deannnnn
May 6, 10:04 PM
i really don't understand all the people in NYC who have dropped calls multiple times a day.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
I'm jealous.
I walk from the village to Gramercy every day, and during this time, I usually chat on my iPhone. The call usually drops 1-2 times... and that's outside. In my apartment? Forget about it. 50% of my calls are dropped.
i live in brooklyn, ny and work in manhattan. i have NEVER experienced the amount of dropped calls as some people on macrumors (who live in the nyc area) have.
i want to know how many calls for those who have all these "problems" with AT&T make a day. i do not have a land line, so my iphone is the only phone i have. i have owned an 1st gen iphone and i have had a 3Gs for almost 1 year.
i make, on average, about 5 - 20 calls a day. i may experience a dropped call or a call that didn't go through about 3 - 5 times PER MONTH.
the only annoyance that i have experienced more often than i'd like has to do with visual voicemail. sometimes, when i try to play my messages via visual voicemail, it never connects. so i have dial my iPhone's # and check my messages the old school way. but that doesn't happen that often.
for all those people who have dropped calls every day, are your iPhones jailbroken? i am not sure that would have anything to do with it, though.
I'm jealous.
I walk from the village to Gramercy every day, and during this time, I usually chat on my iPhone. The call usually drops 1-2 times... and that's outside. In my apartment? Forget about it. 50% of my calls are dropped.
arkitect
Apr 15, 09:48 AM
I'm not super excited by these campaigns that seem to be sprouting, left and right, that, more or less, encourage people to be gay/lesbian/whatever. At the end of the day that's basically the underlying message in all these videos: "Go ahead, by gay. It's perfectly fine."
So you would rather the message be:
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to make for him/herself after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
So you would rather the message be:
"(Don't) Go ahead,(and) be gay. It's (not) perfectly fine."
Personally, I think that is a decision that one has to make for him/herself after much soul-searching. It's a very private journey and I'm not so sure that the media should be offering this type of "GO FOR IT!" message. One should come to accept who he/she is and embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle.
Good god!
It is not a prison sentence!
"Embrace the inevitable consequences of the lifestyle" ? :confused::confused:
Such as?
What an astonishingly bleak world view you have.
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 10:05 AM
I'm pretty happy with nuclear power. Those reactors have stood up to more than they were realistically ever expected to have to. Contrast that with the sort of thing that happens when oil platforms go wrong.
It's a bit like those who dislike or are afraid of air travel asking what do I think of it after that engine explosion on the A380. I say it makes me more sure of the safety, not less, as in that case just like this the safety features prevented catastrophic failure even when pushed beyond the expected.
It's a bit like those who dislike or are afraid of air travel asking what do I think of it after that engine explosion on the A380. I say it makes me more sure of the safety, not less, as in that case just like this the safety features prevented catastrophic failure even when pushed beyond the expected.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:33 PM
Why?
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
Look up Pascal's wager
Not a fan of Pascal's assumption of Christianity as the basis for his theorem.
The Beatles
Apr 9, 11:15 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
Govt SCUM!! (lol jk :D)
No need to soften the blow, I think your right on target.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 03:52 PM
Even if, which I doubt, your theory of water vapour is correct - that does not give us the excuse to pollute this planet as we see fit. All industry and humans must clean up their act - literally.
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
Some of what I said was theory, but every factual statement I gave was just that - factual. No climatologist would argue with any of the facts I gave...it's just that, as with statistics, the interpretation of the fact differs.
And no, we have no excuse to pollute the planet....human actions proven to disrupt the environment (deforestation, toxic runoff, killing off animal species, etc.) should be stopped whenever possible. We are responsible for taking care of this planet, but at the same time we have to realize when advancements have been made. Our cars, boats, factories and city skies are infinitely more environmentally-friendly than they used to be, but if 30 years of industrial and personal "clean-up" have done nothing to stem global warming, it's only natural to wonder if maybe it's not us causing the problem.
In other words, if we've streamlined our machinery to be 99% more efficient, is it worth it to spend the billions of dollars to get rid of that last 1% if our original effort has done nothing to the greenhouse effect?
takao
Mar 14, 12:31 PM
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
AFAIK the problem with reactor 2 is now that the pressure inside the containment is very,very high because of damaged valves preventing steam from escaping in a controlled manner. thus they cant simply pump in more and more water to cool the currently not covered fuel rods because it would dramatically increase the pressure and thus risk containment damages
so they are currently walking the fine line between risking the containment by pumping in water and a meltdown if they don't.. hardly a situation anybody wants to be
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 11:37 PM
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
FreeState, have you read the note I posted a link to the same video you posted, the one about what Spitzer says about Focus on the Family? I don't know why FOF neglected to mention how rarely sexual-orientation changes. But I think Dobson's organization should have mentioned that rarity.
Multimedia
Oct 11, 12:45 PM
Costco Deal (http://www.costco.com/Browse/Product.aspx?Prodid=11163877&search=viewsonic&Sp=S&Mo=3&cm_re=1-_-Top_Left_Nav-_-Top_search&Nr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ns=P_Price|1||P_SignDesc1&N=0&whse=&Dx=mode+matchallpartial&Ntk=All&Dr=P_CatalogName:BC&Ne=4000000&D=viewsonic&Ntt=viewsonic&No=2&Ntx=mode+matchallpartial&Nty=1&topnav=&s=1) You are correct in the resolution, BUT with two of them at less than the cost of one 24"er from Dell it does make up for the real estate--+10 on dual monitor cool factor :DI have the 24 left of the 20. Way cooler for a total of 3520 x 1200.I sent in my Macbook on Monday to get the random shutdown issue repaired. Shipped back to me today--and for some unknown reason was delivered to the Apple Store here in Jax. While I had them on the phone I asked about the Mac Pros they had in stock and I was told they are "out of stock." Take it for what it is, BUT, I'm wondering if it could mean an EOL on the current line.No. I think the line will stay the way it is adding 2.33GHz + $800 and 2.66GHz + $1500 Clovertown options in the Processor section on the configure page. That way according to your type of workload style you can choose between 4 faster cores if you do less multi-threaded work vs 8 slower cores if you are all about a Multi-Threaded Workload.Now that I'm thinking about it, ya think the 1050 height will allow for a 100% 8.5X11 page view?I can't stand less than 1200 high. You know Dell monitors rotate too and rotation is supported with ATI Video cards but not NVIDEA.If your a member of the Dell Forums, you can receive a $350 coupon off the price of the 30"--very tempting.Link please? Never mind I found it with Google.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
sjo
Aug 29, 01:22 PM
Have you read what you just wrote? Who said anything about hunting whales? Eating whale meat? Or being poor?
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
No one.
Conclusion? You're bigoted.
There's no denying that Greenpeace is further towards "Extremist" than towards "Moderate." That's the jist of what he's saying, and he's right.
-Clive
Whalehunting is sort of implied, but in order clarify: in Norway Greenpeace is discredited largely because they are against whalehunting which, for Norwegians, is part of their policy of trying to keep their large countryside inhabited. Greenpeace is against whalehunting so Norway, as many on this forum, see fit to try to discredit them as being "bigoted" or "extremists" or "treehuggers" instead of providing facts.
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:45 AM
Having the tools doesn't mean you know how to use them - but with more people having the tools thinking they do - the value of those that REALLY do can be affected if it appears that "anyone" can do it.
That's a pretty common thread of thinking in the creative business. I mean, test tubes are pretty cheap but you don't get every tom dick and harry claiming to be biologists, right? :)
Professionals don't have to worry, unless there's a hoard of untapped creative genius lurked out there.
A poor editor will have a poor showreel. That'll never change. All that changes is the number of canned effects we have to look for to realise that they didn't do the clever stuff on their own... Damn those "do something clever" buttons!
That's a pretty common thread of thinking in the creative business. I mean, test tubes are pretty cheap but you don't get every tom dick and harry claiming to be biologists, right? :)
Professionals don't have to worry, unless there's a hoard of untapped creative genius lurked out there.
A poor editor will have a poor showreel. That'll never change. All that changes is the number of canned effects we have to look for to realise that they didn't do the clever stuff on their own... Damn those "do something clever" buttons!
Bonte
Sep 20, 04:32 PM
its more than just Airport Express for Video, its a TV tunes via the internet and the home network.
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
Media distribution will be reinvented and specifically tailored to the iTV and its internet capability's. WebTV streamed to the iTV, podcasts will get better quality because its more then the iPod now. I think the preview that Steve gave us was necessary to get content with the launch of the product and maybe even hardware solutions that work with iTV.
Maybe Apple is negotiating with the digital TV providers to offer iTV as an option to there customers, bigger HD and protected content can make this work.
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 11:11 PM
No AV you misunderstand. Mac Pro comes with 4 HD Sleds built in. What he's asking is if we could get more so we can have a bunch of HDs already mounted in additional sleds so we can pop 'em in real fast whenever we need to change them out for didfferent client projects.Good to know.
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.
Oh... That makes much more sense now. :cool:
Now what about instead of dealing with the solution of swapping drives in/out of the Mac Pro, instead use an external fiber channel or eSATA drive enclosure with hot-swappable drives? Fiber channel would be expensive unless you're already using it, but eSATA enclosures aren't all that bad.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 06:06 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
Apple OC
Mar 13, 09:22 PM
Is it possible to like build a "Great Wall of China" arround Japan's tsunami areas?
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
It seems that a lot of the buildings that actually remained standing looks like some brick / concrete buildings. One even supported some huge ship on top of it!.
how big should these walls be? 30-40 feet? ... might as well build them all up the coast of California too.
not really a viable solution
edesignuk
Oct 8, 08:43 AM
That is exactly the weakness of the PC platform. It turns into a zoo where the monkeys and lions roam free and the people have to live in cages... :rolleyes:...but who has the market share?
dumb terminal
May 6, 02:42 AM
I challenge you to walk down the west side, anywhere... but take 9th avenue from say... the 57th St to the mid 30's. Just get in a cab. Make a phone call in regular traffic. I'd be willing to wager that at least 75% of the time you drop a call, once, if not twice during that trip. It happens to me nearly every day.
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
Heck, I work in an office in the Flatiron District, and on my work iPhone, it is literally an act of god if your call lasts longer than two minutes. I get slightly better times at home in Brooklyn (Prospect Heights), but I'm averaging about 5-6 dropped calls during the day. It's frustrating (and embarrassing at the same time) when I lose a call with a client, and after calling them back, they ask "Are you on AT&T?" And not to mention the absolutely atrocious data speeds.
Strangely, my (personal) Verizon Blackberry has never had a problem anywhere in NYC. Hmm :rolleyes:
WoFat
May 2, 10:23 AM
Is it still the cold & flu season?
Waiting for the 1st complaint here how they got a virus on their Mac by doing absolutely nothing after clicking & downloading and unzipping and installing & entering admin password only to be stumped as to which credit card they should use when a panel pops up to buy MacDefender.
Where are these peoples parents when they�re doing this?
Waiting for the 1st complaint here how they got a virus on their Mac by doing absolutely nothing after clicking & downloading and unzipping and installing & entering admin password only to be stumped as to which credit card they should use when a panel pops up to buy MacDefender.
Where are these peoples parents when they�re doing this?
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:40 PM
There are hells (known as "naraga") in Hinduism and Buddhism too, but none of them are eternal and all of them are only for people who have done really bad things in life - regardless of faith or lack thereof.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
Christian believers who are enslaved by their fear of hell, as opposed to having their faith based on genuine love to God, will allegedly end up in hell anyway.
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 08:32 PM
Should they have a full-on meltdown, yes there will be fallout detected around the globe - but I doubt the levels will be high enough to cause concern after thousands of miles to disperse.
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
As for the divine wind bit... To be fair, we did irradiate them first...
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:00 PM
Yes, I would. But being gay is not a property I will ever lose. It's as much a part of me as my green eyes.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
Although I'll always have my Cerebral Palsy, I could lose it. Sure, Lee, your green eyes are parts of you. But you could still survive an eye transplant when the surgeon replaced them with eyes of another color. Although you may always be homosexual, you could still survive, even if you became heterosexual. Being-green-eyed isn't part of your essence. Neither is being-homosexual. But If you lost one or more essential properties, i.e., one or more parts of your essence, you would stop existing.
Being-H20 is an essential property that water has. Something is water if and only if it's H2O. All water is H2O, and all H2O is water. So if you remove one or more atoms from any water molecule, then you destroy that water molecule, and it stops existing. After all, nothing can be both water and not water at the same time.
archipellago
May 2, 04:43 PM
This sounds like you're under the mistaken impression that hackers are members of some kind of organization or ranking.... they're not. They are, for the most part, quite independent. There's no such thing as "Hacker, Class 3" or "Hacker, Class 1". Also, not all hackers write malware and not all malware writers are hackers. The more you offer such statements, the more you reveal that you have no idea what you're talking about.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
lol, sorry........I can't get into this but you are SO wrong its not true.
there are governments around the world employing people to do this kind of thing.
paulvee
Oct 26, 10:59 AM
I'm actually pretty thrilled with my new Dual 3.0 Xeon. Should hold me in good stead for a couple of years of heavy video crunching and motion graphics, as well as photoshop once it goes native. In the meantime, I use my Dual G5 2.0 for that.
And when the Octos get updated in a year and a half, I can be the first to jump on that bandwagon.
And when the Octos get updated in a year and a half, I can be the first to jump on that bandwagon.
