Fredo Viola
Aug 29, 10:51 AM
This is a real bummer to me. I pride myself on making as little an impact on the environment as I can, but make my living using computers to make music... and I use all Apple products... so I'm feeling really guilty about this right now.
Shivetya
Apr 15, 11:49 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Because some groups want to convince the world they are better victims than other groups. Because some groups see more importance in who you are than what you suffered.
hcho3
Nov 12, 12:35 AM
Jesus christ...
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
I cannot wait for iphone to go to verizon, so you all whiners can get off the AT&T network. My signal with AT&T is not perfect, but it is good enough to meet my standards. I get 2-3 drop calls out of 50 calls I make. So, it it not OMFG.
Verizon service is better in my area, but it is not that much better. Verizon pissed me off enough with their poor customer service in the past. It will take me more than good signals to go back to VZ.
People seem to think like Verizon will save all of us from AT&T signal issues. Yea... sure....
We will see. We will see.
chrono1081
May 2, 11:52 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
Except antivirus doesn't usually catch things like this, neither does anti-spyware since it acts like a legit program.
I fix windows machines and servers for a living an unfortunately a majority of my week is spent removing said malware from windows machines.
KnightWRX
May 2, 05:16 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. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
It's not. You don't defend against viruses the way you do against worms the way you do against trojans. The distinction is important as the infection vectors differs and the defense mechanism also differ.
To lump all malware together as some common entity is what doesn't encourage users to adopt safe computer practices, instead relying on the snake oil sold by Intego and other FUD spreaders to "keep them safe".
Know thy enemy.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 12, 11:34 PM
Now Steven Spelberg can tweek the Star Wars movies.
sbarton
Jul 13, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:31 PM
I'd like nothing better than to be able to dump Comcast completely, but without the ability to watch live sports, it's a no-go. If they start streaming games for a couple bucks, I'd definitely take a look at it.
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
march calendar wallpaper 2011.
march 2011 wallpaper. free
2011 calendar wallpaper march.
Wallpaper March, 2011
MARCH 2011 DESKTOP WALLPAPER
2011 calendar wallpaper march.
march 2011 calendar wallpaper.
Camperamp;Bus Wallpaper March
March 2011 – Wallpaper by
CANUCKS WALLPAPER MARCH 2011
March 2011 Wallpaper
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
Darth.Titan
Oct 7, 11:45 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
You, sir have hit the nail on the head.
nagromme
Oct 7, 02:12 PM
I think point 3 is the biggest problem with the iPhone OS and will be what in the long run what will let others over take it.
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
emotion
Sep 20, 08:40 AM
Come to think of it it is possible that the iTV is in fact an iPod underneath. Might explain some of those persistent wireless ipod rumours and that rumour about an iPod with a 'non-touch' interface.
Just idle thoughts... :)
Just idle thoughts... :)
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:54 PM
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intellighent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are in elated.
go go Mr. Stereotype
go go Mr. Stereotype
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:20 PM
Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
Movies, maybe.
But if you are going to be charging me for every news, weather, sports, or entertainment program that I watch on a daily basis it is going to have to be a lot, lot, less than paying for satellite / cable and watching what I want.
I think the current price for satellite / cable is reasonable but if a service is going to charge me per show, they would have to charge pennies for it. Otherwise it just wouldn't be competitive price-wise.
skunk
Mar 25, 02:51 PM
A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any timeSo how many marriage licences get revoked? :confused:
Please provide 1 (one) example.
Please provide 1 (one) example.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 11:25 AM
While I have misgivings about Nuclear power I do think it is a good midrange solution to our problems until we can solve our battery problems (thus enabling true renewable energy sources to be viable), drilling isn't a viable solution to anything.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
The US doesn't have the resources to provide for our society on our own. Not to mention that the whole process of drilling can take decades (meaning 10+ years, not something like 20+) to play through to the point where steady production can begin. You can't just go out and drill, even if you find something you have to set up the supporting infrastructure first before it is viable.
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:39 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
I was thinking about this after appleguy123 mentioned the idea of hellfire. My initial thought is that the heaven/hell idea is boring! It's so much less interesting and inspiring than what really happens to you. The processes and work and how every living being fits into the ecosystem is just amazing. I think the idea that this has evolved over millions of years is just brilliant. Science adds such wonder to the world. The majesty of god has nothing on this!
I also love the idea that anybody can challenge an idea and change the way everybody thinks. How dull would it be if we just accepted everything at face value (ie. God did it!)?
sbarton
Jul 13, 09:03 AM
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
Fine what would you pay? Whats fair? Seems like Apple's product line says 'take it or leave it with the imac' or 'cough up a lung for the Pro line'. There's nothing in the middle.
Yes, I appreciate the Apple design considerations. I'm willing to pay a premium for it. The question is - How much?
Chappers
Mar 13, 12:13 PM
When pumps failed to pump in water and the back up diesel powered generators failed they ran into problems.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
If its important - have more than one backup. Risk assessment means always thinking of the worse case scenario. Pumping in sea water seems like a panic back up plan.
javajedi
Oct 12, 04:08 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
OK, lets look at this code again. I'll write some x86 assembly to do it. Not the best in the world, but we'll get an idea whats going on. Also I need to do this to help my memory. :)
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
I'll be back. Watch this space, I will write it up to make sure it runs.
ddtlm: I didn't know if you downloaded FPTest.java, but basically the only difference there was it was done with 2x precision fp, and doing square roots. BTW: I think I mentioned this in one of my previous post, but for the Mac OS X version, I compiled it with GCC 3.1, then ran both tests on the iBook and PowerBook G4.
C for Mac OS X:
double x1,x2,x3
OK, lets look at this code again. I'll write some x86 assembly to do it. Not the best in the world, but we'll get an idea whats going on. Also I need to do this to help my memory. :)
Ok, lets do it the stupidest way possible in x86 NASM:
I'll be back. Watch this space, I will write it up to make sure it runs.
ddtlm: I didn't know if you downloaded FPTest.java, but basically the only difference there was it was done with 2x precision fp, and doing square roots. BTW: I think I mentioned this in one of my previous post, but for the Mac OS X version, I compiled it with GCC 3.1, then ran both tests on the iBook and PowerBook G4.
C for Mac OS X:
double x1,x2,x3
eric_n_dfw
Mar 21, 07:05 AM
I am an Apple shareholder. I feel entitled to DRM-free products.Good for you, I am too. But as someone else here said, "I want a pony!"
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
Present your opinion at the next shareholder's meeting. Presuming you own enough shares to bend their ear, they might listen. If not, then vote down Jobs and/or the board (again, owning a bunch of shares is helpful here.)
Remember though, what Apple owes us is return on investment. The only logical reason to buy shares in a company is that you either want to earn profits from it or you intend to buy it out (and earn profits from that). Ask yourself this: does Apple removing DRM from iTMS tracks make financial sense? Before answering, consider that Jobs said (the day the iTMS openned) that the FairPlay DRM was the best balance they could strike with all of the record labels. I'm sure any change in DRM would require ratification of the contracts with those record companies. Fat chance. (The only way I could see this happenning would be if un-DRM'ed tracks cost $5 or something - but even then, I doubt it)
The other reason to buy stock is because you like the company and want to support it. This is less of a logical reason, though, and falls under emotion. Not that there's anything wrong with that (it's probably part of my decision to own AAPL).
Lamarak
Jun 13, 01:55 PM
All I can say is AT&T in my area far better than Verizon here in San Antonio. Not saying they don't have their problems, but Verizon doesnt allow you to talk and use the web at same time, which Im sure helps some in the traffic thats on the network.
ryme4reson
Oct 7, 09:30 PM
I for one think the current lines of macs are MUCH slower than the current comparable PCs. And to Back to the Mac, you may have heard of piplines and branches etc.. but do you have any idea what you are talking about?
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
"25 years old arch... the x86 sucks" Well you enjoy OS X and that's 25+ architecture also, so whats your point? Also, I think it is very hard to compare a Dual 1.25 to a single 2 Gig processor. Especially when the price difference is 500-1000+ I mean I would pay for performance, but the Macs are more than that. I am on a 1.6Athlon at school right now and it kicks the **** out of my 933. This 1.6 has 512 Ram I have 1.28GIGS. Simple things like starting Explorer to read macrumors is executed with NO DELAY. Bringing up Control Panels is also instantanious. I dont mind the fact my G-4 is slower, I enjoy OSX and my mac, but as far as speed I think you BACKTOTHEMAC needs to open your eyes.
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:34 PM
I did a little reading and now am a one minute expert... :p
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
I've read these reactors did auto shut down when the earthquake hit. The problem is that the rods create tremendous persistent heat even after a shutdown, and it is the lack of cooling water that is causing the problem.
Could it be considered a myth that any nuclear reactor can be expected to automatically safely shutdown when power to all safety systems are lost no matter how it is designed?
And who was saying this could not be like Chernobyl??
Modern plants use passive removal systems in the event of reactor instability and they are much safer as a result. The Fukushima reactors date from the 60's so the decay heat removal mechanisms are active, employing pumps instead of heat removal via natural circulation in the event of a failure, hence older plants do present more of a risk in this sense than modern ones.
Ah, but once again it's all about location, location, location, and they don't have any viable sites for safe nuclear energy, if such a thing exists.
That's true, but I suspect a modern plant employing passive safety mechanisms would fare a lot better in the same scenario.
Still, ifs and ands... Sincerely hope they manage to get it under control. Just been another fire I see on the BBC News site.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:46 AM
Even if this were true (and it's demonstrably not true), the whole thing is based on the completely erroneous idea that morality should be dictated by any of our holy books. We do a disservice to humanity by allowing ourselves to remain captive to these bronze age ideals of what is right and wrong.
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
Erroneous idea to you, but that's just like, your opinion, man.
Demonstrably not true? That's funny, I keep looking in my church bulletin for some fun anti-gay rallies or barbeques but I'm not finding them. I do find that the Catholic high school is going to have a conference on preventing anti-gay bullying, gasp! I bet they're going to pull out that old chestnut from the Catechism, "They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity."
SO MUCH HATE!
The stance itself isn't rational (i.e. based on anything empirical), so it's hard to take it seriously as anything other than "hateful" as you put it.
You know, it's pretty easy to see why some are tempted to just dig in and declare you to be an enemy to be fought at any price - after they extend an olive branch and people like you still come back accusing hate.
It is hateful to trivialize a person's identity; to claim that homosexuality is a "trial", that must be overcome. It's dehumanizing, and it's hateful.
Funny. I find you to be the second most bigoted person I've seen so far on this thread. But that's just like, my opinion.
