Peace
Sep 12, 04:57 PM
Good to know, since I'm not waiting till Q1 to upgrade. Could you elaborate on why you think that.
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
Because if it is 802.11n most new Macs would have been sold between now and when the device comes out.If the "new" Macs being sold post Sept. won't have a firmware update thats going to leave a LOT of potential customers out.
Simple matter of economics..
darkplanets
Mar 13, 02:32 PM
And this is what I dislike about the pro-nuclear rhetoric. This is not true at all. Geo thermal energy. Cleaner, cheaper, safer than nuclear by magnitudes.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
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.
A nuclear power station is just a steam turbine fueled by poisonous rocks instead of carbonized trees as a heat source. I believe the iPad app version of Popular Science has an illustrated article about an test plant using geothermal heat instead to run steam turbines.
You are correct in point, yes. The reason I didn't mention geothermal is due to location-- not everyone has access to this easily. Iceland has quite a few geothermal plants. If people in the US weren't so picky about the giant volcano called Yellowstone, there could be an abundance of geothermal power in that area as well. Another alternative is hydroelectric, which also works rather well, however the same environmental groups that dislike nuclear also despise this because it "ruins the river," and the "poor fish can't mate." Of course there's ways around this, but people will be people.
I'm not against alternative energy at all, I just don't think it will supply all of our energy needs for some time, and that nuclear energy can safely fill that stop gap.
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.
Queso
Oct 26, 09:56 AM
Great news! Let's hope it's true, as it would be nice to see Apple forge forward with frequent updates in this manner as they have already done to an extent. The days of waiting months for a 100 MHz PPC speed bump are long gone! :D
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
To be fair, the days of waiting months for a 200MHz Intel speed bump are also long gone. This is a new paradigm from the chip manufacturers.
Pretty damn good though isn't it. :)
Uragon
Apr 21, 02:30 AM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
munkery
May 2, 04:05 PM
In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Having a password associated with permissions has other benefits as well.
So Safari auto-downloads, unarchives and auto-executes something, but you think it is safe because it's an installer ? :confused:
If "Open safe files after downloading" is turned on, it will both unarchive the zip file and launch the installer. Installers are marked as safe to launch because require authentication to complete installation.
I'm sorry, but I'm still curious about the "auto-execute" part. Why would it run the installer automatically after decompressing it. That sounds quite "unsafe" to me. Even without administrator privilege, that means code can still run that can affect the current user's account.
No harm can be done from just launching the installer. But, you are correct in that code is being executed in user space.
Code run in user space is used to achieve privilege escalation via exploitation or social engineering (trick user to authenticate -> as in this malware). There is very little that can be done beyond prank style attacks with only user level access. System level access is required for usefully dangerous malware install, such as keyloggers that can log protected passwords. This is why there is little malware for Mac OS X. Achieving system level access to Windows via exploitation is much easier.
Webkit2 will further reduce the possibility of even achieving user level access.
Mord
Jul 13, 10:12 AM
the price difference between a 2.33/2.4 conroe is going to be like 20 bucks in the volume apple is getting, maybe less, memory has about a 60 buck difference for a pair of 512 sticks so it runs up to about 30 bucks in bulk and the motherboard is going to cost about 50 more to apple, thats a total of 100 bucks which will probably be made back by saveings in overhead and support costs.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 10:43 AM
That's true. I think, though, if anything, the hatred of another religion was a pretty strong motivational force in the US armed forces since 9/11. Especially right after, when many people joined up to fight the Muslims who attacked the USA.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
Would attribute that to a personal religious motivation as opposed to an institutional one. Muslims serve in the US forces as well.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 02:31 PM
You can give a god any attributes you want.
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
lol...
Look, in philosophy (and by proxy theology) there is used in debate and arguments definite descriptions. Definite descriptions are used as shorthand to refer to complex ideas so that we do not need to descend into meta-linguistics and logical symbolism which is quite arcane.
Now with regards to the ontological argument for the existence of God, and the "Problem of Evil" and any other argument propounded by a Christian theologian trying to prove God's existence using reason, the definite description "God" is used as shorthand for:
There is an entity such that this entity possesses certain attributes which are defined in certain religious texts called the Bible.
The fact that the Judaeo-Christian God is really the chief of the Ugaritic pantheon doesn't matter because the Ugaritic god doesn't have his attributes listed in the Bible, unlike the Judaeo-Christian god.
You can't give the Judaeo-Christian god any attributes you want, otherwise we would have solved the problem of evil long ago. You can in your imagination give any being any attributes you want but its definite description will include "there is a fictional being such that..." etc.
I hope I'm not being condescending. Maybe you know about definite descriptions and I'm preaching to the converted...
Pilgrim1099
Apr 10, 09:17 AM
Do some research?.....Hahahahahah.
I meant it a little in jest but i fail to see how Nintendo originating (as a trading card company amongst other things research....) from Japan would make them unable to be purchased by a US based co.
All Im saying is if Nintendo fails (which they were close to not that long ago...Gamecube) I could see their "spot" in people's living room in sync where Apple wants to be.
So far, Apple has had the foresight to anticipate market conditions and supply issues...they keep forward thinking (in process and practice), they'll be hard to beat.
Undertow,
It's simple, really. Apple cannot, by international law, waltz in and buy Nintendo of Japan. They have to get permission from the Japanese government and the US Government so that they are cleared of any monopolistic violations. And it has to be mutually agreed by Nintendo themselves.
Second, it was Nintendo that started the "Blue Ocean" theory that changed gaming in terms of motion control and interactivity. Actually, it was Reggie Fils-Aime, CEO of Nintendo of America division that came up with it and probably presented this idea to his bosses. Regardless, Nintendo of Japan is THE boss of all the divisions.
Nintendo has too much money in their war chest to be bought out. They could, in theory, partner up in a deal to market a product or service. However, Nintendo sees things differently and so does Sony.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
I meant it a little in jest but i fail to see how Nintendo originating (as a trading card company amongst other things research....) from Japan would make them unable to be purchased by a US based co.
All Im saying is if Nintendo fails (which they were close to not that long ago...Gamecube) I could see their "spot" in people's living room in sync where Apple wants to be.
So far, Apple has had the foresight to anticipate market conditions and supply issues...they keep forward thinking (in process and practice), they'll be hard to beat.
Undertow,
It's simple, really. Apple cannot, by international law, waltz in and buy Nintendo of Japan. They have to get permission from the Japanese government and the US Government so that they are cleared of any monopolistic violations. And it has to be mutually agreed by Nintendo themselves.
Second, it was Nintendo that started the "Blue Ocean" theory that changed gaming in terms of motion control and interactivity. Actually, it was Reggie Fils-Aime, CEO of Nintendo of America division that came up with it and probably presented this idea to his bosses. Regardless, Nintendo of Japan is THE boss of all the divisions.
Nintendo has too much money in their war chest to be bought out. They could, in theory, partner up in a deal to market a product or service. However, Nintendo sees things differently and so does Sony.
And think about this. When Steve drops to the grave, Apple's DNA of 'forward thinking' will falter. It's not so much different when you see the great Roman Empire get eaten up by internal in-fighting from ego and greed after the great Emperor dies, all the while being circled by Visigoths ready to take it down.
legreve
Apr 6, 04:04 AM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
awmazz
Mar 15, 12:22 AM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits,
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
The problem with your attempts to downplay this situation, like all the other attempts in this thread so far, is that every time you get hammered by actual events on the ground. To wit:
Radiation levels around Fukushima for one hour's exposure rose to eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year, said the plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co (Tepco).
So rather than fear-mongering appearing to be unwarranted, it's actually the other way around. The fear-mongers have yet to be proved wrong while the down-players' positive predictions have been proved wrong every step of the way. It's almost like the down-players are having as much difficulty staying on top of this situation as the plant owners/workers themselves. Here's a hint - it's out of control and has been all along. Everything we've been seeing the last three days is simply trying to regain control, not actually control it. To wit:
All workers not drectly involved in the actual pumping have now been evacuated from Fukushima nuclear plant. They're running. So everybody else should too.
EDIT - I just re-read that BBC quote and realized it's even more staggeringly worse than when I first read it as '8 times the legal limit' - where in fact it's 8 TIMES the YEARLY legal limit in just 1 HOUR.
NT1440
Mar 16, 01:39 PM
I'm glad you understand the nuclear is a good solution. You're a bit off base regarding drilling though...
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... 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.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
First, the 10+ years argument is pointless. Think about it. If after 9/11 we would have started drilling, started seeking out more domestic energy, we'd be producing a ton more of it today (10 years later) and our prices would be less affected by unrest in the middle east today. We'd be more secure today. We'd have a less hawkish view of war in the midwest today. Something good taking a few years to develop is not a reason to not do it.
Second, the U.S. has HUGE untapped deposits of oil, coal, and especially natural gas. And as the facts prove, it's a VERY viable fuel source.
Third, we do in fact have the resources to provide for our own society. Expand nuclear, expand oil, expand coal, expand natural gas, expand biofuels, keep investing in promising new alternatives (private investment, not government) and we could get to energy independence in probably 10 years or less. The only reason we're not doing it is because of burdensome government regulations and the fact that other countries can produce it cheaply. As prices rise, one of those issues becomes moot... 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.
First off, the past is the past on this topic. Drilling ten years ago may mean some slight impact on oil prices domestically now, but again, the infrastructure would just be finally settling into place. It's neither here nor there.
Yes this country does have massive amounts of resources...but that doesn't mean they make sense both environmentally and economically (not to mention that we simply could not meet domestic demand with what we have). Much of the natural gas is tough to get to, and we've seen the major issues techniques such as "fracking" lead to.
Our biggest untapped oil is what is called shale oil, and it is extremely energy intensive to make it even remotely usable, so thats a lost cause to begin with.
Also, I find it odd that you'd argue for more oil production here as a means to drive the price down. Oil is sold on the international market, which is what sets the cost for it. Unless you want to artificially exclude it from that market and keep and use it exclusively in the USA our oil production wouldn't effect the international prices as we have far less of it. If you are in favor of keeping and using it exclusively here on the other hand, well thats not much of a free market approach now is it.
Simply put, just because we have something on paper, doesn't mean that it is an economically, environmentally, or logistically viable.
Simm0nS777
Mar 18, 12:46 PM
How the hell do you propose they implement an "Hey, it's cool if you tether with your unlimited, since you're just browsing forums" policy? Because, you know what? Not everyone tethering on unlimited is as cool as you.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Maybe if they make everyone pinky swear on it?
I just dont get why all you are acting like children about it. Who cares? what is your 3G download speed gonna go up by .00001?
I see people who claim they have used like 80 gigs in a month. Do I care and cry that ATT should do something about it so they can "clear" up the network for me? No I dont give a crap. My speeds are great even with all that. ATT introducing tethering is MUCH worse than the select few who jailbreak and tether.
Sounds Good
Apr 6, 07:56 AM
Okay... thanks, guys. To be honest, it looks like there are more differences than I thought there would be -- so I'm glad I asked.
Like I said, I've got some thinkin' to do. :)
Like I said, I've got some thinkin' to do. :)
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
0815
May 2, 11:10 AM
Please wake me up when there is a real thread that requires no user interaction. Even if they found a way to start the installer automatically (I at least don't allow any downloads to be opened automatically) , why would I hit continue to install once the installer pops up?
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
Yes, the biggest thread to security is sitting in front of the computer and if you click blindly 'continue' and 'ok' to every pop up, well, nobody can help you than anyway. I survived windows (since 3.1) without getting any virus/malware and I am confident that I will survive macOS without any (once real threads are there) ... just use common sense.
bugfaceuk
Apr 9, 09:03 AM
The premise of suggesting someone on a check out line play a game on a console is silly. I mentioned the word "future" for a reason, not to supplant but for the anticipation. That obviously escaped you.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
I've said elsewhere in this thread, the IOS mind numbing game is just perfect for the above scenario, you know when your waiting behind the lady who waits until everything is rung up before digging in her ginormous purse to dig out her wallet, count her money, and then dig around for loose change. IOS games are good for distraction.
Nope didn't escape me, I just don't agree with you or think it's worth discuss products that don't exist yet and comparing them to ones that do. That's not a "it's not fair" issue, that's a "stop suggesting a product you can't buy is better than one you can". You've not used one for any period of time that is meaningful, stop listing it as a better gaming experience.
The fact that you make a range of posts across a thread is not an excuse to make lazy assertions in one.
I'm glad you acknowledge that this is a scenario perfect for iOS, now try it in a few more. You won't regret it.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:49 PM
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 28, 04:59 AM
Surprised to see this thread come to a grinding hault after only 145 posts. I pledge right here and now to be one of the first to buy a NEW 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro as soon as it becomes available. I will not wait for them to go refrub although I will probably wait for them to come with iLife '07 if they are added to the BTO page before the January 9th SteveNote.
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
Okay, I will jump onboard and be the second.
Clovertown Power -- bring it on.
Dante
I turn 60 on January 12th. :) Happy Birthday to me it will be. :eek: :D
Okay, I will jump onboard and be the second.
Clovertown Power -- bring it on.
Dante
iStudentUK
Mar 13, 01:55 PM
I had not even been born when Chernobyl happened so I know very little about how it affected us. Like others have said, it's safe as long as it is used by responsible country. From what I've read, Chernobyl used ancient and much more vulnerable technology than today's plants use plus they were performing some kind of an experiment which fought against safety rules.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
Yes, Chernobyl (a level 7 disaster) is the worst nuclear power disaster to date, but it was caused by massive negligence and using technology that was considered unsafe in the West. The incident in Japan was nothing like this at all.
A nuclear plant had what is classified as the International Nuclear Event Scale as a "level 4 accident" following an enormous earthquake and then a tsunami. The Japanese government have reacted swiftly and evacuated people. The levels of radiation released are nothing to panic about.
I'd love to see a world powered by wind, sun and rainbows but that isn't realistic yet. I'd much rather we move away from fossil fuels to nuclear and renewable, and slowly shifting the balance further towards renewables over time as technology improves.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 03:36 AM
Wait, why is FFII and FFIII more a mind numbing time killer over any other game (I am getting FFIII either when it goes on a good sale or I finally finish up my other games, whichever comes first)? Or Myst or Riven for that matter (both on my phone, I've beaten Myst but haven't started Riven).
Post Title → call of duty 3 modern warfare
ClimbingTheLog
Sep 12, 03:55 PM
There's no need for DVR functionality. Apple will replace your cable subscription.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
Not at the current prices, they won't. I just did some quick math and for our household, (and we don't watch much TV by national standards), this content model is 50% more expensive than satellite for the shows we watch, and that doesn't include being able to turn on FoodTV or HGTV for some veg. time on occasion.
At 99 cents a show it starts having a price advantage. The trouble with TV is the bandwidth for value balance - a 3.5MB song I'll listen to a hundred times. A 250MB TV show I'll watch once, twice if it's incredible, only more if it's "Best of Both Worlds". Broadcast has a big advantage here.
jdsam
Apr 12, 10:33 PM
So, I'm psyched to see an update to FCP, but what happens to Final Cut Studio. Is all the functionality of the other apps bundled into FCPx? I could see apple dropping DVD studio pro and bundle in the functionality of color, but who am I to say. I'm just wondering what is happening.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
thoughts?
Also... they didn't mention any I/O stuff like thunderbolt. Thunderbolt seems to be the rage for all the hardware makers right now. I feel like a thunderbolt mac pro would be logical right now, but I don't know what is going on in the world of work station processors right now though. And, if they are going to have a thunderbolt mac pro a display with thunderbolt I/O seems equally logical.
Photics
Apr 9, 10:26 AM
No amount of arguing is going to change this fundamental issue.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
One of the things I liked about the Nintendo 3DS was the thumbstick.
A lack of a physical keyboard, and a better controller for games, can be an issue with the iPhone. It certainly was a design problem with BOT (http://photics.com/bot-game-design-and-progress-reports). I'm designing a game specifically with touch controls in mind. The original design had a flaw. A lot of the action would be covered by the player's hand.
Yet, I don't think it's impossible to create great gaming experiences with just a touch screen. Angry Birds, Fruit Ninja and Cut the Rope are excellent examples of touch-based gaming. I don't think that could be easily duplicated with a controller.
What should Apple do about it?
...a slide-out controller?
...an Apple accessory?
Doesn't Steve Jobs hate buttons? I thought I read that somewhere.
Post Title → call of duty 3 modern warfare
