danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
I'mAMac
Oct 29, 10:08 AM
I heard somewhere that the Clovertowns are actually slower than the Xeons, but with 2x as many cores will there be much difference?
superleccy
Sep 20, 06:09 AM
Watch for EyeTV and Apple coming together over the next 3 months!!
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Oh please, yes. For me, iTV will only truly be the final piece of the jigsaw if I can also watch my recorded (and possibly live) EyeTV content through it.
A hook-up between Apple and Elgato sounds the most natural thing. Elgato should continue to make hardware for all the various TV standards (terrestrial / cable / sat / digital / etc etc), but perhaps use some Apple desigers to make their boxes a bit more "Apple-looking". Then, Apple can take the EyeTV 2.x software and integrate it with iTunes.
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
Regds
SL
Charlie Sheen
Mar 13, 10:30 AM
one word: nope.
FX120
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
I love when people don't read threads....
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
this was already posted, way to go...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-to-use-solar-energy-at-night
Molten salt is an interesting concept, but of course it requires you to more than double the size of your array for an equivalent "24" hour average power output. Molten salt storage also doesn't scale very well into large arrays.
And you're still back to relying on gas, coal, oil, or nuclear to fill in when the sun isn't shining.
CaoCao
Mar 25, 03:20 PM
Damn right. What are we supposed to say- "Oh, you don't like us and want to deny us rights? Ok, that's just your opinion! Cool!" **** that. Sorry, not gonna happen.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
*snip*
Do you even understand how the Roman Catholic Church much less the Catholic Church works?
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
This is about the Roman Catholic Church not Christendom. Also the attitude is not shared, many Protestant groups see people as evil and wicked, the Roman Catholic Church sees homosexuals as people in need of love and support.
By mainstream Catholic I mean someone who follows all the rules of the Catholic Church.
The Catholic view does not demand the death of homosexuals, instead it seeks to change the behavior for they are lost sheep.
arkitect
Apr 15, 12:16 PM
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
No. I am not blaming my confusion on semantics� ;)
So, according to your interpretation of the CCC:
unmarried straight couples are having "sinful" sex.
unmarried same-sex couples are having "sinful" sex.
married (but not in a church) straight couples are having sinful sex.
married (but not in a church) same-sex couples are having sinful sex.
married (Catholics) are having sinful sex, if not purely for reproduction.
Which leaves us with�
married (Catholics) are having righteous sex, but only if for reproduction.
Such fun!
Did you maybe mean celibacy? I'm sorry that this confusion has happened to you. I know, there are lots of words in the English language and it's really hard to keep track of them all.
I suggest a dictionary. There are many on the web, even.
Insulting language never helps.
Here is a link to a *gasp* dictionary!
linky (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chastity)
Definition a and b.
Although I suppose you'd go for c and d. Right?
*LTD*
Apr 13, 05:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
Looks like Apple made it easier to use and the so-called "Pros" feel threatened by that because it takes less specialized knowledge to do impressive work. We might not be there yet, but in time even grandma can edit. You get the point.
Part of the reason established IT folk feel so threatened by Apple.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 11:49 PM
Subtract the individuals affiliated with gangs and the mentally unstable and we're staring at a long list of homosexuals murdered by "mainstream" individuals, many of whom attended church on a regular basis
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
I find that statement extremely ironic given that there's a thread two below (as of 12:49am on March 25, 2011) that is on the decline/ death of organized religion. :p
and were in fact catholic. That their religious affiliations are not immediately telegraphed is not evidence of absence, but rather of the fact that 76% of the population self-identifies as Christian.
Proof? Or is this amateur hour on PRSI and we're allowed to make baseless claims/ assertions?
I have no doubt some of the listed were/ are mainstream Catholics.
However, without proof, 'some' could mean 99% or 10%. IMO that's a big difference.
FloatingBones
Apr 28, 09:12 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
If you run the numbers, you'll see it's actually closer to 5% than 4%. Call it 4.5%.
Drizzt
Oct 25, 10:21 PM
Intel is really making Apple quick with those revisions...
Multimedia
Nov 3, 05:50 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.I never made such a claim. You completely misunderstand my meaning. I wrote that whole scenario to refute your opinion Software is behind Hardware and show that the opposite is true.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
They aren't. That's my whole point. They aren't because they can't because the hardware is too weak. That was the entire point of my above post. That's why all these 8, 16 and then 32 core processors are so needed ASAP.
rhett7660
Feb 21, 04:31 PM
You really think so? I don't think Apple has done anything exceptional. They built off of their popular iPod brand. Any company could do the same..unfortunately not every company has something as popular as iPod. Apple's entre into the smartphone market was guaranteed from the start.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
In your post, all I see is you ranting about the superiority of Apple while downplaying potential competition by just overlooking what they have done thus far. In our case, competition is healthy because if it were up to people like you, we would have to accept an iPhone 4g with the same specs as an iPhone 3GS. Yes, I am greatly overexaggerating but I hope you see my point.
Apple will do very little unless they are pressured to do a lot. I guess you missed my point where I said Apple does this on a regular basis with all of their items. The last to implement anything new is not something they do because they are an epithet of marketing. They do it because they can.
I don't agree with this at all. There phone when it came out was a lot more expensive then a good majority of the phones out at the time. They were not subsidized at all. They had something that was different and new to the game. The App store wasn't even around for the consumer at that time. There were web apps but not applications like we know it now. Very limited ones at that.
They were going against the likes of Nokia and Black Berry. Heck at that point the iPhone wasn't even considered a smart phone was it? It didn't have really any tools to compete against Black Berry. All it had was a new user interface.
Sure there were going to sell some units but I don't think any of this guaranteed a winner. Especially in a market that was saturated with phones that cost 50 or less and or free if you sign up.
jchung
Mar 18, 06:53 AM
I wouldn't be so opposed to this if AT&T could accurately track data usage. A number of people are being billed for some fairly large data usage which does not match their actual usage.
Here is the thread on Apple's support forum. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
As you can see, its been going on for a while. No one noticed until AT&T introduced their tiered data plan.
Until AT&T gets their data usage accounting worked out, I will NEVER sign up for their tiered plan nor their hot spot plan. Imagine how much worse their accounting will be with hot spot. And you have no tools to determine the real cause of the issue.
What is really stupid about this from AT&T is that they are requiring the user to act to Opt Out of getting the hot spot data plan. I thought companies stopped automatically enrolling people even if they were notified. I thought companies were supposed to require an Opt In for subscriptions and services.
Did we just go back 10 years?
Here is the thread on Apple's support forum. http://discussions.apple.com/thread.jspa?threadID=2450738
As you can see, its been going on for a while. No one noticed until AT&T introduced their tiered data plan.
Until AT&T gets their data usage accounting worked out, I will NEVER sign up for their tiered plan nor their hot spot plan. Imagine how much worse their accounting will be with hot spot. And you have no tools to determine the real cause of the issue.
What is really stupid about this from AT&T is that they are requiring the user to act to Opt Out of getting the hot spot data plan. I thought companies stopped automatically enrolling people even if they were notified. I thought companies were supposed to require an Opt In for subscriptions and services.
Did we just go back 10 years?
The Beatles
Apr 21, 02:06 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
Hell yeah I want apple to watch my back. Nothing wrong with having someone capable to deal with minutia while I focus on my life. "Apple holding hands" is just someones attempt to make iPhone owners feel bad. I see it as sad or childish depending on age of the person saying it. He'll yeah apple, watch my back and thank you.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ive had macs sine the late 90's, ipad, all iphones etc.
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
I absolutely respect your decision. I think the disrespect comes from immature posts not necessarily the opinions coming from respectful individs. I like the iPhone cause it does what I need. I don't need/want all the tinkering, torrents and such. Especially on a phone or tablet. Those devices for me are email, web, consumption and they do it very well with Apple quality. I use to customize my computer but it got old after a while. To me it's the philosophy/thinking behind Apples products. Now if I was a tinkerer then I'd jail break or go android but the iOS has always allowed me to do whatever I've tried to do.
I am interested in peoples experiences with tier mobile software so make sure you come back and tell us all about your experience.
But just like Windows, it's practically impossible to have any problems unless you do something stupid.
Another analogy - if you buy a car and put the wrong type of oil in it or inflate the tyres to the wrong pressure, bad things will probably happen.
If you don't know what you're doing with your own devices then maybe you need Apple to hold your hand.
The average user is stupid when it comes to using Windows, installing random programs, clicking yes to popups in porn sites.
Using your analogy, Apple tends to like to check the type of oil before it goes into the car, to avoid bad things from happening.
Most people don't know what they're doing and they DO like having Apple hold their hands.
Hell yeah I want apple to watch my back. Nothing wrong with having someone capable to deal with minutia while I focus on my life. "Apple holding hands" is just someones attempt to make iPhone owners feel bad. I see it as sad or childish depending on age of the person saying it. He'll yeah apple, watch my back and thank you.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Ive had macs sine the late 90's, ipad, all iphones etc.
But this summer im getting the galaxy s2. But i like to customize stuff. I feel the iphone is generic. Everyone is the same with a different background.
I feel they can do so much more with their os. And yes apple fanboys will say just wait for ios 5.0. Problem is we have this disucussion last year to.
Also with honeycomb android actually made a tablet os. I hate that theipad is just a scaled version of the iphone os. Use the screenspace.
Dont get me wrong. I love apple. But they have their shortcomings. Dunno why the iphone 5 (rumors) will get delayed. Then android will get a surge the next months.
Also i feel sorry for those who are mindeless zombies and just buy whatever the company makes. That goes for both parts ofcourse.
I jusr love the open feel of android. Play a 1080p mkv if i want. Download torrrnts. File system. Widgets, cusromaztion. And i love the apple ecosystem, just not how closed the experienced gets.
I just hope we can respect people for having different taste, and jusr enjoy our purchase. And dont pick on eachother
I absolutely respect your decision. I think the disrespect comes from immature posts not necessarily the opinions coming from respectful individs. I like the iPhone cause it does what I need. I don't need/want all the tinkering, torrents and such. Especially on a phone or tablet. Those devices for me are email, web, consumption and they do it very well with Apple quality. I use to customize my computer but it got old after a while. To me it's the philosophy/thinking behind Apples products. Now if I was a tinkerer then I'd jail break or go android but the iOS has always allowed me to do whatever I've tried to do.
I am interested in peoples experiences with tier mobile software so make sure you come back and tell us all about your experience.
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:31 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications.
How does this work, exactly?
How does this work, exactly?
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
slu
Sep 12, 03:26 PM
I agree with most of the comments thus far.
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
I am excited at the prospect of an Apple "Media Center", but this just seems like wireless front row for your TV. Which is nice, but I want a DVR and I want to be able to slide a DVD in there. I don't want to have to go to my Mac in another room to watch a DVD. But I suppose Apple does not want you to buy DVDs anymore. And if you can't order movies from the couch, then it will also suffer.
And if it works as well as my airport express does for audio (which is just OK, a lot of skips, but then I am still on 802.11b because of my TiVo), then I will pass altogether.
Good price point though. And I wonder if it'll be Mac and PC?
jwdsail
Sep 21, 10:34 AM
It has HDMI output.. One way or another, it'll output HD (720p?1080p???)
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Now, as to what the source quality will be...
I'd be happy as a pig in... to see true 480p/DVD w/ slightly higher bitrates from the iTS... (Ability to burn to DVD is what I'm holding out for) I think the network requirements to stream HD (hard drive or not) will rule out HD source for the short term/1.0.
Looking at the device, and the price.. I think it will behave much more like a wireless OPPO upconverting/upscaling DVD player...
http://www.oppodigital.com/opdv971h.html
$199 for the highest rated up-converting DVD player...
My gut says that the Apple iPod Video Express will either have the same DCDi by Faroudja chip, or the closest ATI/NVidia/Intel equal inside.
If this device will cleanly up-convert/up-scale any video content on my Mac(s) to the native res of my TV (480, 720p, 1080p, etc) as well as the OPPO, I think it will be well worth the price Apple is talking about.
Just my $0.02US.
jwd
Lennholm
May 2, 10:30 AM
Is your info from like 1993 ? Because this little known version of Windows dubbed "New Technology" or NT for short brought along something called the NTFS (New Technology File System) that has... *drumroll* ACLs and strict permissions with inheritance...
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Unless you're running as administrator on a Windows NT based system, you're as protected as a "Unix/Linux" user. Of course, you can also run as root all the time under Unix, negating this "security".
So again I ask, what about Unix security protects you from these attacks that Windows can't do ?
And I say this as a Unix systems administrator/fanboy. The multi-user paradigm that is "Unix security" came to Windows more than 18 years ago. It came to consumer versions of Windows about 9 years ago if you don't count Windows 2000 as a consumer version.
Wait, knowledge is ignorance ? 1984 much ?
The fact is, understanding the proper terminology and different payloads and impacts of the different types of malware prevents unnecessary panic and promotes a proper security strategy.
I'd say it's people that try to just lump all malware together in the same category, making a trojan that relies on social engineering sound as bad as a self-replicating worm that spreads using a remote execution/privilege escalation bug that are quite ignorant of general computer security.
Great post! I think the biggest reason security has been so problematic on Windows, aside from the fact that it's the biggest target, is that the default user type is administrator.
The kind of issue in this case, caused by user ignorance, is really the only threat that exist for Windows since XP SP2. Internet Explorer has had sufficient, but very annoying, security measures against this since version 7 and I'm surprised Safari can let these kind of things slide through so easily.
Security in Windows has been pretty solid for years now, but that hasn't stopped many Linux/Unix/OSX-fanboys from claiming Windows security is like a swizz cheese. They don't even bother to do some research, they just keep shouting the same old mantra.
Stella
Feb 20, 09:22 AM
I tried installing the android sdk, it is the usual linux crapfest of having to fix and tweak everything. After 1 hour I still could not get it working. Absolutely appalling, makes me wonder about google. Aapl wants max lockdown on all their **** but at least it works.
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Ease of use - uh.. look at XCode:
You've got to go through bloody hoops to be able to debug Unit Tests on XCode! XCode can be extremely long winded, whilst in other IDEs - no hassles what so ever! I'm not saying that XCode completely sucks, but Apple could do a lot to improve it.
( Unit Tests considered being a vital part of application development )
Vulpinemac
Apr 28, 09:47 AM
Almost all of that is due to the iPad. They had around 4% of the global market for computers last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
Do some research. Globally Apple passed 7% last year.
fpnc
Mar 18, 06:31 PM
But can a user be considered to be a party to that agreement if they have not used iTunes to access the store - does the purchasing process still involve an agreement approval stage using this software? Presumably not.
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
Why don't you try it and find out? :)
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment