jmcrutch
Mar 18, 11:49 AM
AT&T can do whatever they want to.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
The tethering charge is out there right now because of the unlimited data option. It's there to screw with the status quo.
Verizon is getting rid of their unlimited, as AT&T already did.
A fair system would be $5/GB, tethering permitted. Pay for what you eat.
But then, a competitor would come out with an unlimited option to try to attract customers; and eventually be in the same boat.
Basically it comes down to "pay for what you eat" or "fixed rate with limitations." There really isn't another viable option that I see.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 26, 11:18 AM
Some priests fail, not all. We as people experience moments of weakness, priests are people too. Also you laughing at "lay people" is puerile
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
Aw, come on, don't be pontifical. You know you liked the pun. ;)
BJNY
Oct 26, 03:09 AM
Any chance the ATI X1950 will be CTO as well?
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2858
http://anandtech.com/video/showdoc.aspx?i=2858
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:03 PM
ddtlm:
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
Ah, thanks for clarifying.
wlh99
Apr 6, 10:04 AM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
It's cmd-del. And yes you can move up the directory structure.
As someone else pointed out, it's just different. I have used PC's since around DOS 3. I still use them extensively, and also use Macs and manage both as the IT person at work.
My belief is the better a person is at both, the more they realize it doesn't matter. Both have problems, and both work very well. They are just different. When someone thinks one is far better than the other, they probably lack skills in the system they don't like - whether they know they lack the skills or not.
If when you swtich, you will have a month or so of frustration as you struggle to do things that were easy with the PC, like how to delete a file with the keyboard, or that there isn't an up button in the finder. But you will soon find that cmd-del works, and that you can click on the directory hierarchy at the button of the finder window.
My biggest frustrations have been that shortcuts are very different. I use office products a-lot on both platforms, and it is hard to go back and forth. Particularly the usage of the home and end keys. Also, shortcuts are inconsistent between apps on the Mac.
If your PC is old and needs replacement, get a Mac or a Windows 7 PC. You will probably be happy with either in the long run. If you like learning new things, the Mac might be more fun and exciting. Although if you were still on XP, Windows 7 would be different as well.
awmazz
Mar 14, 02:01 PM
2) A CT scan is 150 mrem. Depending on the X-ray, it can be around 30-50 mrem.
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
I have no idea why these sorts of examples are constantly used to allay peoples' concerns. Do you actually believe people actually think getting an xray is as harmless as washing with soap? We all see the technician/dentist/nurse go stand behind the protective screens when they use these things while telling us "it's fine, won't hurt you" and we all think "horse manure it won't" as the machine goes click click..
You should do some reading; that dosage of 52 mrem/hour isn't going to stay like that for long.
My reading of the NYT article says they could be releasing clouds for MONTHS if/until it's under control, so why do you assume it will not stay like that for long? Speaking of under control..
The residents will be fine, you can put away your tin foil hats. If we have a melt down, then we'll talk.
See, you're downplaying it again. I don't know why, perhaps it's just your nature to adopt the calming 'please remain seated' role when the theatre's on fire. Just don't mock the headwear of the people who advise to run for the exits instead while you do. Each to their own.
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
According to the main Japanese news agency Kyodo, the rods were exposed when the flow of seawater into reactor number 2 stopped simply because a fire pump ran out of fuel.
With the entire region of Honshu island reportedly low on fuel and other vital supplies, a key question is whether plans are in place to keep the power station supplied with diesel.
Edit 2 - the irony of a nuclear power station needing fossil fuel to save it...
Edge100
Apr 15, 10:08 AM
Focus should be on ending/surviving ALL bullying, not just victims choosing a hip counterculture.
What hateful nonsense.
What hateful nonsense.
jefhatfield
Oct 11, 09:12 AM
when i got my ibook, which was manufactured in summer-1999 and listed for $1599 us, i got a 300 mhz G3 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 3 GB hard drive, 4 MB agp graphics, and os 9.0
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
the next day i bought a compaq presario 1272 laptop, manufactured in spring-1999, $1599 us, and i got a 366 mhz amd k6-2 processor, 32 MB of 66 mhz sdram, 4.3 GB hard drive, 2 MB pci graphics, and windows 98
i would clearly say that these two machines were marketed for students and home users who were then looking for a bargain computer under sixteen hundred dollars
while the higher clock speed compaq presario had a larger hard drive, more output ports, more software bundled, pcmcia, and floppy against the single usb ibook;
i found the ibook to be much faster in everyday use for e-mail, internet, and word processing
it would be fun to get an $1199 ibook and get an $1199 dell laptop and use these machines every day for three years and see what kind of performance i get from them
...of course, at $1199, the pc laptop would give me a dvd optical drive vs. the cd-rom in the ibook, and a 14" inch screen vs. the ibook's 12" inch screen, and the pc would include much more software:p
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 08:41 PM
In science when there is a dearth of evidence for something, you fail to reject the null hypothesis (which is that hypothesis x is incorrect).
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
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.
If I wanted to make a claim about something, say that two bricks tied together will fall at the same rate as a single brick, I first have to make this my working hypothesis. The null hypothesis is that what I'm asserting is not true (in this case the null is that the bricks will fall at different rates). It's up to me to provide the evidence. If there isn't enough (or any) evidence, we fail to reject the null hypothesis.
When it comes to religion, it is the theologian who is making the claim. Thus, his working hypothesis is, "God exists." In searching for evidence, however, we come up with nothing. Thus we must fail to reject the null hypothesis, which is, "God does not exist."
Agnosticism is really the position that the an affirmative statement on the matter of deities is impossible to know. It doesn't have a rational basis in logic or science, thought it might make some people more comfortable with their skepticism.
Atheism is the position that, based on currently available evidence, there is no basis to consider any deity to be real. This could change as new evidence comes to light, of course. That is a quality you will not find in theism or agnosticism.
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.
Octobot
Oct 30, 10:46 AM
If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
SuperCachetes
Mar 14, 09:14 AM
So far, we are several days past multiple earthquakes and aftershocks, and so far there has been no nuclear disaster. That's where we are at right now. Thus, I have more confidence than ever in nuclear power as the way to go.
...And that would be a fine position, if vulnerability to natural disasters were the only strike against nuclear power. It isn't.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
Not to trivialize the immediate suffering or catastrophe at all, but should a full meltdown occur at one of those reactors, I expect that it will very quickly become the "primary" issue of anyone nearby.
...And that would be a fine position, if vulnerability to natural disasters were the only strike against nuclear power. It isn't.
I guess what gets to me is I know people affected by this, living in shelters right now who lost everything, including a guy who lived a mere 3 km from the Fukushima plant, so I guess I'm just thinking of all the people with much more primary needs right now that worrying about a nuclear power plant they've lived in the shadow of problem-free for 40 years.
Not to trivialize the immediate suffering or catastrophe at all, but should a full meltdown occur at one of those reactors, I expect that it will very quickly become the "primary" issue of anyone nearby.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 07:30 PM
I'm inarticulate. Well, if it is extending benefits heterosexual marriages then examine why it is doing so and then see what the differences between a heterosexual marriage and a homosexual marriage would be.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
The reason you are telling me to do that is because you cannot. Neither can the government. That's why it is wrong.
Nearly forty years ago psychologists declared homosexuality was not a mental illness. Nearly ten years ago the Supreme Court ruled that the government has no authority to criminalize consensual sexual acts between any two people, regardless of gender, in the privacy of their own homes. The state of the art in science and law once provided justification for the discrimination you want. Neither does any longer. It is no longer understood to be the case that homosexuality entails a necessary harm to the participants or anyone else. Quite the contrary, same-sex couples are known to form loving, supportive, monogamous relationships every bit as profound as those enjoyed between men and women.
This being so, the government has an obligation to prove that this distinction has not outlived its legal relevance. Hint: it has.
balamw
Apr 14, 04:41 PM
Regarding the first point - we have a NAS set up at home, but trying to format that sucker to where both of our computers could use it, the NAS recognized it, and to where we could stick >4GB files on there was a wreck.
Weird. That's the beauty of an SMB/CIFS NAS. It can run on Linux with ext3 and Samba and you'd think it was Windows/NTFS. Supporting >4GB is just a matter of getting the right format that the NAS understands, because it will translate that to a generic SMB call.
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
Weird. That's the beauty of an SMB/CIFS NAS. It can run on Linux with ext3 and Samba and you'd think it was Windows/NTFS. Supporting >4GB is just a matter of getting the right format that the NAS understands, because it will translate that to a generic SMB call.
My current NAS is an HP Mediasmart running Windows Home Server, but I also used the Apple Time Capsule before that. Neither had any trouble with the issues you raise.
And dropbox has been a godsend for me. Drop a file in there and once synced it's accessible at full speeds from all of my three Macs (under OSX or Windows) my PC and even my iDevices.
B
edifyingGerbil
Apr 23, 02:50 PM
The Bible? I don't think I've ever heard of it. :rolleyes: No one can prove the existence of God in any form, let alone some specific God as described in the Bible (a compilation of edited stories mostly derived from hearsay).
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
You don't understand and you don't seem to want to understand so I'll leave you to it.
vincenz
Apr 16, 12:52 PM
No resolution independance sucks on mac, but think im right in saying lion will fix that.
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
I don't think there have been any reports on this confirmed for Lion.
edit: Apparently there was a rumor about it on here, but has it been actually CONFIRMED?
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 12:45 PM
But any time a fad gets discussed over a period of years, it's no longer a fad, it's a trend.
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
valkraider
Apr 28, 10:39 AM
most people are not going to throw down a grand for a computer for the kids to take to school.
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
My child's school is part of the USA "laptop schools" program and every child from 5th grade through graduation is required to have a laptop. The only three they are allowed to choose from (currently) are PCs and cost $1099, $1649, and $2029.
I looked at the specs and all three models are similarly priced as equivalent Mac laptops (actually the $1099 PC laptop is less well equipped than the similar Mac laptop).
We are not allowed to buy them Macs. (It is something that angers me quite a bit, that they require us to buy the equipment but won't let us buy what we want - in my opinion if they want specific equipment, they should buy it - since I am paying the $$$ I should be able to buy what system I want as long as it meets certain requirements).
firestarter
Mar 16, 11:36 AM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
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.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
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.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
crazytom
Mar 19, 10:33 PM
Why I don't like copy protection: I would prefer to use the music I purchase in whatever way I want. For those of you who say "If you don't like the scheme, don't buy it" --- I agree, I haven't purchased a single song from iTMS. It's overpriced, second rate quality, and rounded out with restrictions. I'm saying F U to the RIAA. I don't have anything against the artists, but it's a shame they won't ever get my appreciation ($$$) for their creativity and hard work (it's criminal, I tell you...).
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
DRM only protects the already well-to-do artists. It's like they have a bucket full of money and they want to keep ANY of it from leaking over the edge...it sure sounds like greed....say, isn't that one of the seven deadly sins? Oh...I'm sorry, maybe that's sounding too 'Robin Hood-ish'. :rolleyes:
Recording engineer Steve Albini spoke a community college and was asked what he thought about sharing music. His response was that it was a great idea; his band got more exposure to a greater number of people because of music sharing. Hmmm....that coming from someone who recorded Nirvana, Cheap Trick, Jesus Lizard, Bush.....
Now, if the RIAA would sell me a piece of music that I could sell back to them (at a discount, of course) because I realized what a piece of crap it was after listening to it 5 times, then we'd be in business!!! Wait...that sounds ~a little~ like Napster's deal (except for the selling it back)...too bad it's PC only. :(
And, I'd just like to say: "Way to go DVD Jon!!! Keep up the good work!!!"
Uh, wait....
From the iTMS TOS:
You agree that you will not attempt to, or encourage or assist any other person to, circumvent or modify any security technology or software that is part of the Service or used to administer the Usage Rules.
Oh, crap. Now I'm screwed. I'm a criminal. Canada here I come. :p
DavidCar
Sep 12, 05:49 PM
So what is this thing, anyway? Is it a MacMini with a Merom chip and a different set of I/O ports running a special version of OSX? Can I plug an ElGato Hybrid into the USB port, download some ElGato software to it, and use it to watch TV? Can I telnet into it? I've seen no indication if it does or does not have a hard drive.
stcanard
Mar 18, 10:19 AM
Anyway, I've never been one to agree with the Windows people that argue the security-by-obscurity for why Mac OS X is not hacked to bits like Windows, but it would seem that this adds aome serious fire to their arguement. Here in music where Apple is the most popular and widely used, they are getting hacked (semi-successfully) more often than their WMA counterpart.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
Yes and no. True iTunes is getting hacked more than WMA because of its popularity, but this has no bearing on the relative security of the software or operating systems.
The problem is that DRM like this is flawed by definition. In order for me to be able to listen to the track, my computer has to have the capability to decode and play it. Therefore there has to be a hole that can be exploited to get that information. Jon is very good at finding that hole that has to exist.
The system is guaranteed to be breakable as long as you look hard enough.
The same is not true for operating systems. The system does not have to be breakable, so now you can make an assessment based on the architecture.
supremedesigner
May 2, 09:18 AM
<snip>
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
</snip>
Had to assumed that Intego is the one that created it... think about it: All virus writers works for anti-viruses companies :)
thereubster
Nov 3, 06:40 AM
I'd have to say my opinion is this is very unlikely. Apple has stuck with the four squares of producst, pro, consumer in desktop and portable for years. A sub mac pro without a xeon wouldn't fit into that model. While you could certainly make nice Mac out of a quad-core Core2 extreme I just don't see it happening. I think the only way we'll see conroe/kentsfield in Macs is if they some how got the components needed small enough and cool enough to cram into all sizes of iMacs (if they don't fit in the smallest, they won't go in any, keeps them all the same), and I don't think that will happen.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
just an idea I had, feel free to rip it to shreads.
I never cease to be amazed though, everytime Steve gives a keynote I feel like he announces stuff I just wouldn't have thought of. So, maybe there is a chance, just not sure what they'd call it, or who it'd be targeted at. My gut says it won't happen.
I have to say that I would have always agreed with you in the past. Apple just didnt seem to want to play in the mainstream desktop PC arena before. But if the Mac Pro goes 8 core (which is inevitible IMO) then there is a big yawning gap between the iMac and the Mac Pro, both price wise and performance wise. I dont understand why Apple seems content to leave it empty. Is it because there is no money to be made there?
I beleive that Kentsfield will allow them to fill it with a powerful machine that still allows them some profit margin. The 8 core Mac Pro will be a true professional workstation, with a price to match. It makes sense to slot something in a bit lower, esp. if the commodity price is lower for Apple (DDR2 ram instead of FB-Dimms, etc)
just an idea I had, feel free to rip it to shreads.
No comments:
Post a Comment