Small White Car
May 5, 10:23 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
matticus008
Mar 20, 04:59 AM
It is nice that some folks here feel they know the "law". Look at the world your "law" has created. Look back in history and review what "law" has allowed humans to do to other humans and our planet.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
Personally, I stand for moral relativism every day. It is more important to me that individuals make decisions based on what they feel - individually - are right and wrong. I am glad that some here believe blindly following the "law" keeps them safe both morally and in the eyes of our fine government.
But let me ask you this... in your soul (if you believe in such things), do you really believe it is "wrong" to purchase a song off the iTMS without DRM? I am all for breaking the "law" as long as you know the consequences.
As the argument for abortion rights goes; "Against abortion? Don't have one." If you are a Linux sysadmin and do not agree that using this app is "good", then do not use it. And I applaud your efforts to sway people to your logic and world view. But at the end of the day, every person must sleep with themselves and must make up their own minds as to what to do. I am glad that people here care enough to talk about this issue in the hopes of finding where they stand.
[...]
Those arguing for the supremacy of "laws" over moral reason simply hide the fact that they are dividing humans from one another. If you choose to abide by a law, do so. But do not confuse your knowledge of what the law states with a morally superior stance.
It's not "law," it's law. You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not. If you don't agree with the laws, renounce your citizenship and start your own community. It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law. Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people. The same reasoning you use for your position can be used against your position--the common logical fallacy of ignorance.
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
People will do what they choose, whether it's right or wrong. Doing the right thing is easy enough. But if it's wrong, they'll attempt to rationalize until they arrive at a way for them to believe it was right, or they'll justify the decision based on a series of other evils/corruptions to cloak the decision in a grey area. Neither changes the reality or frees you from the consequences or potential consequences.
roland.g
Sep 20, 09:51 AM
A lot of these questions come down to whether Apple is going to market iTV as a satellite/cable killer.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
Scenario A: iTV is a way to watch movies and shows in your iTunes library and (for $1.99) watch an episode of a show you forgot to DVR or that you just really like and want to own.
Scenario B: Apple morphs its season pass feature for TV shows into a subscription service that is priced competitive to cable. Movies are available in HD for $3.99 for 24 hours.
Scenario A doesn't really give me anything I don't already have, and I'm not going to pay $299 for the privilege of buying movies for $10 that I can PPV for $4. But Scenario B gives me a way to drop my cable package altogether; it's similar to the way mobile phones allowed people to drop local phone service.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
but what I really wish is for people would stop demanding what they want it to do so they'll buy it and focus on what it will do and how it will do that. I guess that's too much to ask.
on another note, I don't understand what the big fuss. when do most users stop gaming long enough to watch a movie.
MacQuest
Jul 12, 09:00 AM
I think AppleInsider is slightly wrong on this.
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
http://images.appleinsider.com/charts-potential-pairings-0.gif
Mac mini:
- Apple will probably keep 32-bit Yonah chips in the Mac mini at least until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07, AND drop the prices back down to $499 and $699 once Merom comes out in the next couple of months. This will spur Mac mini sales for the holiday season. At MacWorld [or maybe slightly before MW, during the holiday season if Merom chips get a price drop by then], the Mac mini will get Merom to take full advantage of 10.5 and slaughter the windows media center market and reign supreme in the media hub capacity [come on Apple, at least give it TV viewing capabilities even if you're not gonna give it PVR functionality because that may screw up the iMovie Video store that you're gonna announce with the vPod by Apple Expo Paris in September ;)]. Everybody's "gonna NEED 64-bit" by then... :rolleyes:... even though they really won't and don't even know why they would need it, other than because of the fact that it exists.
MacBook
- Like the Mac mini, the MacBook will keep Yonah only until 10.5 ships, but probably until MacWorld '07.
I think MacWorld will be SJ's chance to say "6 months ago we completed our transition to Intel chips, a full 6 months ahead of the schedule that we had announced at WWDC in '05. During this past holiday season we shipped Mac OS X 10.5. Today we are proud to announce that ALL Macs have 64-bit Intel chips/processors and will be able to take FULL advantage of Mac OS X 10.5's features. One more thing..." /MacPhone [smartphone Blackberry/Treo killer with Apple's own MVNO service, and more. ;)]
iMac
- [i]May use Merom, but Conroe is likely after the Mac mini gets Merom late this year or at MW '07. Both the 17" & 20" will probably get stock x1800 256VRam [x1900 BTO], and the 17" will get speed bumped to at least 2.0Ghz [duh...] and the 20" will get 2.16, maybe 2.33Ghz [in which case the 17" will probably get 2.16] but I don't know if Apple will debut the 2.33 in a consumer Mac before a Pro Mac. I'll expect to see all of this right after WWDC [although the iMacs right at the 6 month mark NOW, so maybe before WWDC. Right now I think Apple's building up anticipation for it's desktops
[b]"Mac [Whatever]" or just "Mac" - light-upgrader/gamer targeted, new tower [probably mini-tower, compared to Mac Pro], possibly non-aluminum enclosure to differentiate it from the Mac Pro and maybe match the consumer MacBook's enclosures .
- This will be Apple's flagship Conroe powered Mac. This is why the iMac [i]may stay with Merom, because this may be used as a distinguishing factor from the iMac. Although I believe that this towers' upgradeability option will be enough! :D There will probably be a an entry level with a 2.4Ghz [2.6, 2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo and x1800 256VRam model around the $1000 [probably $1100, but $999 would KILL ALL of the windows desktop pc's sales] price point. An upgraded 2.6Ghz [2.8 BTO option] Conroe Core Duo model, with an x1900 256VRam GPU, larger hard drive, etc. will be at the $1500 price point [$1499].
$999 & $1399/$1499 would RULE, because we would finally have an "under $1000 tower Mac" that could compete with those sub-$1000 windows towers. We'll probably get $1099 and $1499 though, which is still GREAT, but I just wish Apple would hit that $999 mark for buyers' "psychological" reasons though.
Apple has NO need to go into the junky "$800 or less" tower trenches with it's tower Macs, and won't.
MacBook Pro
I agree with AI.
Mac Pro
I agree with AI.
Xserve
WILL NOT USE WOODCREST!!!
CORE 2 DUAL QUAD OCTA CORE MAC's starting with DUAL TIGERTON'S, later replaced with CORE 2 SINGLE OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN [obviously will be paired up to bring us a 16 CORE CORE 2 DUAL OCTA CORE HARPERTOWN, that will obviously later be replaced with 32 CORE... YES, 32 CORE!!!, DUNINGTON's...
j/k... I agree with AI. Woodcrest in Mac Pro... :p
FUTURE OUTLOOK
Single Core 2 quad core "Kentsfield" [dual "Conroe" Core Duo's] in January. Don't know if we'll see those in the new consumer "Mac" tower though. Probably not.
However, dual Core 2 Core Quad/Quattro[?] "Tigerton's" [dual "Woodcrest" Core Quadro's/Quattros?] should bring us the first... drumroll please...
Core 2 OCTA Core Mac Pro's & Xserves in '07 though :D
:confused: ... just shoot me... ;)
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:55 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
Not every video professional has the desire or the ability to take off of work and attend NAB. Their opinions and concerns on new products demo'd that they use every day or might purchase for their business at the show are just as valid as people who decided to attend.
NAB isn't a pilgrimage. You aren't required to drop everything and attend.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
iJohnHenry
Mar 25, 07:05 PM
I bet if you drink and swear enough you can get your hours cut back. Nothing says retirement like excessive liability.
You don't know how wise your words are, with one bureaucratic "charity" that I have to deal with.
They are nothing, if they are not all-consumed by worry over "liability".
Good evening skunk. Nice to see you in such good health.
You don't know how wise your words are, with one bureaucratic "charity" that I have to deal with.
They are nothing, if they are not all-consumed by worry over "liability".
Good evening skunk. Nice to see you in such good health.
skellener
Sep 12, 07:24 PM
At $2 a pop I'd be out maybe $6 per month.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
Most shows air once a week so that's 3-5 times a month. So even 1 show will cost you $6-$10. So sure, if you watch one televison show (say LOST) at 3-5 episodes a month your doing fine. I would imagine most people take in 5 shows (3-5 episodes a month) or more per month. That's $30-$50 already for only 5 televison shows a month. $50 gets me all the standard and HD channels on DirecTV. iTunes is still not at that quality/price point yet.
RedTomato
Aug 29, 11:36 AM
I try to have a low environmental footprint (sometimes I fail, but I try to be aware of when and why I fail) and I do hope Apple improve their game.
As one poster said above, the Apple board are on record as reccomending preventing the start of their computer recycling program. That kind of appalling head-in-the-sand-ism doesn't give me high hopes for their other green credentials.
I think the low rating is a combination of several things :
1. Apple stupidly refusing to release info that would improve their ratings.
2. Vast overpackaging on their products. Apple products typically come inside a white bleached box inside a white bleached box inside another white bleached box. Dell probably uses recycled unbleached cardboard for their packaging. To be honest, when I opened my powerbook packaging, while I appreciated its nice design, I was also staggered at what a waste of space and resources it was.
3. Maybe, possibly, the Greenpeace survey didn't take into account the lifespan length of Apple computers as being designed to last longer than similar PCs.
4. Millions upon millions of Ipods. Many overpackaged, and intended to be thrown away when the battery goes... (yes some people have replaced them, but it's not a designed feature)
I have sort of noticed that many 1960s hippies or ex-hippies have a very me-me-me attitude - they meditate, go to workshops, do nice things etc, and it's all to improve themselves. Rarely do they think about actually improving others or the world in general. That's one advantage that the post-hippies generation has - they have a better ecological awareness (if I can be so general.)
I'll put my flame-pants on now and wait for you to contradict me.
As one poster said above, the Apple board are on record as reccomending preventing the start of their computer recycling program. That kind of appalling head-in-the-sand-ism doesn't give me high hopes for their other green credentials.
I think the low rating is a combination of several things :
1. Apple stupidly refusing to release info that would improve their ratings.
2. Vast overpackaging on their products. Apple products typically come inside a white bleached box inside a white bleached box inside another white bleached box. Dell probably uses recycled unbleached cardboard for their packaging. To be honest, when I opened my powerbook packaging, while I appreciated its nice design, I was also staggered at what a waste of space and resources it was.
3. Maybe, possibly, the Greenpeace survey didn't take into account the lifespan length of Apple computers as being designed to last longer than similar PCs.
4. Millions upon millions of Ipods. Many overpackaged, and intended to be thrown away when the battery goes... (yes some people have replaced them, but it's not a designed feature)
I have sort of noticed that many 1960s hippies or ex-hippies have a very me-me-me attitude - they meditate, go to workshops, do nice things etc, and it's all to improve themselves. Rarely do they think about actually improving others or the world in general. That's one advantage that the post-hippies generation has - they have a better ecological awareness (if I can be so general.)
I'll put my flame-pants on now and wait for you to contradict me.
drsmithy
Sep 26, 09:55 PM
I've said this before though: Apple, and other devs, need to make use of parallel processing. A handful of apps will use 2 procs / cores, but it's a wasteland above that. All these cores are great for working with multiple apps simultaneously, but I want to use 5-6 cores on one app. Make that possible and I'm happy.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
/rant
The problem isn't making applications more "multiprocessor aware" (although that is an extremely difficult thing to do well), the problem is simply that the vast majority of applications spend 95% of their time idling. So, no matter how "aware" your app is, it won't make it do nothing any faster ;).
Added to that, not all problems have parrallelisable solutions.
My only hope is now that multi-core systems have gone mainstream that someone (cough -M$-cough) will make multi-processor aware apps "fashionable" and extend the trend.
/rant
The problem isn't making applications more "multiprocessor aware" (although that is an extremely difficult thing to do well), the problem is simply that the vast majority of applications spend 95% of their time idling. So, no matter how "aware" your app is, it won't make it do nothing any faster ;).
Added to that, not all problems have parrallelisable solutions.
TinyTears
May 2, 09:32 AM
People use Safari? ... :confused:
Duh.
Duh.
citizenzen
Mar 15, 10:07 PM
... no matter how bad this escalades ... somehow this will be contained.
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
Considering that the conditions at the facility appear to be deteriorating, you might need to rethink what you mean by "contained".
Denarius
Mar 15, 10:55 AM
That's a failure of the German politicians to make a case for nuclear power there (although I imagine that Germany has good potential for hydropower and other renewables).
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
There's too much hysteria over this. This plant has been hit by a force 9 earthquake and a tsunami and yet although some radiation has been released this is by no means anything like as serious as Chernobyl.
In a world where the security risks and economics of oil and natural gas are on their way to being untenable and the renewable energy options cannot realistically meet the world's ever growing energy demands, the benefits of nuclear fission far outweigh the risks, particularly when you consider that the public and worker fatalities relating to fission reactors are dwarfed in comparison to those from energy generation from fossil fuels, petrochemicals and natural gas.
I think that the opposite could be said for the UK. Over the last few years opinion has turned more pro nuclear. In contrast to Merkel, Cameron turned the Japanese situation into a positive - saying that the UK could 'learn lessons' and make nuclear even safer.
There's too much hysteria over this. This plant has been hit by a force 9 earthquake and a tsunami and yet although some radiation has been released this is by no means anything like as serious as Chernobyl.
In a world where the security risks and economics of oil and natural gas are on their way to being untenable and the renewable energy options cannot realistically meet the world's ever growing energy demands, the benefits of nuclear fission far outweigh the risks, particularly when you consider that the public and worker fatalities relating to fission reactors are dwarfed in comparison to those from energy generation from fossil fuels, petrochemicals and natural gas.
UnixMac
Oct 10, 06:34 PM
my 500mhz MP did it in 87 seconds.
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
I am amazed however that a P4 can do it in 1/20 that time.... It almost says to me that there is a flaw in how software is coded. Can you use the Altivec to improve this?
I seem to recall that FP on the G4 was superior to PIII of double the MHz, so how can the P4 be THAT MUCH faster?
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
SuperCachetes
Apr 25, 10:06 PM
But Allah is a great poster boy for Atheists as to why religion is the root of all problems lol
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
Uh, what lol?. :rolleyes:
Do try to keep your bias contained to yourself.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
levitynyc
Apr 8, 10:26 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 24, 09:24 AM
If he knew Jesus would remain perfect and die in that state, it would completely defeat the purpose. Jesus' death balanced the scales that were tipped by the first man and woman sinning against God and ultimately dying. If God already planned for Jesus to succeed and return to heaven, it wouldn't have been a sacrifice.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
Peace
Sep 12, 05:02 PM
Engadget has posted pics :
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/apple-to-release-itv-video-streaming-box-in-2007/
http://www.engadget.com/2006/09/12/hands-on-with-the-apple-itv-prototype/
greenstork
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
You are making a lot of Assumptions regarding complications. The addition of USB to iTV makes a host of third party addons possible that could easily surpass Tivo.
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
Wait and see -- it happened quickly with the iPod 4 years ago. It will be cheaper too -- no monthly fees and all managed by Front Row.
Now that is EASY!
Please explain to me, even hypothetically, how this could be a Tivo killer DVR. As a basis for the argument, consider that TiVo (as of today) can record 2 HD channels simulteously, while watching a third previously recorded show. Plus you can pause live TV.
Elgato and Myth and all of the cable & satellite Co. DVRs haven't been able to compete with TiVo to date, what makes you thik they will be able to going forward?
latergator116
Mar 19, 05:27 PM
Your CD does not have DRM built in that you agreed to when purchasing the CD. Thus burning your CD is not a violation of the DMCA. Furthermore, the iTunes Music Store terms of service don't govern the usage of your CD collection.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Burning or ripping a CD does not bypass copy protection (unless it's one of those ridiculous anti-copy CDs which is a separate argument altogether), does not break encryption, and does not violate any laws as long as you are not redistributing the files. Breaking DRM on a digital file DOES break a law--specifically, that DRM protection cannot be bypassed or broken. Using PyMusique software DOES violate the iTMS terms of service, specifically that the iTMS is ONLY authorized through iTunes itself. Songs from iTunes have DRM and users are bound to the TOS. Those are the terms of the purchase, and doing anything to change that is a violation of international copyright laws.
Your analogy is invalid.
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
iFiend
Apr 21, 09:46 AM
It is this quote right here that separates the fan from the fanboi.
win
win
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 11:27 AM
And the Catholic church had Galileo jailed for his work on heliocentrism (just one of a countless litany of anti-scientific acts).
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Islam doesn't have the monopoly on ridiculous religiously influenced anti-scientific murder and vandalism.
Trust me, Islam far outshines Christianity and Judaism in the anti-scientific murder and vandalism. The difference is, as I said somewhere else, in Christianity it was the clergy who ordered it without recourse to the Bible, whereas in Islam it's in the texts to severely punish blasphemy and heretics.
As I also said elsewhere this is why there can never be an Islamic enlightenment or reformation. All inventions attributed to Islam predate Islam or were appropriated by Islam from conquered civilisations.
The West was able to have a reformation because what the clergy demanded was not, strictly speaking, in the Bible.
Among other theoriess:
What part of
While this may be apocryphal the fact is that Saladin... used this example as justification to order the burning of many ancient libraries when he reconquered Egypt.
did you not compute?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar