? Of course they would be conflicted. Nobody wants to be hated.[/quote]
I'm sure many rejected my two friends because of their homosexuality. If anyone has deliberately caused them any pain because of their homosexuality, the guilty one should make amends for the harm he did. If anyone attacks my friends verbally when I'm with them, I'll be the first to defend them, too.
MH, please try to give others the benefit of the doubt when they seem to hate you. I can imagine the pain a same-sex-attracted person may feel when a Christians say, "Hate the sin, and love the sinner." Some might think, "Oh no, what will these people do because they 'hate the sin?' Will they keep telling me that I'll go to hell? Maybe they'll beat me up to punish me for my 'sin?'" The pain and the fear must be horrible."
I can hardly tell you how much emotional pain I felt after what some people did to me verbally and physically. I know how it feels when others assume that, since I'm handicapped, I'm mentally retarded, too. I've been in restaurants, where waitresses asked my dinner companion what I wanted because they thought I couldn't order my own food. I even think a male acquaintance of mine sexually abused me when I was a teen.
Emotional pain is nothing new to me. In 1991, when my clinical depression was severest, I almost committed suicide. I don't even pretend to know what emotional agony you feel or felt. But I do know how a felt when I planned to poison myself.
I don't hate you. I'd be honored to be your friend. But if you think I do hate you, I hope you'll change your mind.
I guess with enough "therapy" we would be able to persuade you to become a homosexual?
From what I know about repairative therapy, persuasion doesn't change anyone's sexual orientation.
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Edge100
Apr 15, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I was waiting for that one. It's pretty low-rent as far as fallacies go, I'm not sure why it is trotted out as often as it is. It's always used to argue stupid things like Hitler's religious beliefs represent the truest form of Christianity, and if you don't believe so, you're violating this sacred "No true Scotsman" fallacy.
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
No TRUE circle is square! Yeah, that one's true. You can't torpedo a well-defined institution by finding an example of someone not living up to its rules.
The point is that you don't get to redefine "Christian" to suit your argument.
Hitler was a Christian. That is a fact. That doesn't mean that Christianity is equivalent to Nazism and fascism. That would, indeed, be a fallacy.
But again, this is obfuscation. You can't explain away bad things done by Christians by redefining "Christian".
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
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.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
Warbrain
Oct 8, 10:13 AM
Flash is what will bring the iPhone down.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
I can see the ads:
iPhone: I have touch.
Android: Bleh, I have touch too.
iPhone: I am sleek and I have a 3.5" screen.
Android: Bleh, nowadays I am sleek too, and I have a 4" screen.
Android: Oh, and I can surf ALL of the web, including Flash sites and Hulu.
iPhone (nervously picking a pimple): Bleh, who needs Flash, I hate Flash!!! I hate Flash even more than I hated Copy/Paste. Just wait for HTML5, it'd be here in only 5 years....
Voiceover: Yes you can! But only with Android.
Flash on a mobile device will be a horrid experience no matter how fast phones get.
TangoCharlie
Jul 12, 02:50 AM
As even AI note, there's not much difference between the two chips.
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
The cores for all the "Core 2" processors are all basically the same, but the packaging is different. Using Xeon 5100 in the Mac Pro makes sense because they are going to want to use dual-cpu (quad core) configurations. Although this may not seem of much importance, the Xeon will cost a lot more, which is an issue.
I still maintain that there's a "hole" in the new line-up, which is there isn't a single-cpu high-clock-rate system. I think Apple needs a Core 2 Extreme based system with the Conroe XE CPU (initially 2.93 GHz then 3.2 GHz).
Oh.... I think the recently introduced edu-iMac will keep its current Core Duo (Yonah) processor after the full iMac has been upgraded to Core 2 Duo. Another thing..... I think the iMac will get Meroms, not Conroes so that Apple doesn't have to change the socket. (Which also implies that the top CPU speed we're going to see in the iMac will be 2.33GHz, leaving a space for faster (2.4GHz to 2.93GHz) in a new enclosure. :cool:
RaceTripper
Mar 24, 06:54 PM
Aw, poor Vatican. Are your medieval feelings hurt?
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 03:55 PM
Why not target the bigger fish first? Too hard a target? Microsoft in its CD replication factories, Dell in its TV/monitor and board manufacturing facilities surely put out hundreds of tons of more toxic wastes than all of Apples productions combined. Why not start there?
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
This shouldnt be about finger pointing.
The issues are real and we are in a dire need for a solution...fast.
One thing is sure though, the difference in enviromental cost between the "greenest" computer and the worst computer is insignificant in the big picture. There are much more urgent enviromental issues that we need to handle.
Knowing how many well-educated people there are in enviromental movement, Greenpeace's statement sounds, to me, more like a cry for additional funding than a cry to save the planet.
tveric
Mar 18, 11:53 PM
So, basically if you use PyMusique you are in violation of the TOS and because you need an iTunes account to even make use of PyMusique, Apple will know who is trying to violate the TOS.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
Thus, as I said before, you'd have to be pretty stupid to even try and use this software.
Well, 18 hours later, here we are, I used a Pepsi cap song to download thru PyMusique, it plays perfectly and all that, and so far my account hasn't been cancelled. You know why? Because it JUST ISN'T WORTH THE FRIGGIN EFFORT on Apple's part to start cancelling accounts for using this software. They have to come up with a block to PyM anyway, and that will solve all their problems.
As for violation of the TOS, nobody gives a rip except people who were hall monitors in high school. And as for being stupid, well, maybe some of us just like our freedom without limits. You can attack us for being "stupid" all you want, but that doesn't necessarily make it the truth. Get used to it - DRM is a paper tiger. I buy music thru iTMS, I buy music on CD, I buy it at allofmp3.com for a dollar an album, and I download for free too. No amount of DRM is going to make me change my habits. Only differences in prices and convenience will make me shift from one method to another when required.
dwsolberg
May 17, 03:58 PM
When Verizon offers the iPhone, I'll switch. Service is horrible in the area where I work -- so much so that on some days, I just don't get any calls and it won't allow outgoing calls for hours at a time. However, before I changed jobs, I rarely if ever had any issues with dropped calls, failed calls, or missing sound on my calls.
It's amazingly frustrating.
It's amazingly frustrating.
dgree03
Apr 28, 01:42 PM
After reading much of this thread's replies, I can honestly say that MANY MR users are living in 2009. The tablet is a PC. Yeah, maybe it can't do 100% of what a MacPro can do, but it does 90% of it. You can use the iPad as a PC and do lots of productivity.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
Sure, I wish it was a stronger machine, but it does word processing, it connects to the internet in different ways, it plays video, it plays music, it stores things, it can share things, it can compute, it is personal, it can do spread sheets, it can make movies, it can take photos, it can play games, it can do lots and lots and lots. Why wouldn't it be a PC? Because it doesn't render CGI films? Hell, it's close to having Photoshop already. Sure, it's no iMac, but an iMac is no MacPro.
If you aren't calling it a PC in you will in 2012 or 2013. Get used to it now, Technosaurus Rex'ers.
Ipad CAN only DO prolly 20% of what a MacPro CAN DO. Your wording is off.
glocke12
Mar 13, 07:45 AM
Sounds like they need to send Godzilla in to take care of the reactors...
torbjoern
Apr 23, 01:43 AM
It's easier to admit being an atheist on the Internet than in the real world, as even the Dalai Lama seems to hate atheists. Although only a fool would say in his heart "there is no god", it should be legitimate to say "I want to see proof before I believe".
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Oh - and about the universe not likely being made by chance: a designer must be more advanced than what he creates, and where does the designer come from? I'm not saying that there is no such designer, just that I don't see any reason to think about that in the first place. Wouldn't it be far more likely that the universe is made by itself rather than by some creating force being made by itself?
Multimedia
Oct 8, 10:30 AM
I meant quad-core package (socket) - be it Clovertown/Woodcrest or Kentsfield/Conroe.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that. In the Gelsinger Keynote he calls it "Multi-Threaded Workloads".
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time. Very exciting.
Also thanks for the link to all those sessions from the IDF. Fantastic to be able to "attend" all of them. I'm stoked and looking forward to watching them ALL. I love all the new Intel self-promotional videos. Intel is happening and hip!
And no premium for that "ninth" processor when you buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown after all bringing the total cost to $3,699 plus ram. So now I hope there will be TWO new lines in the Processor section of the Customize Your Mac page of the online Store:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
I now think I will opt for the 2.66GHz 8-core for $3,699 if Apple will offer it for sale.
The first 8 being a little over $400 each. With the 2.66 you get 2.64GHz more total power so it's like getting a ninth processor for +$400 IOW for no premium. Maybe Apple will only offer the 2.66GHz Clovertown so as not to confuse the buyers.
Wonder if the 2.66GHz Clovertown introduces heat issues under the hood.
On a multi-threaded workflow, twice as many somewhat slower threads are better than half as many somewhat faster threads.
Of course, many desktop applications can't use four cores (or 8), and many feel "snappier" with fewer, faster cores.
_______________
In one demo at IDF, Intel showed a dual Woodie against the top Opteron.
The Woody was about 60% faster, using 80% of the power.
On stage, they swapped the Woodies with low-voltage Clovertowns which matched the power envelope of the Woodies that they removed. I think they said that the Clovertowns were 800 MHz slower than the Woodies.
With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more). This made it 95% faster than the Opterons, still at 80% of the power draw.
You can see the demo at http://www.intel.com/idf/us/fall2006/webcast.htm - look for Gelsinger's keynote the second day.I thought so. This is the first time I have seen the term "Multi-Threaded Workflow" and I thank you for that. In the Gelsinger Keynote he calls it "Multi-Threaded Workloads".
I'm glad to see you confirm my suspicion that the 2.33GHz Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will in fact be faster than the 2.66 or 3GHz Dual Woodie when someone knows how they work simultaneously with a set of applications that can use all those cores a lot of the time. Very exciting.
Also thanks for the link to all those sessions from the IDF. Fantastic to be able to "attend" all of them. I'm stoked and looking forward to watching them ALL. I love all the new Intel self-promotional videos. Intel is happening and hip!
And no premium for that "ninth" processor when you buy a 2.66GHz Dual Clovertown after all bringing the total cost to $3,699 plus ram. So now I hope there will be TWO new lines in the Processor section of the Customize Your Mac page of the online Store:
Two 2.33GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $800]
Two 2.66GHz Quad-Core Intel Xeon [Add $1200]
I now think I will opt for the 2.66GHz 8-core for $3,699 if Apple will offer it for sale.
The first 8 being a little over $400 each. With the 2.66 you get 2.64GHz more total power so it's like getting a ninth processor for +$400 IOW for no premium. Maybe Apple will only offer the 2.66GHz Clovertown so as not to confuse the buyers.
Wonder if the 2.66GHz Clovertown introduces heat issues under the hood.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:47 PM
There, fixed it for ya (and the "'s too) ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
OS X and Windows have their pro's and con's, no OS is 100% secure. However (and read my posts), working in the field I can assure you 75%+ of my clients have security/virus/malware issues with everything from XP-W7. Executable's are the equivalent to barfing into your system; they get everywhere and are difficult to remove.
If Windows followed Apple and developed hardware to utilize their OS instead of coding an OS for a myriad of profiles (and ditching antiquated BIOS for EFI) it would allow for a better end user experience and for MS to focus on better security. Yet this would mean millions to billions for businesses to reinvest in new hardware as well as MS producing a good product (based on their industrial design team and product history, I wouldn't bet on it).
OS X based systems are generally more secure than Windows systems. I could google "OS X safer than Windows" and find as many claims as you suggest, but that would be bias. Google " 'OS X versus Windows' security' ", you will most likely discover articles/studies with no bias/agenda. If OS X wasn't more secure than Windows OS systems, why aren't more users running anti-virus/malware utilities?
Ah well, forget google-ing "windows is more secure than OS X",
just ask google; they know better I guess. ;)
peharri
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
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?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
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?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
There is no reason to imagine that god does exist, one doesn't need to provide a reason for not believing in god.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
Can you provide me an argument for why you don't believe in witches or Santa?
Yes, because witches and santa exist in space and time, God does not so rules which apply to people who live in space and time do not apply to God. It's physically impossible for santa to exist. Witches do exist, the Romanian parliament recently passed a law which said witches must pay taxes.
That's why God knows what's going to happen in the future but we still have free-will, because if you exist outside of time you can see everything that's going to happen or has happened because it's already happened.
No comments:
Post a Comment