Thomas2006
Oct 26, 12:26 PM
The move to intel shifts Apple paradigm for good. Expect your Apple computers and gadgets to be absolete much2 sooner
The computers will not become obsolete much2 sooner but your bragging rights will.
The computers will not become obsolete much2 sooner but your bragging rights will.
emotion
Sep 20, 09:36 AM
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
Because that ties the computer to your TV (see my post about teetering keyboards above). This way you can have the computer and still display stuff conveniently on the TV, wirelessly.
Gimzotoy
Mar 18, 11:24 AM
Actually - for several years - and still in some areas - you DO pay for the ability to network your home via wifi - and there is a way for the cable company to prohibit it. Not that they do/will. - but clearly they can since some areas have this as a "premium"
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
I'm not aware of any non-wireless ISP in the US that charges on a per-computer basis. There are many that offer supported wireless routers to their customers for an additional fee, but there's nothing stopping a customer with enough knowledge from just buying their own.
This whole situation very closely resembles the early days of broadband internet. The ISPs wanted an additional fee (I recall mine was $10/month) for each additional computer on the network. This was enforced by IPs or MAC addresses. Users balked.
Then along came the consumer-level router, which substituted its own IP and MAC address into all packets to/from the local network, making detection difficult.
Since you can determine the manufacturer of the device from its MAC address, the ISPs then started charging extra for any MAC address that indicated it was from a company that manufactures routers (think Linksys, Dlink, etc.). Users balked.
Router companies then added the ability to clone the MAC address of one of the local computers onto the router, effectively making it appear as if all traffic was coming from that one machine. ISPs eventually gave up, and now routers are commonplace.
We're going to see the same progression here eventually, but since all the carriers in the US act as a single unified collective, it will probably take lawsuits to eventually make it happen. When it comes to cellular carriers, there's no such thing as "voting with your dollars" in the US as there is in other parts of the world.
Apple OC
Mar 12, 02:48 PM
http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8008582
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
Nice to see this response coming out of Los Angeles ... apparently they have already left.
jmadlena
Oct 7, 02:22 PM
yet all the one advantage the apple model has it killed by the fact that how difficult it is to get an app approved and no way to directly sell it to the consumer.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
That is what going to hurt apple in the good devs leaving. The best devs are starting to get fed up with apple system and looking elsewhere.
You're right, the app numbers really reflect that developers are leaving... only 85,000 apps. Ouch. Just because a few bloggers complain about the process, which I'm sure is frustrating for developers, doesn't mean that's how every dev feels. I just think there is too much incentive for devs to leave the iPhone. Too much money to be made.
I'll believe it when I see a few percent of mid- to upper-sized developers leaving.
iliketyla
Apr 20, 07:08 PM
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
ariza910
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
Wasnt Steve Jobs demo of the Incredibles movie through iTV in HD?
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
KnightWRX
May 2, 04:11 PM
No one is pointing fingers or bickering. I'm responding to your question. The only technical requirement that was satisfied is that the user had "Open "safe" files after downloading" selected. An app installer is not unsafe. Whether the app to be installed is safe or not is another matter, but the installer cannot harm your system or your user files, simply by launching. If you don't want apps... installers or otherwise... to launch after downloading, simply deselect that box.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
Wait, the "Open Safe files" bit was for the zip archive, which runs it through Archive Utility. What then auto-executes an installer ? You're suggesting Safari somehow knows that the zip archive contains an installer and that it is indeed an installer and then executes it.
Do you have any proof of this ? I've been trying to get my hands on the zip archive itself to inspect it but no luck, as Google is now swamped with "news" about this thing that just rehashes what you just said.
Basically, the details you provide here are nothing I already don't know about the current situation, I am asking for more here. Not just "deselect" that box, but rather what else can be auto-executes and what else is considered "safe".
I don't use Safari, I'm not at risk, but I'd still like to know the details of this.
That's why I say you purposefully ignore my point. My point is let's dissect and understand this thing, not glance over it like the current news outlet, heck even Intego's description does. That's why I don't like Intego, they just spread FUD without ever explaining anything and mark everything as a "virus" (their Virus X-barrier says VIRUS FOUND! when it finds malware that isn't a virus...).
1. First, the file would need to be considered "safe" to be allowed to auto-download and auto-open, AND the browser would need to be set to allow this.
2. Then, like the case with the installer above, it would need to seek the user's permission to be installed. This again, required the complicity of the user, who would still need the administrator's password.
How can anything be considered safe in this scenario ? We have a compressed archive and an executable file. Both are rather unsafe. Especially the executable file. I don't care that it is an installer, no executable file is safe. What if the "installer" had some payload code on launch, before privilege escalation ?
This is what I'm interested in knowing, how is this thing packaged so that it gets auto-executed. You aren't answering my question either. I'm technical enough I think that I already understood what you and the Studios guy are "trying to explain to me", but you both fail to understand the underlying question :
Why is this thing auto-executing ? I know it's because Safari considers it safe since the user checked the safe box, that's in the article. I want to know why is an executable file being launched after a zip file was uncompressed and how does Safari know this is "safe" ?
Both of you are only repeating the same stuff that's in the media. I want the details, not the media overview. I want the archive itself if possible. Let's find it, dissect it, understand it. If Apple needs to modify some defaults, let's ask for that.
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:09 PM
Who cares?
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that.
Oh, OK. You're one of those "hey, everything is great for *me*, so what the hell are YOU complaining about people". Cool.
I work in a decent sized office building where 3G speed isn't consistently great. I also know of at least four people that bring their personal laptops and torrent via MyWi here during the day so that they don't get the DMCA notifications (and risk of getting their service canceled) from their home broadband provider (Cox Cable).
If these people want to pony up and pay for the bandwidth that they're using here, that's fine. But I bet they wont. And I also bet that overall speed for the AT&T 3G coverage where I spend the majority of my waking hours increases if they don't.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 09:28 PM
As I said in my first post, most atheists that I speak to don't put this much thought and care into their atheism. They just take it for granted that it won't be challenged.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
You did not make that distinction in your post. Since the OP was talking specifically about this forum, the only logical conclusions was that you were referring to forum members.
How can you prove something's existence that exists outside of time and space? I don't think it's possible except through pure reason.
You did not make that distinction in your post. Since the OP was talking specifically about this forum, the only logical conclusions was that you were referring to forum members.
Tulse
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 07:58 PM
I think part of the problem may have to do with the fact that the plants are designed by engineers. Engineers' focus is elegance: accomplishing the most in the most minimalist way. Nuclear power plants need much less minimalism and elegance than just about anything else humans can make, but costs and other limitations tend to guide the design toward what engineers are best at. Redundancy and over-building are desirable, I believe we end up with too much elegance instead.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
I was paraphrasing something a nuclear physicist once told me. I didn't get the sense that he thought it mattered what type of human was involved.
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
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?
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?
MacAddict1978
Apr 9, 11:17 AM
One off the top of my head is that everything costs money application wise, there is very little freeware.
Downloads.com and versiontracker.com have almost always had what I needed. Though, I really haven't needed tons of stuff like I did on Windows.
For me it was frustrating the first day or so. Just because everything was actually easier and made sense. I didn't have to take 10 steps to do one simple thing. Emailing a picture for intance. Drag and drop it on the mail icon, and it opens attached in an email. Windows has copied a lot of that over the years.
Keyboard shortcuts are the real big thing. Some are the same but others... like when you pull down a menu and you see characters that aren't on the keyboard Had to learn that stuff. That was annoying, but you learn them
Downloads.com and versiontracker.com have almost always had what I needed. Though, I really haven't needed tons of stuff like I did on Windows.
For me it was frustrating the first day or so. Just because everything was actually easier and made sense. I didn't have to take 10 steps to do one simple thing. Emailing a picture for intance. Drag and drop it on the mail icon, and it opens attached in an email. Windows has copied a lot of that over the years.
Keyboard shortcuts are the real big thing. Some are the same but others... like when you pull down a menu and you see characters that aren't on the keyboard Had to learn that stuff. That was annoying, but you learn them
OllyW
Apr 28, 07:42 AM
Am I missing something with the title of this article? I don't see that Apple has 'slipped' to 4th place but instead that they have strengthened their 4th place standing overall due to iPad sales.
But they weren't in 4th place last year before the iPad went on sale.
Take away the iPad sales and I doubt if they would even make the top 5. They haven't managed to get that high in Gartner's standings which doesn't include the iPad.
But they weren't in 4th place last year before the iPad went on sale.
Take away the iPad sales and I doubt if they would even make the top 5. They haven't managed to get that high in Gartner's standings which doesn't include the iPad.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:12 PM
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
From one enthusiast to another, we agree to disagree on your points b through e -- As far as point A, I think you should rewatch what Jobs said today. And view the apple press release on the device.
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
From one enthusiast to another, we agree to disagree on your points b through e -- As far as point A, I think you should rewatch what Jobs said today. And view the apple press release on the device.
fat phil
Apr 13, 08:36 AM
There's some very exciting stuff in there - I can't wait to get my hands on it.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
But as someone gestured at earlier, what's new isn't the only thing of importance, but what's the same/familiar - shortcuts for instance is a good one.
There does seem to be a lot of confusion over Motion and Color. They're seperate applications in their own right, and it would be overkill to try and embed them into a single FCP editor (certainly in the case of Motion, which benefits from being seperate). I can't imagine them being removed and I suspect that the nice $299 price is because that's the price of the editor on it's own, and the Studio will follow, and a more accustomed pricetag.
ender land
Apr 26, 01:32 AM
If you strike a bias and confrontational tone, you get one in return.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
And people wonder why PRSI conversations revolve in endless circles, rehashing the same tired subject matter...
I don't think I did and that certainly is not what I got in return.
I originally was not going to comment on this thread but the above post struck me as relatively interesting. Your first post is full of statements insinuating religious people are less intelligent, illogical, have something wrong with them, are stubborn, incapable of learning, etc.
You might get a useful answer if you instead asked "why do rational or intelligent people believe in religion" if you honestly want to learn more about what you address in the original post. Otherwise, you are not asking an earnest question, you are more or less stating "all religious people are unintelligent or irrational, what do you think?" Of course this would require acknowledging the possibility people might believe in religion for reasons other than fear, ignorance, stubbornness, etc.
Ultimately, the answer to this question will only occur if you can truthfully say "I fundamentally understand why someone is religious. They are because of A, B, C. The reason I disagree with this is because of X, Y, Z." You will not be able to fully answer your question from only the last part of that. Understanding the fundamental differences in what you believe and what someone else believes. And to be perfectly fair, there are probably a large number of religious people of all variety of faiths who probably could not defend their own faith (and in a more general case, real beliefs in general, religious/political/etc) and give any reasons of any significance why they hold the faith/beliefs they do.
RichP
Oct 26, 12:58 PM
Just thought I'd put in my piece of advice about DVI-DL KVM switches. I'm only aware of three of them on the market, the two most common are from Gefen (www.gefen.com). I'm using the 4x1 Gefen and it works perfectly switching my primary display between my G5 quad, two PCs and my MBP. I know the quad switch is double the price, but DO NOT BUY THE 2x1 DVI-DL SWITCH from Gefen!!!
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
Darn it! That is just stupid. I have a gefen DVI switch now, its sad to hear that the 2x1 is junk. Its not worth it to me for the 4x1, either 900 for a switch, for for 1280, (a few hundred more) I get ANOTHER 30"!
I wish the apple 23s just had the quality of the 20 and 30. :mad:
the_mole1314
Mar 18, 11:11 AM
How long before the CEO of Napster writes a letter to the RIAA about this? Talk about karma.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
And that rental services are based on per play, not per download, so without DRM, the music companies don't get paid. With iTunes, they still get paid the full amount as if it was a DRM file. I don't think this will hurt Apple at all, mainly because the companies are still getting paid in full for each download. Also, Apple can then inforce their Terms of Serive about how you have to use iTunes to download the songs, or they can cancell your account.
But it's still not as bad as Napster's dilemma. With iTunes, you still have to actually BUY the song for this to work. Not everyone who purchases songs from iTunes will take out the DRM, most people don't even mind or know it's there to begin with.
Fishes,
narco.
And that rental services are based on per play, not per download, so without DRM, the music companies don't get paid. With iTunes, they still get paid the full amount as if it was a DRM file. I don't think this will hurt Apple at all, mainly because the companies are still getting paid in full for each download. Also, Apple can then inforce their Terms of Serive about how you have to use iTunes to download the songs, or they can cancell your account.
takao
Mar 13, 03:48 PM
As per the typical anti-nuclear sentiment; much of these issues can be resolved rather easily. New reactor designs are far safer, and if you really want safety (as in you can't melt down, ever) then PBR or MSR with thorium is the way to go. Waste an issue? Shouldn't be-- the US needs to complete the fuel cycle with breeder reactors. Furthermore, spent fuel rods can be used locally for power via thermal couples-- this is how NASA powers most of it's spacecraft. As thermal couple efficiency increases, this will become a much more viable solution. If thorium is used (and it should be), the overall lifespan of the byproducts is greatly decreased, meaning waste is even less of an issue.
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
oh the "thorium pebble bed is superiour" discussion ... i think over the years i had that one a dozen times(even on macrumors) ... a technology developed since the 60ties with spectacular failures regarding safe operation and economical total disasters for the german tax payers
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AVR_Reactor
the AVR test reactor alone: construction costs adjusted for inflation did it cost 180 million euro... deconstruction + decommisioning 1 billion euro over the last 22 years (and still not finished)
the highest contaminated facility regarding beta-radiation in the world
There exists currently no dismantling method for the AVR vessel, but it is planned to develop some procedure during the next 60 years and to start with vessel dismantling at the end of the century
that said the german government was still set on that reactor type and built actually a full scale power station:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/THTR-300
-14 years to build, 3 years of operation
-had a release of nuclear material just days after Chernobyl
-bankrupted it's operational company, required a bail out
-in 1997 was put into 'safe enclosure' until decommision can start in 2027 (costing 6.5 million euro per year until they can even start)
thorium pebble bed reactors, the nuclear power plant for the future generations ... to clean up ;)
samcraig
Mar 18, 09:16 AM
Enjoy Greedy corporate thieves who break the law because they're big enough to do so, emptying your wallet.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
You clearly have no knowledge of law whatsoever. AT&T made the biggest mistake of it's existence when it stupidly offered an Unlimited data plan, and then decided it couldn't support it. Since then, they've done everything in their power to back out of it.
No matter what fine print they include in the contract, they cannot sell an unlimited data plan, and then limit it, in any way. I have the legal right to jailbreak phone, and I have the the contractual permission to use unlimited amounts of data from AT&T.
Ironically, my monthly usage could be more than 3-4 gigabytes anyway...but that's not even close to the point. The point is how I use the data, and I have every right under the sun to use this data how I see fit. For web browsing, for location apps, for email, or for tethering.
AT&T has no ability, under my contract, to invent a new category of usage in an attempt to limit my unlimited data. BUZZZZ! Wrong. Illegal. Breach.
You yourself can grow up, adults don't lie down to be taken advantage of. Only little scared children do that.
They didn't invent a new category. It's been there - and has always been in the TOS you signed. See the real problem (aside from your 5 year old tantrum) is that most people don't read the TOS before they sign.
The TOS are long, would take a long time to read and process. But consumers are too quick to just want the shiny new toy in their hands and sign away not realizing what they're signing.
But at the end of the day - that's not the company's fault. They are LEGALLY required to provide these documents so that a consumer CAN make decisions based on the terms.
Just like Apple MUST restate their TOS when they change/update iTunes with new features, etc.
But most people just click through and only "cry" post-facto when they get caught in something they feel is "unfair"
As a whole, most of the general public has been trained to be lazy - and that's why lawyers make a mint with frivolous lawsuits - regardless of merit or whether or not whatever side wins.
So back to your point - you signed a contract which outlined SPECIFIC usage for your unlimited data. ATT is now enforcing those policies. The fact that they waited or didn't enforce them previously is irrelevant.
Post Title → 2012 honda civic sedan si
