baryon
May 6, 01:42 PM
This is ridiculous, I have never had a dropped call in my life with O2 here in the UK, or with T-Mobile in the rest of Europe, except when going into tunnels, but that's totally normal!
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.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 04:14 PM
No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
The Old and New Testaments make up the Bible :confused:
I'm not quite sure what you're getting at here.
stcanard
Mar 18, 10:19 AM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
goobot
Apr 20, 06:08 PM
did anyone ask anything about hspa+?
AndroidfoLife
Apr 9, 01:03 PM
Hard core gaming is PC gaming. Why because you have to really care about the quality of your games to go out and spend 1000 plus just to play games.
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
Second iOS devices are not competing with nintendo or Sony's portables. People buy an iPhone as a phone, not to play games and the same goes with all the iOS devices. People Pick up a Portable game like a DS or PSP to play games not to listen to music not to surf the web or watch movies. You are comparing a device that does gaming as a secondary function to something that was developed for the one purpose of gaming.
myamid
Sep 12, 06:27 PM
If it did support HD??
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
thats kinda stupid considering it has HDMI and component connectors.
Well I had an old Toshiba TV with component in and it sure as hell wasn't an HDTV set... So component and HDTV are NOT interdependant...
The HDMI on the other hand is a good point, but it can still be used for SDTV so it's no a proof in itself (although I'll admit, it's certainly possible). My guess is that it's more an insurance policy for the future if Apple needs to protect the content from being "ripped"...
GGJstudios
May 2, 02:51 PM
I love how you all pretend like this is the first piece of intrusive software (Malware) for Macs ...
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
As already stated, it's not the first. Who's pretending that it is?
... like there's no such thing as a virus for Mac...
For Mac OS X, there isn't.
latergator116
Mar 20, 06:15 PM
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.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
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.
It is wrong? How so? If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.
dr_lha
Sep 12, 03:32 PM
Nice, but I'd need to buy a new TV to use it. My TV doesn't support either Component or HDMI. Would a S-Video output be too much to ask for? I guess maybe they could have a dongle that converts HDMI->S-Video, like I use on my Mac mini right now (DVI -> S-Video).
javajedi
Oct 8, 06:06 PM
Originally posted by ryme4reson
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
It says the cd-rom on your Pb is slower than the PC. In addition the G4 sucks, but its the CD ROM speed making most of that difference
Absolutely. To isoloate the cdrom drive on the PC, I seperated the process of ripping and encoding. Once I had the song ripped encoding took 5 seconds. I wish there was a way to just see how long encoding takes in iTunes, but I don't think you can do just this , I believe it only rips and encodes.
appleguy123
Apr 10, 11:36 AM
Ya know what? This is good advice. After doing a LOT of thinking about this, I realize that I'm probably best off sticking with Windows.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
When it comes right down to it, I'm really just "curious" about trying a Mac. I don't actually have a particular reason, and I don't have any problems with Windows (believe it or not).
It looks like both operating systems have a few advantages and both operating systems have their share of annoyances. Truth is, I'm having a hard time finding a real advantage to switching.
If I were starting out today I'd most likely go with a Mac. But I'm an old dude, not a kid. I'm very comfortable with Windows and I really LIKE certain things about it. In fact, the first thing I'd do on a Mac is try to set it up so the Dock works just like the Start button in Windows. A rational person would have realized long ago that this is crazy. If I want a Mac to work like Windows I should just use Windows. Duh. But my curiosity along with the attractive cosmetic looks of the Mac got the best of me.
I won't lie, I'll forever be curious about "the other side"... but in my case I think I'd just be asking for a lot of headaches figuring out how to do all of these things differently than I'm used to.
Anyway...
Thanks to everyone that helped by adding your thoughts, I really appreciate it. And since I can't be the only one out there with similar feelings maybe this thread will help them too. Some will choose to switch to Mac, some will choose to stick with Windows.
And that's the way it goes. :)
You could always buy a Mac and run windows on it. It would let you satisfy your curiosity, and have a safe fallback to the OS you know. And a beautiful computer.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 04:29 PM
The fact remains that most of America's energy problems are caused by conspicuous consumption.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
And according to many Republicans, Americans are entitled to conspicuous consumption. It is as American as apple pie.
asphalt-proof
Sep 21, 10:40 AM
I think the opposite. iTV is just another "pod" using a single computer as a separate node. The Apple paradigm here would be to release iTV and then to have a separate cable-in device (EyeTV essentially) at your computer that would serve as the DVR to load and control shows on your central computer, which could then be wirelessly distributed to iTVs throughout the house. Just buy one giant hard drive rather than having a bunch all over the place.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Apple has repeatedly said that they don't think people want a computer in their living room (to surf the net, etc). There does have to be a computer someplace, however, in this case acting as an entertainment server for iTV, iPods, etc.
This explanation makes so much sense to me. I was thinking about this today. I am not a A/V person at all. I can barely hook up my DVD player to my TV. But I am pretty good with my iMac, getting content on it and off it to my iPod. THe model that makes sense to me is I get the content from my computer and watch it on my TV. (note: I don't have cable so I don't worry aobut getting content from my TV to my computer. But the elgato system seems pretty easy to use.) I wonder if I would be able to use the elgato Hybrid TV to hook my xbox up to my computer but still play it on my TV though the iTV system? The reason I ask is it would cut down on clutter in the living room.
Sydde
Mar 25, 11:50 PM
[QUOTE=CaoCao;12258425]Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public/QUOTE]
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
Because it is basically unsanitary. Similar to urinating on the sidewalk (urine is sterile upon exiting the body, but it does not stay that way very long).
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
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.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
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 - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
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.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
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 - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Thunderhawks
Apr 9, 11:42 AM
Velly Intelrsting. Did they start out making games from rocks?
Yes!
280466
Yes!
280466
samcraig
Mar 18, 10:56 AM
1) Why would I need an extra 2GB when I'm already Unlimited?
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
2) Why would I need to pay an extra $20 for 1s and 0s going from my laptop thru my phone. If I'm using the laptop, I'm not using my phone and vice versa. It's still single use.
3) Do you pay "Extra" for home internet because you have a wireless router that allows you to connect multiple PCs to the same connection?? How is tethering on a mobile phone any different??? This sets a precedence that could allow for home internet providers to charge on a per PC connect basis.
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Multimedia
Oct 7, 06:52 PM
The slower Clovertowns also match the Woodie for TDP - you can get more power (for multi-threaded workflows) at the same power consumption (and heat production) with the quad.By Quad you mean each slower Clovertown or a pair of faster Woodies?
Chupa Chupa
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
Unfortunately, its already the case. When the DTP kicked in Apple was all pro and nothing else. Apple was for media creators and scientists. Now its the opposite.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
That is a bit of a retelling of history.
When DTP kicked in in the late 80s, early 90s's, Jobs was already out of Apple and Apple started it's slow, painful downslide. The publishing and scientific markets were the only ones Apple had, not because that was Apple's stated mission, but because it was its lifeline, and mostly because Pagemaker, then Photoshop & Quark, on the Mac was superior to the Windows version. (Quark was Mac only for a couple years)
Apple badly botched the consumer market in the '90s by making 1001 Performa desktops confusing just about everyone, plus Macs were 2x more expensive than PCs with 1/2 of the popular s/w titles. Apple wanted this market, it just didn't know how to capture it and make a profit.
Every long time Apple follower knows that Jobs original mission for Apple, and especially the Mac, was to produce a computer for "the rest of us." Jobs has always been about making computing simpler and more refined. He did not set out to serve the pro community.
Lets dismiss these myths, and brush off the snobbery, contending that Apple was originally built to cater to the pro community and it sold out. That has never been its mission. It makes products that pros like, but it is a consumer electronics company, just like Sony or Panasonic, or Canon or Nikon, etc., etc.
Aduntu
Apr 24, 12:29 AM
Where does the Bible say that we have free will? Did not God predefine all actions?
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
Also, why does everything in the universe operate as if there were no god(evolution, big bang, evil, starvation)? Is God lazy?
If the bible really taught that God predetermined everything, wouldn't that mean that God intended for Adam and Eve to sin, resulting in thousands of years of turmoil for humans? If God had everything already planned, what would be the point of sending his son Jesus to the earth? If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice. It would just mean that God was orchestrating this entire history of human kind for some unknown reason. That doctrine completely contradicts the entire premise of Christianity and the bible.
Regarding your second comment, doesn't that point equally support the argument that there really is a God? I understand what you're saying, but I'm not sure it excludes the possibility of intelligent design. You said everything operates as if there was no God, but isn't it possible that God put everything in motion perfectly, not requiring recurring involvement? (The bible doesn't teach that God is responsible for the turmoil in the world. It cites man's actions as the originator of these problems. I'm not implying that God set man's problems in motion.)
samcraig
Mar 18, 01:21 PM
No in the TOS it states there is a limit to unlimited (5gb), deceptive.
As far as the tethering issue, at&t does not know whos tethering.
they are guessing............so yes its wrong for them they should have proof and its possible for them to have the proof but they are the lazy ones.
"I think you are guilty, but to have the proof takes too much time, just execute them"
We live in a time of reason ( I question this at times myself) and you cannot condemn people based on a belief you need the proof.
a) show me this 5gb limit. I see none and don't know anyone who has been charged for going over 5gb on their UNLIMITED plan on their iPhone
b) they don't know if you tether or not. That is your assumption. They're guessing? Yeah.. ok. The FACT is - you have no idea if they do or don't have proof. Perhaps wishful thinking.
As far as the tethering issue, at&t does not know whos tethering.
they are guessing............so yes its wrong for them they should have proof and its possible for them to have the proof but they are the lazy ones.
"I think you are guilty, but to have the proof takes too much time, just execute them"
We live in a time of reason ( I question this at times myself) and you cannot condemn people based on a belief you need the proof.
a) show me this 5gb limit. I see none and don't know anyone who has been charged for going over 5gb on their UNLIMITED plan on their iPhone
b) they don't know if you tether or not. That is your assumption. They're guessing? Yeah.. ok. The FACT is - you have no idea if they do or don't have proof. Perhaps wishful thinking.
jchung
Mar 18, 12:16 PM
Check out this post on modmyi.com - http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html#post5900780
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
AT&T is just trying to bully people into the tethering plan.
GGJstudios
May 2, 05:21 PM
A few people need to stop being so short sighted in trying to meticulously defend the idea of "no viruses on Macs". Ultimately it's a rather hollow ideal to uphold because uninitiated users accept it as gospel and it doesn't encourage them to adopt safe computer practices.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.
It's not an "idea" that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X; it's a fact. Whether malware is a virus or trojan is important, because it determines what defense is required. Rather than lump everything together and erroneously call it a virus, it's more helpful to properly identify what kind of threat it is, so users know how best to handle it. Even in the absence of viruses, safe computer practices are always encouraged, such as not pirating software or downloading codecs or plug-ins from disreputable sites. In fact, it's more helpful to encourage safe computing practices than to recommend antivirus apps, which can give a user a false sense of security.