samcraig
Mar 18, 08:32 AM
I'm not a thief, I use my data responsible.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
Its appalling that your so righteous to post such.
I have an unlimited plan, $30 a month, I use tether for a few things but do not go over 5gb a month, I have unlimited so it shouldn't matter, but I use much less then the one poster who claims 90gb a month to download movies.
Yes I think thats abuse.
I think anything over 10 to 20gb would be pure abuse.
but occasional tethering and under that 10gb abuse? No way.
I need to calm down because it bothers me that people are so brainwashed these days to accept what ever a company does.
It's just crap. No matter what a Contract says it can be challenged in court and we could be right and At&t wrong.
So you're saying that if you steal $10 vs $1 million - it's not stealing? No doubt different levels of crime - but both are illegal.
But see my post above. The long/short of it is - unlimited data is specific to the device as per the TOS. If you're breaking the TOS, you're breaking the TOS - no matter how you or anyone tries to justify it - and ATT can "retaliate" as it's within their right as per that TOS.
I do not support ATT doing anything to those who already have a metered (limited) data plan. THAT makes no sense.
citizenzen
Mar 14, 03:25 PM
It would require a multi-tiered approach.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
I've been away for a few days and have missed this discussion.
The solution does indeed need to be multi-tiered and intelligently applied. I've heard that the Japanese Nuclear plants were built to survive a strong earthquake or a tsunami, but not both. Well what often occurs when you get a strong earthquake offshore? That's right, a tsunami! Brilliant planning!
As for solar, it should be mandatory on new construction in areas such as Los Angeles, Phoenix, Las Vegas. It won't solve our energy needs but it will lessen them. Use the appropriate alternative technology where it will do the most good. Don't try to ship solar generated electricity across the country, just try to take advantage of it in localities that typically experience a number of sunny days.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:42 PM
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
My objection to religion is faith. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that accepting demonstrably stupid claims( virgin birth, transubtansiation, creationism) on blind faith. These claims are huge and should be supported with huge amount of evidence for people to be expected to stake their afterlife on them.
My objection to religion is faith. Nothing more, nothing less.
I think that accepting demonstrably stupid claims( virgin birth, transubtansiation, creationism) on blind faith. These claims are huge and should be supported with huge amount of evidence for people to be expected to stake their afterlife on them.
iMikeT
Aug 29, 11:01 AM
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
leekohler
Apr 23, 10:38 AM
Two strikes for you as a gaytheist.
Yes- we're the enemies of God, America and freedom dontcha know. :)
Yes- we're the enemies of God, America and freedom dontcha know. :)
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 09:17 AM
Do some research?.....Hahahahahah.
I meant it a little in jest but i fail to see how Nintendo originating (as a trading card company amongst other things research....) from Japan would make them unable to be purchased by a US based co.
All Im saying is if Nintendo fails (which they were close to not that long ago...Gamecube) I could see their "spot" in people's living room in sync where Apple wants to be.
So far, Apple has had the foresight to anticipate market conditions and supply issues...they keep forward thinking (in process and practice), they'll be hard to beat.
Undertow,
It's simple, really. Apple cannot, by international law, waltz in and buy Nintendo of Japan. They have to get permission from the Japanese government and the US Government so that they are cleared of any monopolistic violations. And it has to be mutually agreed by Nintendo themselves.
Second, it was Nintendo that started the "Blue Ocean" theory that changed gaming in terms of motion control and interactivity. Actually, it was Reggie Fils-Aime, CEO of Nintendo of America division that came up with it and probably presented this idea to his bosses. Regardless, Nintendo of Japan is THE boss of all the divisions.
Nintendo has too much money in their war chest to be bought out. They could, in theory, partner up in a deal to market a product or service. However, Nintendo sees things differently and so does Sony.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
I meant it a little in jest but i fail to see how Nintendo originating (as a trading card company amongst other things research....) from Japan would make them unable to be purchased by a US based co.
All Im saying is if Nintendo fails (which they were close to not that long ago...Gamecube) I could see their "spot" in people's living room in sync where Apple wants to be.
So far, Apple has had the foresight to anticipate market conditions and supply issues...they keep forward thinking (in process and practice), they'll be hard to beat.
Undertow,
It's simple, really. Apple cannot, by international law, waltz in and buy Nintendo of Japan. They have to get permission from the Japanese government and the US Government so that they are cleared of any monopolistic violations. And it has to be mutually agreed by Nintendo themselves.
Second, it was Nintendo that started the "Blue Ocean" theory that changed gaming in terms of motion control and interactivity. Actually, it was Reggie Fils-Aime, CEO of Nintendo of America division that came up with it and probably presented this idea to his bosses. Regardless, Nintendo of Japan is THE boss of all the divisions.
Nintendo has too much money in their war chest to be bought out. They could, in theory, partner up in a deal to market a product or service. However, Nintendo sees things differently and so does Sony.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
wekes
Aug 29, 04:47 PM
I remember getting my old Power Mac 7500 in an ugly brown box with a message on it saying that apple wasn't using dyed boxes in order to help the environment. That's fine with me. However, I retrospect, I promptly dumped that box in the trash and acutally still use my newer and prettier dyed Apple boxes as storage containers in my storage room--something I never would have done with the ugly, wimpier brown one. So much for the borwn box helping the environment.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
IMHO, Greenpeace is not to be trusted. They are highly-biased activists who, like most activist groups (right or left), have the unstated, main goal of needing to justify their continuing existence. Greenpeace, in particular, is notorious for having blinders on to the point they don't have any perspective in the real world beyond the utopian fantasies. I'm all for having reasonable, workable policies that are responsible and benefit society, but letting Greenpeace be the dictator of what those policies should be is naieve and dangerous.
bluap84
Mar 11, 03:25 AM
The Guardian has a good updated feed here (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/blog/2011/mar/11/japan-earthquake) if anyone wants to be kept updated
legacyb4
Sep 12, 06:43 PM
So based on what was shown today, the iTV itself is not presenting itself as a recording solution, only playback.
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
If that is the case, then it still misses the mark because you cannot do the one thing that a PVR can do easily which is to pick up the remote and click record without getting out of your chair (assuming your Mac is in a different room than the TV).
You have got this all wrong.
The iTV is a winner for these reasons:
3) Tuners: Numerous Third Solutions (elgato for example) exist right now to capture High Def video to the Mac and PC -- the stream is pauseable.
DJO
skunk
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
The Bible, as you may or may not know, is the basis for Christianity, and the Old Testament is the basis for Judaism.No, the basis of Christianity is the Old and New Testaments.
AriX
May 2, 09:40 AM
haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
Archive Utility will not extract these type of ZIP files to their system paths. I believe it will force the use of relative paths. I really doubt any reports that this malware can be installed without user interaction.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:11 PM
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
Ugh, so much ignorance (hopefully unintentional), I don't know where to start...
If you are theistic, clearly it would make sense to base morality off what your God believes. Not doing so would be the equivalent of an atheist not agreeing with the scientific method.
Everything you say is hinged upon the belief religions are all wrong. If this is in fact true, I suppose you having this belief is true. Though you could also debate this back and forth, IF religion is all wrong, any religious morals are therefore created by those who practiced/invented the religion, which means there are far more viewpoints having gone into the creation of such morals.
Thirdly, it doesn't even matter whether the above is true with respect to what you said, even if religion is 100% made up, people who are religious (I'll pick on GWB again since he was by far more practicing Christian than Obama) are still basing their beliefs on something which is written down. This makes them more trustworthy, or perhaps a better word would be predictable. It is unlikely that someone like GWB will suddenly ever go "you know what, I think you're right, it's totally ok to allow abortion" because his beliefs are based on something which will not change. On the other hand, a politician who is completely atheistic has no such 'check' or 'reference' which means you have no idea that their position will not change.
"Common sense morals?" lol! There are so many examples of morals not being "common sense" both inside and outside theistic cultures. These "common sense" morals are only common sense because you personally believe in them, at the current time, given your set of circumstances. It is entirely possible they drastically change over time. A great example is the one you pointed out, slavery. Plenty of people thought it was "common sense" to allow slavery. What changed? Did people suddenly get "more common sense?" It seems likely to me that something like abortion is likely to eventually become a "common sense to outlaw" thing, while gay marriage will become a "wtf does the government care" common sense thing; neither of these is the current state in the United States.
Not to mention, common sense morals more or less is exactly what I am referring to when saying societal morals. The "this is morality as we see it, duh!" type of morality.
Regarding your final point, I am almost positive I have read more of the Bible and understand what it is saying better than you. I am not going to debate a book you seemingly do not know with you, so I will offer this: there is a difference between Old Testament law and the New Testament in terms of how we, ie not Jews living more than 2300 years ago, should interpret them in our daily lives. Not to mention, much of the Old Testament was written to a specific group of people at a specific time (that was a long time ago), which even if New Testament did not "free" us from Old Testament law, that slavery was much different at the time in practice and implementation (see Leviticus 25). Plus if you do want to see how to treat slaves from a Biblical standpoint, in light of Christ, read the book of Philemon in the New Testament, which specifically is written to a slaveowner from Paul.
roland.g
Sep 12, 04:37 PM
It needs DVR recording for this price point. As someone else mentioned earlier, I can use a $5 cable to connect my computer to my TV. It need something else that will make me want to spend the extra $244 on it. Either that, or apple needs to stop touting the iMac as a media PC because the TV will compete with it.
maybe if it came with a calculator
maybe if it came with a calculator
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by nixd2001
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
Macsavvytech
May 4, 01:50 AM
People sure get emotionally invested about the dumbest things....
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
Elfear
Nov 1, 03:24 PM
Well the Maya application itself won't benefit anymore from 8 cores than it would from 2 or 4. But 8-cores will help immensely with rendering, especially if he uses MentalRay and has enough licenses. Currently Maya Complete has 2 licenses and Maya Unlimited has 8. I'm not sure how the Maya licenses will apply to quad-core CPUs just yet.
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Sweet. That's what we needed to know. I believe he has Maya Unlimited so he should be good for the 8 cores no matter how they decide to license it.
Is the ability to render using more than 2 cores a feature of both Maya 7 and Maya 8?
Digital Skunk
Apr 13, 09:06 AM
I don't have a link for you but I too remember them saying you could run the entire app from the keyboard though I don't remember them specifically mentioning customizing hotkeys.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
Yeah I figured as much.
Apple, Adobe, and a few others are starting to roll out with new products/apps/services and what not yet don't give us endusers much to go on besides what they mention to us briefly.
I am still waiting for answer to Thunderbolt ports being accidentally removed and Adobe doesn't give much on it's new subscription service. I'll just add FCPX details to the list.
Here are videos of the event... that way you can pretty much 'see' for yourself what it does or doesnt do.
http://www.photographybay.com/2011/04/13/final-cut-pro-x-annoncement-video/
Peace
dAlen
As a content creator . . . I refuse to watch video that was shot out of someone's purse/man-bag.
I'd be stoked if it wasn't just the top left corner of the screen.
GeekLawyer
Apr 15, 09:45 AM
This is awesome of these employees to do. I love Apple, which must have given its blessing. We all know that Apple normally gags its employees.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
I wish Tim Cook could have been in the video. But, of course, I realize why he wasn't. Way too high profile. Someday.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:36 AM
This post is not doing much to convince me.
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
It shouldn't matter to you what other people do. So why do you care?
Why? Because you did it first. You jumped after gay people in your post. We reacted. Get real. If you speak and attack people, they will react and respond with their own opinions. If you can't handle that, you're going to have a very difficult time in the future.
I don't care what you're convinced of or not. Do you really think that will affect my sleep tonight? LOL...REALLY??? Please!
As for jumping on people...NO. You obviously need to go back and re-read my first post. I didn't jump on anyone or attack the gay community. I attacked the way the media is targeting the gay audiences. HUGE DIFFERENCE! Do your homework next time!
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
AJsAWiz
Aug 31, 06:38 PM
It's not just "newbies" that have excessive dropped calls on AT&T (and the iPhone in particular). If you really think it is, you haven't been paying attention to this board for the last three years.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
I agree. I've been with AT&T since the original iPhone. Reception had been fine up until about a year ago. I, now, have the 3 GS and have had nothing but trouble, with dropped calls and weak inconsistent or non existent signals, for well over the past year or so. I've made multiple calls to AT&T to no avail. Some reps even refuse to acknowledge the problem. The bottom line is that my current contract ends in January 2011. So, I'll more than likely jump the iPhone ship and migrate to the Android then. It's a shame because . . . as David Letterman said . . . you can do everything on an iPhone but make and receive calls :p
Side note:
AT&T's customer service has been so bad I even dropped their home phone service and went to another provider.
No comments:
Post a Comment