w0by
Aug 23, 12:47 PM
Eh, I just blame AT&T for having the iPhone and not fixing their issues. I pay my ** $120 ** phone bill every month for my iPhone, and I don't even have unlimited calling/texting, so therefore AT&T needs to fix their crap.
fewture
Jul 12, 11:15 AM
have to agree with Manik and generik,
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible. Apple has to compete with the other companies now, and if it doesn't fill Macbook with Merom, it doesnt have a small laptop with latest specs - while its competitors will.
Unless they introduce a smaller Macbook Pro which no one is suggesting. Makes business sense to throw the same price Merom into the Macbook.
Could someone please explain, other than this 'we must make some distinction' between MB and MBP (which already exists) why apple wouldn't put in Meroms into the Macbook asap?
Gelfin
Mar 25, 02:27 PM
All Christians are not Catholics.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
That's the only item I was trying to 'underscore' so to speak.
Christians cannot be used interchangeably with Catholics. By using the term 'Christians' one includes a multitude of other peoples with varying religious beliefs.
No argument except as to the point. This would only be a relevant criticism if I were holding Catholics responsible for an attitude held by some Christian sects, but not by Catholics themselves. On the contrary, the Catholic attitude towards homosexuality in question is common across much of Christendom.
This thread is about the Catholic Church, so I name the Catholic Church, but the criticism is properly aimed at the attitude they share ecumenically. The consequences of prejudice against homosexuality as rationalized by Christian dogma are shared among all who promote that prejudice. The Catholic Church is neither singled out (except contextually) nor excused on that account.
And if one goes back and reads the entire exchange, one would see that I used that term so that Appleguy123 could not go find some obscure article on some obscure Catholic sect that murders Homosexuals for fun, a sect that the mainstream governing body of the Catholic church does not endorse nor have control over.
As I said, you want to reserve to the church the right to disclaim responsibility for those who act on the principles it promotes.
I doubt you could find a sect who murdered homosexuals for fun. To return to the analogy, the Klan did not murder black people for fun. They murdered those who stepped out of line, who challenged the social status white people of the era carved out for black people.
As I understand it, the Vatican is the mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic church. Is there another hierarchy that governs the Catholic church?
The mainstream hierarchy of the Catholic Church espouses the belief that homosexuals must be made to conform to Catholic prejudice regarding their proper place in society, and that Catholic belief grants them the right to do so. The premise is wrong before we even get to the method. The mainstream Catholic Church pursues this agenda in ways which do not currently involve terrorist action, but they do pursue it. The obscure terrorist sect you've hypothesized would be operating based on the same flawed premise as the "mainstream" church, arguably even more consistently, since a common interpretation of the Bible does demand the death penalty for homosexuals.
As I keep saying, the immorality lies in the idea that one's prejudice gives one the right to force other people to live their own lives within the boundaries of that prejudice, whatever form that force may take.
Multimedia
Nov 1, 10:17 AM
Clovertons to run hot until 2007 according to:
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/11/01/intel_fwives_core/Oops! This makes me change my mind about buying this Fall:
"HP, and other OEMs, should have Clovertown gear ready on the 14th. Our sources inside HP say the chip is eating between 140 watts and 150 watts..." :eek:
"Intel hopes to deliver less power hungry parts in short order. CEO Paul Otellini has talked about 50W and 80W Clovertown parts set for the early part of 2007 (http://www.reghardware.co.uk/2006/09/26/intel_quad-core_roadmap/)." :)
Guess I'm gonna have to be a little more patient a little longer in that case. That will be after MacWorld Expo toward the end of January then. Oh well. So much for immediate gratification. ;) Looks like waiting for the 8-core to ship with Leopard will jive with the cooler less power hungry monsters as well.
Thanks for bursting my bubble. :( I can get back to the business of another longer term wait similar to the wait for Santa Rosa or the mobile C2D MBP that's shipping now after 10 months of mobile CDs. At least it won't be that much longer. :cool: Looks like Clovertown Rev. B will be worth waiting for as well.
My apologies to all who were negatively infected by my extreeme enthusiasm for the first Clovertown release before I understood this new information. I can wait. I know some of you can't.
And I also may change my mind again when/if Apple releases a hot version first. Maybe they'll pass on the 150 watt models. Or perhaps they have real good cooling figured out. But I think I'd rather be ecological and buy what consumes less power anyway - especially in light of only another 2-3 months time.
Piggie
Apr 9, 06:53 PM
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
No-one would be forced to buy it, and no devs would be forced to support it.
Apple could insist every game have on screen controls for people who wanted to only use the touch screen for gaming.
But apps could support the external controller also.
This could only be win win for Apple and users.
It's adding additional functionality and adding the possibility for more advanced games to be developed for the device in the future, esp as the speed will only get better as new iPad's come out.
Not doing so, almost feels like they wish to cripple the device forever.
Why would anyone say they would not want Apple to give users and devs the "Option" of something like this? Not force people to use it, but sell it as an "Option"
If they do this then the iPad had a chance of becoming a genuine serious gaming device in the home in the long term. If they insist forever to only support touch screen, then the iPad will always remain that thing which plays cheap and simple games.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 14, 09:05 AM
My opinion: it's time to end the age of light-water cooled pressurized uranium-fueled reactors. There's so many drawbacks to this design it's not funny.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
Meanwhile, the new liquid fluoride thorium reactor (LFTR) is a vastly superior design that offers these advantages:
1) It uses thorium 232, which is 200 times more abundant than fuel-quality uranium.
2) The thorium fuel doesn't need to be made into fuel pellets like you need with uranium-235, substantially cutting the cost of fuel production.
3) The design of LFTR makes it effectively meltdown proof.
4) LFTR reactors don't need big cooling towers or access to a large body of water like uranium-fueled reactors do, substantially cutting construction costs.
5) You can use spent uranium fuel rods as part of the fuel for an LFTR.
6) The radioactive waste from an LFTR generated is a tiny fraction of what you get from a uranium reactor and the half-life of the waste is only a couple of hundred years, not tens of thousands of years. This means waste disposal costs will be a tiny fraction of disposing waste from a uranium reactor (just dump it into a disused salt mine).
So what are we waiting for?
Based on just that list I can assume several things. The biggest the LFTR reactors do not produce as much power for a given size because they use less water. They have less heat out put for a given size.
While good to have them I do not see them being more cost effiective since they more than likely require a fair amount of R&D.
I know we could get a lot more power out of our current Urainuim power ones in terms of heat energy instead of losing as much to cooling. Also I believe part of the reasons for the huge cooling towers is so less thermal pollution happens.
iMeowbot
Sep 26, 12:01 AM
But seriously how many cores does anyone REALLY need?
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
Software makers are in for a rude shock here. One big thread is nearly obsolete today, and even the common one-big-lump-with-little-ancillary-threads model is going to start looking tired fast. I hope that everyone is up to the job, this is something people have been avoiding for as long as multiprocessors were still uncommon, expensive beasts.
So say I’m using my 8-core Mac Pro for CPU intensive digital audio recording. Would I be able to assign two cores the main program, two to virtual processing, two to auxiliary “re-wire” applications, and two to the general system? If so, I guess I need to hold out on my impending Mac Pro purchase!
Most likely you'll have about as much control over this as you have over memory, which is to say, not a lot. It will be up to the OS to schedule things in a smart way.
manu chao
Mar 19, 11:50 AM
By using Jon's tool, you KNOWINGLY and WILLINGLY are violating an agreement that you yourself agreed to.
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
And if you use an Apple or AOL ID, Apple knows who is violating the agreement.
Even if the current iTMS server protocol cannot distinguish between iTunes and PyMusique, it should be quite easy to figure out how to do that distinction once Apple has its own copy of PyMusique. Then Apple can go over its server logs and get a list of the people who have used PyMusique.
Use at your own risk (or use at least gift certificates...).
javajedi
Oct 8, 04:39 PM
I completely agree. As a software guy myself (maybe I'm a bit biased :)) I think the real magic is software. I think most would agree with me that Apple has a rather "unique" approach to software engineering, that sets it apart from the rest of the pack. Afterall, this is the biggest reason we use Macintosh. In my opinion, this is much more important than speed.
chaoticbear
Apr 12, 10:39 AM
I don't care for the difficulty involved in sharing files across OS X/Windows/Linux, but that's hardly the fault of the Mac.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
Other nags:
-Requiring 3rd-party software to stay awake when closed
-The terrible built-in webcam (at least where Photo Booth is concerned, I've actually been pretty satisfied with iChat)
The hilarious hillarious way that iTunes and iPhones work. It's the same way on Windows, but I think they sacrificed function for increased integration.
chirpie
Apr 13, 11:01 AM
I don't get the "imovie pro" comments. From the announcement, does it look like functionality is removed? What specifically would make this new version less pro than the previous.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
And why are you assuming that FC doesn't include all that functionality, or that Color is no longer included? They didn't talk about the rest of the suite, but for a software package two months from release, it seems just as likely that the rest of the suite is still there but they just didn't want to talk about them yet. Or did they actually say that it's just one app now instead of a suite?
As a Logic user, I'm very interested to see if Soundtrack Pro is updated. It has a ton of potential but it has always been in horrible shape. Apple could kill it (and just beef up the audio in FC, but that seems like a bad strategy) or they could finally give it the attention it needs and finally make it an audio post app that can compete with Pro Tools. Hopefully Apple will have more info soon, will STP get an update, and if so will that update be available to Logic users (or will we have to wait until Logic X ships)?
In Cory's defense, he's presenting this as large concern that hasn't been addressed yet, not that he's ready to jump ship on the idea of FCP X.
And I share the concern. There's a LOT of unanswered questions around the suite. If Apple said "we're killing the rest of the suite" then I'd be p*ssed, but that doesn't sound likely at all.
So now we're left to wait and see what other details emerge.
A recap of a few things that made me happy... (from Larry's blog)
---------
* Rendering is now in the background and much faster because it harnesses the power of the GPU.
* The 4 GB memory limit is gone – FCP will use as much RAM as you have installed on your system.
* FCP X now uses all the processors on your system, not just one and a half.
In addition, a flock of new features were added:
* It supports editing video image sizes from standard definition up to 4K.
* It uses fewer tools from the Tool palette (which is no longer there, by the way) by making the cursor smarter. WHERE you click something determines WHAT you can do with it.
* A lot of existing features are jazzed up (linking and grouping are replaced by the much more elegant Clip Connection and Compound Clips)
* While new features like the magnetic timeline, permanent audio sync and auto-metadata generation are flat-out stunning.
-------------
And I for one LIKE the new UI. I was doing a favor for an aunt and was editing her son's graduation video and elected to do it in iMovie even though I have FCS3 and obviously while I didn't have all the functionality I was used too, I had plenty of moments where I was thinking "This part would have taken forever in FCP" or "I wish FCP was this slick looking."
This PREVIEW is a large step in the right direction. Let's see where things go from here.
slffl
Sep 12, 06:29 PM
Isn't it was everyone was expecting? Looks like an Airport Express in a different form factor to accomodate all of the different ports. Basically gives you the ability to stream your videos from your computer.
Xeperu
Mar 13, 08:25 AM
The problematic power plants in Japan are of a very old and outdated design. Generation 3, 3+ and Generation 4 design are much much safer. I'm still a firm defender of nuclear power, and I believe with new technologies it is still the future.
DUSTmurph
Oct 7, 05:04 PM
The cell phone market is so sporadic its hard to predict numbers for 1 year in the future, let alone 2 years.
Hisdem
Mar 11, 03:48 PM
Last year, after having close friends suffering in Chile, I assumed it would be a very long time until the world saw such a powerful quake. Unfortunately, I was wrong. I hope the loss of life is minimal, and I think it will be possible to achieve this goal. Luckily, the japanese people are very well prepared for this kind of situation.
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
Of course, one can never ever get used to this kind of thing. Best wishes to everyone in Japan, our thoughts are with you all!
latergator116
Mar 20, 07:13 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
Which is why copyright is a bunch of bull.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:23 PM
Huh?? I'm the last person who usually defends Atheists around here (nothing against them) :), I'm Agnostic too, but regardless if I think they are out on a limb for my own personal reasons, using the scientific method, with no practical evidence of God is it really fair to accuse them of not thinking and being lazy?? Lol. It could be argued that believing there is no God for lack of evidence is stronger than believing in God based on faith (lack of proof).
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I think faith is such a personal thing that the "proof" could be in their heads. Paul's conversion occurred on the road to Damascus, he had an epiphany from somewhere. It was proof to him but he couldn't explain it. A lot of theists and born again Christians claim to have these damascene revelations which change their lives etc etc.
All form of religious talk ends in aporia usually... At least religious debate that pertains to ontology of God. You can still argue aspects of different religions or beliefs.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
kultschar
Apr 9, 05:00 AM
Not been impressed with control system for certain games on ios however Dead Space on the iPad 2 impresses me graphics wise and a step in the right direction control wise but still a little clunky.
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Surely a matter of time before we will start playing apps on our Apple TVs with a special controller of some sort!
Groovey
Aug 30, 11:32 AM
Something just dawned on me. Like when Macrumors (or someone) posted that Rush Limbaugh was selling his broadcasts for MP3 players, people here were divided. And it's the same thing with Greenpeace. We're fighting over idealistic opinions.
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
Maybe we should focus our attention on fighting for the Apple and all its greatness (and some not-so-great things), instead of against each other.
Totally agreed. I think one part of the problem is that idealism quite often seems to drive people to have extreme opinions, or else it feels like they wouldn't be standing behind their own point of view. Everyone should at least try to realize the other side of the game no matter whether you're "huggin' trees with a joint" for GP or "shooting crappy hippypeople" for the government.
Peace out!
spazzcat
May 5, 01:28 PM
Does this data have number of calls vs number of dropped calls? It looks like they just asked people if they have had a dropped call? I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
beg_ne
May 2, 10:44 AM
To the end user it makes no difference. It's fine if you know, but to a novice quickly correcting them on the difference between a virus, a trojan, or whatever else contributes approximately zero percent towards solving the problem.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
So what's your solution? Sounds like it's half "LOL Mac fanboiz r stupid" and half "Users are morons so lets keep them uninformed, and complacent on using antivirus software they don't need".
Which would be especially genius advice since this latest malware pretends to be software that will protect their Mac.
I think I like the typical Mac community advice better:
Don't spread FUD about what the actual situation is. Practice safe computing habits like not installing cracked software or special porn codecs. Don't put your administrator password into random app installers that popup. Participate on Mac community sites to stay informed about possible threats.
And finally - Don't install antivirus/malware software for no reason because most of them are **** anyway and will do more bad than good for your Mac.
GGJstudios
May 3, 05:30 PM
You told the 100% gospel truth. There IS malware for the Mac
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Yes, there is malware for the Mac. I don't see anyone in this thread or others claiming that there isn't. ElCidRo's statement implied that there was a prevalent myth that Macs had no malware which is not true, and triggered the negative responses by throwing out the "fanboy" attack. It was very clear that the post was inflammatory in nature.
What IS true is that there are no viruses in the wild that run on Mac OS X, and there hasn't been for the past 10 years, since it was introduced. The handful of trojans that exist are easily avoided/thwarted by a user exercising a reasonable degree of common sense. It has nothing to do with being a "fanboy". It has to do with facts.
Huntn
Mar 14, 02:16 PM
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
It would require a multi-tiered approach. We have abundant coal which I believe can be made to burn cleanly although I'm not necessarily advocating that. And none of these sources if they break down (except nuclear) threaten huge geographical areas with basically permanent radioactivity. In case of worst case accidents, it could be plowed under but we'd still have substantial problems. The thing about nuclear power if it was perfect it would be a great power source, but it is far from perfect and the most dangerous.