gugy
Jul 12, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
wnurse
Mar 18, 03:05 PM
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Really?. how?. Regardless of what apple does, it might be even easier for DVD Jon to break their new programming than for them to come up with new programming. Think about it. A company with a lot of paid developers getting outwitted by a guy with time on his hands. I think he wins everytime. Their cost to defeat him is astromnomical compared to his cost to defeat them.
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
One way around this problem would be to store the music in an encoded format and have itunes decode the music and wrap in DRM.
Unfortunately, that can be bypassed too. A competent enough person (example DVD jon) could intercept the process between decode and before DRM wrapping and deliver the music. Another way would be for itunes server to request itunes to send a key and then use that key to add DRM to the music on server before delivering to user, although then you could build a player that intercepted the key and uses it to remove the DRM.
I'm sure for every solution apple can think of, DVD jon can think of a way to defeat it. There might be no technical solution to the problem at all.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
Really?. how?. Regardless of what apple does, it might be even easier for DVD Jon to break their new programming than for them to come up with new programming. Think about it. A company with a lot of paid developers getting outwitted by a guy with time on his hands. I think he wins everytime. Their cost to defeat him is astromnomical compared to his cost to defeat them.
Although it's an eye opener to know that itunes itself is what wraps the music with DRM. I'd have thought the music was already DRM'd on the server. But I can see why apple chose that route, so that to get DRM'd songs onto an ipod, you would have to use itunes. I bet they never thought someone would bypass the itunes interface (kind of shortsighted if you ask me, this should have been anticipated).
One way around this problem would be to store the music in an encoded format and have itunes decode the music and wrap in DRM.
Unfortunately, that can be bypassed too. A competent enough person (example DVD jon) could intercept the process between decode and before DRM wrapping and deliver the music. Another way would be for itunes server to request itunes to send a key and then use that key to add DRM to the music on server before delivering to user, although then you could build a player that intercepted the key and uses it to remove the DRM.
I'm sure for every solution apple can think of, DVD jon can think of a way to defeat it. There might be no technical solution to the problem at all.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Eraserhead
Mar 28, 02:11 AM
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
What's pretty funny is that I'm sure Leonardo da Vinci did plenty of work for the pope and he was gay, and Michelangelo painted the roof of the Sistine Chapel, and he was almost certainly gay as well given what his art involves.
And clearly the popes at the time didn't give a damn about their homosexuality - I fail to see how in the intervening 500 years its suddenly become an issue.
trip1ex
Apr 25, 07:11 PM
I found it easy to move to Mac. I picked it up very quickly. I guess I just thought in terms of what I wanted to do in English and then searched the internets/mac for the command.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
Also lot of it was easy because I found the Mac to be well organized and streamlined.
Not alot of tedious or unecessary clicks. Nothing seems to be as buried as it is in Windows.
The biggest thing I don't like about OSX is the tiny buttons and scrollbars and windows that can come up. Like the Finder Viewing Options window.
I find Windows easier to use in that aspect. Bigger buttons are just easier to mouse over and click. May look less refined, but easier to work with.
leekohler
Apr 15, 09:07 AM
This is great to see. Good job, Apple!
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:14 PM
really ?
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
i live in a country which isn't at war .. and hasn't since quite a few years.. and by years i mean decades
and the nuclear power plant we built was stopped before getting turned on by a popular vote (since then we have a constitutional law forbidding to build nuclear power plants...)
wow look at how i am suffering from the terrible consequences
I grew up in a country where even a right wing government won't entertain the idea of nuclear power,where one of it's major allies (the U.S.) are not allowed to bring naval vessels into territorial waters because they will not reveal if nuclear weapons/propulsion are involved.Which has just suffered a major earthquake and as far as I know is the only country that is a nuclear free zone.To New Zealanders this policy is totally sacrosanct.Guess what they are doing fine.
(by the way 70% of electricity production is from renewables)
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Multimedia
Sep 26, 01:44 PM
well i might be getting a mac pro soon (not sure yet)
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
but if i do, my question is when will we see an 8-core mac pro?My GUESS is Probably November or December at the latest. It will Probably simply be a Dual Clovertown Processor option added to the current BTO page with a new processor pricing lineup. It will Probably be a silent upgrade with a press release.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 04:56 PM
Either way, I am still willing to bet for a large family, cable is significantly cheaper (especially when you take into account all the TV watched for "background noise" (such as the food network)).
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Hey, I watch the Food Network! Iron Chef rocks and Rachael Ray is a kitchen fox! Are those on the iTS?
-Clive
Moyank24
Mar 26, 11:20 AM
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people? Logically I imagine from a Catholic perspective it makes sense. My sister and brother in law both being Catholic gives me a bit of an insight into this topic and both are rather progressive.
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
Priests make the choice to do it. Why should gay people be expected to do it? To make everyone else feel better about it? Why shouldn't heterosexuals abstain then?
macfan881
Feb 23, 05:10 PM
The droid Phones are great but the one problem that remains with them that makes the iPhone so much better are the Apps I have not seen one app on the droid market place that says wow that looks great, granted the market place is new but still even the iPhone had better working/Looking apps in its first release than the android.
dgbowers
Apr 5, 09:12 PM
My only dislike of OS X: You can't cycle between windows that are open with command+tab, you can only cycle between applications. In windows, you can cycle between the open windows with alt+tab.
All you have to do is press CMD+~ it's right above the tab key. I figured it out the other day. CMD+TAB to switch b/w apps, CMD+~ to switch b/w windows.
All you have to do is press CMD+~ it's right above the tab key. I figured it out the other day. CMD+TAB to switch b/w apps, CMD+~ to switch b/w windows.
SPUY767
Sep 26, 09:48 AM
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space? Or a PCI slot based device?
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.
iGary
Aug 29, 04:28 PM
I know where you're coming from, but surely it's a good thing to try and get the companies we use to improve their environmental policy? If Dell does recycle more than Apple, then maybe Apple should recycle more. If Apple's stuff lasts longer, Dell should make their stuff last longer. And yes, at the same time, we should be putting pressure on companies to reduce food packaging and use less power and fuel. I don't really see it as a competition between companies, more that if one company does something environmentally better than another, the other should try and match it, you know?
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
I'm as guilty as teh next guy. Nothing stopping me from peddling a mile up the street to Trader Joe's tonight for my dinner. Except laziness. :D
bartelby
Apr 15, 09:25 AM
Why on earth are people marking this as 'negative'?!?
Reach9
Apr 20, 06:22 PM
From the OP. I read a few things..
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
MadGoat
Oct 7, 11:04 AM
Of course Android might surpass the iPhone. The iPhone is limited to 1 device whereas the Android is spanned over many more devices and will continue to branch out.
prom hairstyles for short hair
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:37 PM
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
I'm not referring to my beliefs, nor am I interested in discussing them. I'm simply curious if there are specifically identifiable elements of religion as we know it that is uniquely off-putting to so many people. I'm trying to understand what makes it so detestable to some.
If those elements weren't there, would it change your opinion? Or is it the idea of God alone that does it?
TimUSCA
Apr 28, 07:53 AM
Very true. Plus it could be a fad to own the latest toy. We won't know until some time passes. Anything new from Apple gets a lot of attention.
Wait til the newness wears off.
I'd say time has already passed and has shown that the iPad is a useful and coveted device. It isn't a fad at all.
Wait til the newness wears off.
I'd say time has already passed and has shown that the iPad is a useful and coveted device. It isn't a fad at all.
gugy
Sep 12, 05:19 PM
If the iTV streams HD content, then it's going to be heavily compressed HD content. Depending on the quality of the compression, it may look great on your flat panel and it may look just okay, we'll see.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
Let's hope so.
I had trouble with Airtunes, so I have my fingers crossed expecting ITV will do a better job with music and videos (HDTV preferably).
If Apple can make this happen, this ITV hardware will be killer IMHO.
MrMacMan
Oct 9, 06:55 PM
True that macs are overpriced but you do gain the operating system which kicks micrsoft xp sh*tless. They don't have the apps and other wounderful features.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
As for performance we have lost in most catorgies due to, maybe companyies not writing code for the G4 altevic (sp?).
For many reasons Pc's have taken the lead in market share for a while now.
They have many choices, dell, gateway, and tons of other brands along with the possibality of Makeing Your Own.
Apple has: Apple for the OS
Apple for many of the Apps.
IBM/Motorola for the low clock speed processors.
Compared to the PC side:
Microsoft for the OS (mostly, linux users)
Microsoft and Many other fo apps.
Intel or AMD for nice processors...
We have the dis-advantage, for many of these factors...
Still many of us fight on for the better computer, and to fight off the world of monopoliyes.
skunk
Mar 25, 02:51 PM
A license implies the privilege it confers can be revoked at any timeSo how many marriage licences get revoked? :confused:
Please provide 1 (one) example.
Please provide 1 (one) example.
justflie
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
Ok, so my comment about what don't people understand about unlimited was super snarky. Sorry.
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
What I meant was, If I can use 6GB (for example, I don't use this much) on my iPhone, what's the difference between that and 3GB iPhone and 3GB iPad (tethered)? If I am "entitled" to those 6GB or 4 or whatever on an unlimited plan, why does it matter how that bandwidth is distributed among my devices?
