ender land
Apr 23, 04:30 PM
This makeup of this forum's members intrigues mean slightly. Why are most of the posters here Atheists? Is it part of the Mac using demographic, the Internet in general's demographic, or are Atheists just the most interested in Politics, Religon, and Social Issues?
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
A possible reason is that any time someone puts forth a theistic belief they get mocked, trolled, laughed at, ganged up against in threads, etc. The overall PRSI attitude of "religion is wrong, the only way to go forward or intelligent is to become free of religion" probably does not help any.
I do not bother actively putting forth my theistic beliefs because I have absolutely zero desire to waste my time arguing with people I will not ever meet in person. Not to mention I do not waste time arguing over anything - I wil have a discussion fine, but 99% of online "religion" threads are not discussions but rather a "you are wrong LOL IDIOT" fest. No thanks.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs) and have no need for someone else to tell me I have not or am mindlessly following a system I grew up in or am less intelligent. Especially considering I am not mindlessly religious, I did not grow up religious, and according to all standards of the USA I am quite intelligent.
Peace
Sep 12, 06:19 PM
Hi All, Hi Al!
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
I'm feeling a bit thick maybe on this but how does iTV differ from EyeHome?
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyehome:confused:
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
nagromme
Aug 29, 11:58 AM
A lot of people seem to believe Greenpeace has fabricated their data. (Which would be pretty stupid since it can be checked!) But if so, why not put Dell at the bottom for publicity purposes? That makes more sense than Acer if this is all lies instead of research.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
And I don't see people offering their OWN research :rolleyes: People are just saying Greenpeace is lying because they WANT it to be lies.
I sympathize. I want Apple AND the rest to be at the top of the scale. I want it all to be lies.
But wanting something is not enough to change reality.
Luckily, there IS something that can change reality: ACTUAL change. THAT is what will make the Greenpeace-phobes right: when Apple and the others change to become what you wish they already were. We all wish it, and I believe it will happen. Recognizing the problems is an unpleasant but necessary step on the way.
grue
Apr 13, 12:04 AM
The BBC just purchased 4,000 Premiere systems.
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
The BBC is also funded by money stolen from people as a punishment for owning a television. Let's not base conceptualizations of rational thought on their behavior.
*LTD*
Apr 28, 07:43 AM
No surprise the iPad is just a fad and people are starting to realize how limited it is. Its frustrating on a lot of cool websites and no file system makes it very limited.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
The very second Apple Stores receive shipments of this fad, they're gone. I can't get a fad at the moment because everyone else and their dog buys them before I have a chance.
skunk
Apr 23, 05:25 PM
I'm not cool enough to be an Atheist... :eek:Give it time.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 11:09 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
Next - there are things you cannot do on a phone that you can do on a computer in regards to using up bandwidth. You can't download torrents on your phone (for example). You can on a computer.
There's really little debate here. ATT is now, obviously, recognizing what they have known all along - that people are abusing their data plans. So they are taking action. It's within their right. Get over it.
Seriously....The fact that someone want to Bit Torrent over a mobile phones data connection just makes me SMH. It's so much slower then your home internet connection. Maybe they don't have home internet.... OK, give them that. But really, at the end of the day, it's 1s and 0s. Whether it comes from your phone or laptop, you should not get double charged. I will never tether as long as that extra charge is there. ATT or any other carrier will not get another 20/month from me. I think it's crooked. That's my thoughts. Again, I DO NOT tether because of that. I would if it was free, since I'm already paying for DATA whether I use it or not.
bradl
Mar 18, 02:01 AM
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
iJohnHenry
Apr 22, 09:55 PM
There is no way God can exist, bla bla bla...
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
OK, edify us, if you will.
The timeline of Christ is only 20 life-times, of a centenarian.
As against the age of Earth, it is but a microsecond.
*LTD*
Apr 21, 08:21 AM
If they really cared that much about user experience, then iOS wouldn't be the Walled Garden
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
That's exactly the reason for the Walled Garden: superior User Experience. The "walled garden" is the reason Apple is so successful today. A controlled, tight, cohesive ecosystem based on a vertical business model - if done right - will *always* be superior to anything else out there. The proof is all laid out before you every day in the tech news feeds.
If Apple had done anything else, it would just be more undifferentiated crap, barely distinguishable from the rest of the flotsam and jetsam out there.
A few people out there just can't stand it that a closed, controlled platform is so damned successful and actually represents the ideal.
emac kinda guy
Aug 29, 08:19 PM
Why do these businesses have to interfere with me? We are all now showing bromated fire retardants in our blood. Who was here first and who is interfering with whom?
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?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
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?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
Xtremehkr
Mar 18, 07:09 PM
I can understand why people would think this is a good thing. But at the same time, there are consequences for Apple. Apple sells others peoples songs, if they thought that selling to Apple would mean that their songs could be immediately transfered to P2P outlets they would be reluctant to supply ITMS with any songs.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
When it comes to picking ITMS over a different outlet, the amount of available content has a lot to do with it.
I am really curious about who is behind this new group. This software is a poison pill for ITMS, as far as label owners are concerned.
Steve was just in the news for sending an email claiming that a rivals software was easily hacked in order to bypass the restrictions in place to prevent downloaders from freely sharing the music they have purchased.
This smacks of corporate skullduggery at its worst.
On a positive note, it proves that Apple is the company to go after in this area.
On the other hand, Apple needs to step up and protect its interests in this area.
For some reason, 'PlaysForSure' keeps coming to mind.
r0k
Apr 20, 08:57 AM
as said before...
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
apple + <--
apple + T
They haven't put a picture of an Apple on that key in years. It's called command now...
http://km.support.apple.com/library/APPLE/APPLECARE_ALLGEOS/HT1216/Mac%20Command.png
http://mac.sillydog.org/archives/pic/keyboard_changes_01.jpg
currentinterest
Apr 21, 03:52 AM
And Google makes almost nothing from all those Android giveaways, while Apple rakes in 52% of all the profit made in the mobile phone market. I think they know what they are doing.
peharri
Sep 21, 06:32 AM
I think those suggesting spends of $150/mo or higher should possibly back off until the unit's been in service for a year or so.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
As others have pointed out, with season passes and acknowledging the number of repeats, access to even conventional TV shows shouldn't be that expensive. But I also believe there will be a significant amount of free and/or low cost content which isn't obvious right now because we're looking at the whole thing being exclusively iTS based.
Apple has already said it's going to team up with Google Video to provide content. TV shows are going to want to promote themselves by providing free pilots. Video blogs should be available. One major studio is teaming up with MyTube to provide free music videos, and I suspect that will become available in time somehow to iTV users.
In short, there's no reason to believe that it'll be necessary to pay for all the content, and certainly the content you do pay for will vary in price even given Steve's wish to keep pricing simple.
The majority of families in the US spend around $50-90 per month on a generally poor cable TV service. It's not hard to see how an average iTV using family would spend around the same amount, receiving a significantly better product in return.
Cougarcat
May 2, 09:47 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)
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
Users are of course reminded that day-to-day system usage with standard accounts rather than administrator ones, as well as unchecking the Safari option for automatically opening "safe" files, are two of the simplest ways users can enhance their online security, adding extra layers of confirmation and passwords in the way of anything being installed on their systems.
um, NO THANKS. why in the world would i add "extra layers of confirmation" to my OS X experience?!?! If I wanted nag windows, I'd use Windows!
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
NT1440
Nov 5, 10:02 PM
I completely beleive it will surpass the iphone in marketshare, after all its going to be on just about every popular cell phone in the future, as well as crap phones. You gain marketshare when you flood the market, just like windows.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
That said, from what I've read, android is actually a good platform, meaning that apple will continue to innovate to stay ahead.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 03:38 PM
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)
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
He took your advice and said "great" in agreement and you call him a d**k? Sounds like your projecting? Maybe we didn't get the whole story?
You're certainly not getting the whole story.
matticus008
Mar 20, 07:28 PM
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
I think you missed the point of that one. h'biki was saying that if someone, let's say someone well-known, like Britney Spears, got a copy of your wedding video and used it to make a music video for her latest song, that it wouldn't hurt anyone. It'd just be infringing on copyright, after all, even though it's your face and your wedding that's now on MTV without your permission.
And to your earlier comment, yes, breaking the law is wrong. If the law is unfair and unjust, you change the law. The exception to this is when the law, again, as I said and you must have skipped, causes you direct personal or meaningful financial harm. Then you might have an argument for breaking the law. Otherwise, the right thing to do is to have the law changed. The digital music situation fits into this category. If you break the law, you don't encourage the law being changed, and there is no immediacy of threat to justify your illegal actions except that it's more convenient for you and that you don't care about the law. You're the reason DRM exists in the first place.
iJohnHenry
Mar 12, 11:17 AM
Closed-mouthed officials, and open-mouthed media.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Pass out the iodine pills on this one.
The people from Missouri would get this one right away.
The Show Me state.
Aduntu
Apr 22, 08:26 PM
Well supported points there :rolleyes:.
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
There are a-lot of atheists on these boards because there are quite a few far left atheists on these boards. Leftists are more likely to be atheists.
I like to believe it's because they make their decisions based on logic and reason.
Because the concept of earth and life just happening to explode into existence from nothing comes from logic and reason?
Interesting...
bleachthru
Mar 18, 10:24 PM
All I have to sya is F*&% the RIAA, They are just a bunch of profiteering gluttons anyways. Kudos to whomever cracked the DRM, good work.
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
http://www.boycott-riaa.com/
Tulse
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
