MattInOz
Apr 20, 06:59 PM
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
Applying a cost to tethering is your carriers choice.
In many many places tethering comes for free on the iPhone. Certainly does for me and I'm with Australia's most abusive carrier.
If your carrier allows free tether on one phone but not another isn't that anti-competitive behavior?
I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
Ease of use in Android is just as simple as an iPhone, with the ability to customize IF YOU SO PLEASE.
So if you would, cut the degraded experience crap.
Applying a cost to tethering is your carriers choice.
In many many places tethering comes for free on the iPhone. Certainly does for me and I'm with Australia's most abusive carrier.
If your carrier allows free tether on one phone but not another isn't that anti-competitive behavior?
Elfear
Nov 2, 01:08 AM
I have Maya Unlimited and I render (mental ray) to 6 cores (a quad and a dual). This works in Maya 7 and 8. It's a pain to setup, easy for 1 computer, a pain network setups.
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
Edit, it just so happens that I started hooking up my mental ray satellite as I wrote this post. As expected it was a pain so I had to contact Atuodesk to get help. I noticed that in the setup info it suggested Maya Unlimited 8 gives you 8 additional render licenses on top of the 4 that are standard. I asked the rep if that was correct and he said yes. So that's 12 all together. :D :D :D
How well does Maya scale when you use 2, 4, and 6 threads?
ChazUK
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
A fad is something that comes and goes quickly with a spike in popularity at its peak, and then people look back and wonder why they did it.
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
Otherwise known as the Nintendo Wii. :D
sisyphus
Jul 12, 12:35 AM
So this'll mean one of 3 things.
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
2) All the Mac Pros will have dual Woodcrests and the iMacs will be upgraded to Conroes. I find this unlikely as Steve-o doesn't like "noisy fans" and the extra heat of the Conroes and faster bus chips etc. would cause the fans to come on more often.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc... This is the real machine most people have been clamouring for. A fast unhampered machine that is more than the iMac but less than the Mac Pro (as will be reflected by the price).
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
1) At least 1 Mac Pro will have dual Woodcrests and the rest will have Conroes. Similar to the current PM design.
2) All the Mac Pros will have dual Woodcrests and the iMacs will be upgraded to Conroes. I find this unlikely as Steve-o doesn't like "noisy fans" and the extra heat of the Conroes and faster bus chips etc. would cause the fans to come on more often.
3) The Mac Pros will all have dual Woodcrests, the MBP & iMac will get Meroms, the MB and Mac mini will stick with the Yonahs. So what will use the Conroes? How about the Apple Mac. A simple box with a Conroe processor, a real replaceable video card, no additional PCI slots (those are reseved for the Pro models), with room for one or two full size HDs, a DVD, wireless, bluetooth, etc... This is the real machine most people have been clamouring for. A fast unhampered machine that is more than the iMac but less than the Mac Pro (as will be reflected by the price).
I've never used any of the PCI slots on my PowerMacs and don't expect that I ever will, but the ability to put any video card in is appealing. The iMac is nice and quite useful, but just slightly less than what is needed in many cases. The PowerMac has been more or less uncompromising speed and generally more than I wanted when I bought. With all of the emphasis on the name 'Mac' in the new naming scheme and a more competitive landscape now that we've gone Intel, I think (hope) this is the machine Apple will use to complete its desktop lineup.
The Apple Mac... Nice sound to it, no?
res1233
May 2, 04:21 PM
It auto-executes the installer because installers are marked as safe if "open safe files after downloading" is turned on.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
This is not an example of shellcode being injected into a running application to execute code in user space.
A smart hacker will simply feed Safari the data it looks for when verifying a file is an installer. Once that's done, do what you want with the person's computer. It isn't rocket science, it just takes time and effort, something many hackers would rather spend on windows-based PCs.
EDIT: Because trolls will feed on anything, what i meant is that's what you'd have to do to run code without user permission. The code couldn't do much other than delete everything in your home folder but... Well, it can delete everything in your home folder. To be perfectly honest though, whoever doesn't back that stuff up is asking for trouble considering it doesn't even take malware to lose your data.
DelisleBA.info
Apr 12, 10:38 PM
And so is this new version $299 which is a deal compared to the $999 for FCS. Heck MSRP on FCE is $199 so with a student discount this new version is very reasonably priced. Which leads me to think this is probably a stand alone app and it does not include all the goodies of FCS like DVD Studio Pro, Compressor, etc..
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
Is this correct thinking?
And if so does this mean that FCS will be broke into apps? How much for the other apps?
Hurry up and wait, the apple way.
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:28 AM
If you don't believe me, there's plenty of history to read. Just go look at the following industries that were disrupted by technology...
Obama praises in Laden
US President Barack Obama
Bin Laden Obama
PHOTO: Obama Meets With
APTOPIX Bin Laden Obama
Bin Laden Obama. AP Photo
Obama Bin Laden. AP Photo
Obama to in Laden assault
Obama to thank in Laden raid
Bin Laden Obama. AP Photo
Bin Laden dead, Obama says
in Laden#39;s dead body.
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Caliber26
Apr 15, 10:27 AM
You would be one of them. It stings when the mirror is held up in front of you, doesn't it? I was like you at one time too, and I know where you are right now. At some point, you will come to understand that there is a difference between people who are simply trying to be themselves (us) and people who are trying to keep us from being ourselves (social conservatives). One deserves respect, one does not.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
No, sorry. There's nothing stinging. And that's not a mirror he's holding up to me, either. He's basically telling me that I "hate" myself. That's a very strong word to use towards someone you don't know at all.
In case you haven't read my other posts: there is NOTHING wrong with being gay and disagreeing with certain aspects of homosexuality and the lifestyle attached to it, or what the media says and does in our "favor".
I'm sorry, dude, but this is not a case of 'crap or get off the pot'. We, as a gay community, are nothing more than a blend of a million different tastes and flavors. Sorry if MY way of being gay and dealing with it doesn't suit your interests, but it is what it is and not you, not that other poster, NOT ANYONE, has a right to tell me I hate myself because of what I believe in. You're just as narrow-minded and selfish as the conservatives you like to criticize.
ChrisA
Jul 12, 12:19 PM
Just as a data point for you all: I'm typing this on a dual processor Xeon runing at 3.6 Ghz.
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
Each procesor has 1M cache. The system has 4GB RAM and some 10K RPM Ultra-SCSI disks. It runs Linux. This system runs circles around any current Intel Mac. I'm not putting Mac down. Not at all. I just wanted to let you all know to expect a huge performane jump when these new dual and quad core woodcrest machines come out.
You want my guess about what's comming. Apple will offer a high-end dual Woodcrest, quad core "mac pro" and it will be expensive. But they will also offer a lower-end dual processor (Conroe) tower. in a mini-tower configuration. Call it a "Mac Pro Lite" for arounr $2K
PghLondon
Apr 28, 11:19 AM
But� 3.5% mac market share which includes stupid iPads as computers is pretty dismal (laughable even). As an enterprise user of macs I find that pretty embarrassing and quite telling of where OSX really stands in the grand scheme of things.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
<snip>
But a pitiful 3.5%? Absolutely mind-boggling.
Where are you getting 3.5% from? It's higher than that without counting iPad.
JackAxe
Apr 21, 05:44 AM
Its amazing how all those "smart" Android users are still poorer than the average iOS user, and spend less than the average iOS user.
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
Amazing that all these "smart" people just make so much less money...
WOW! What an incredibly stupid post!
Mac'nCheese
Apr 24, 12:36 PM
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.
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.
Surely
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
And it would never be pick up by the media. Like I said the media does not pay any attention to it and with out the media doing anything those groups can never get traction.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 02:42 AM
Even if the internal architecture of the two chips is the same, a Dual 3.0ghz Woodcrest configuration is still going to outperform a Single 2.66ghz Conroe.
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
It depends on what you are doing with it. Games would run faster on the Conroe ;)
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 12:08 PM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses.
Sure, I guess calling them the greenest company will really hinder Nokia's business - or indeed any of the companies that got rated near the top. :rolleyes:
The fact is this report says something which, as Apple fans, many of us don't like. However, if there was a comparable Lenovo forum, they'd all be saying the same thing –*"the report is rubbish"? Does it make it true? No.
What if Apple still came fourth from bottom, but Dell was third from bottom. Does that make the report more credible? No.
The fact that this report is gaining traction across multiple tech sites, not just MacRumors, plus the fact that Apple speedily responded proves that the issue is real. Did Apple reject outright the report's claims and say they are actually just as good as Nokia and whoever else? Did they come out and say, "greenpeace is b/s"? No. They said "we don't agree with the grading system used, it's not reflective of our other efforts" or some such politician-esque answer.
It could just as easily have been Apple at the top if they were up to scratch with regard to the materials used in their products, then you same critics would be loving the report. For example, if tomorrow Greenpeace ran a report on the grading of tech company recycling programs and put Apple at the top, what would that say? That Apple was good in one area and bad in another so they need to do more.
Stop being fickle and naive and understand the bigger picture. :rolleyes:
Sure, I guess calling them the greenest company will really hinder Nokia's business - or indeed any of the companies that got rated near the top. :rolleyes:
The fact is this report says something which, as Apple fans, many of us don't like. However, if there was a comparable Lenovo forum, they'd all be saying the same thing –*"the report is rubbish"? Does it make it true? No.
What if Apple still came fourth from bottom, but Dell was third from bottom. Does that make the report more credible? No.
The fact that this report is gaining traction across multiple tech sites, not just MacRumors, plus the fact that Apple speedily responded proves that the issue is real. Did Apple reject outright the report's claims and say they are actually just as good as Nokia and whoever else? Did they come out and say, "greenpeace is b/s"? No. They said "we don't agree with the grading system used, it's not reflective of our other efforts" or some such politician-esque answer.
It could just as easily have been Apple at the top if they were up to scratch with regard to the materials used in their products, then you same critics would be loving the report. For example, if tomorrow Greenpeace ran a report on the grading of tech company recycling programs and put Apple at the top, what would that say? That Apple was good in one area and bad in another so they need to do more.
Stop being fickle and naive and understand the bigger picture. :rolleyes:
DemSpursBro
Apr 11, 08:21 AM
I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology.
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Just out of curiosity, why do you build one each year?
Silencio
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Ah, now this is what I've been waiting for: the Airport Express for video, plus a little bit more. If it were shipping today, I'd high-tail it to the Apple Store and buy one. But given a few months to think about the $299 price tag, we shall see if that feeling holds up.
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
This is very wisely not a direct competitor to MCE. Those who don't want to buy an entire separate computer to play their digital media on their home entertainment systems don't have to. But I suppose you could get the full-featured MCE-type setup by simply adding a Mac mini to the mix (and perhaps one of those NewerTech 500GB Mac mini-shaped external drives while you're at it).
sinsin07
Apr 9, 09:42 AM
Or would be part of a larger game as sub-games. Nintendo do understand this kind of gaming but package it differently. I am not at all convinced that that packaging & pricing strategy would not work on iOS.
matticus008
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
Is there anybody here who has ever changed their mind about digital rights management, i.e., accepted and then rejected it or rejected it and then accepted it over time? We've heard many members trying to convince others and I wonder if everybody has their mind permanently made up.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
Has anybody ever "switched" on this issue?
Actually, I have. I'd been vehemently opposed to both the DMCA and DRM for the past several years (what's a good liberal to do?). I always held the opinion that it wasn't really doing anyone any real harm. I buy music, and the music I downloaded was probably not music I'd buy anyway, so I didn't see it harming sales. But then I came across more people like many in this thread, who believe that they are entitled to more than they agreed to or paid for, and who justify and rationalize their piracy to the point where it's just absolutely ridiculous, and now I see why DRM exists--because people don't actually want "fair use" or a way to preview music before buying it and supporting the artists they like. All they want is free music that they can pretend they own and control in a manner to which they've never been allowed by law.
Before digital files, no one would have argued that copying a CD and giving it away was wrong. But now the scale is much larger and it's much easier, and there are people pretending that it's legal or that it's now okay because the RIAA is somehow more corrupt than it was 10 years ago when filesharing was a niche activity for technophiles.
sam10685
Sep 12, 06:04 PM
I'm really impressed with the price. Obviously they're not gonna talk about all the features this early, but so far it looks good. Will it record TV? I guess "no."
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
i have an extremely good feeling it will. i also have an extremely good feeling that they will launch this thing prior to christmas for two reasons... Why would they anounce something this cool in september and not release it by christmas? also, Apple has a history of doing weird stuff like releasing stuff early. "yeah... we're going to start this Intel transition in 6 months." *4 months later, Intel transition starts.*
jasonbrennan
Jul 12, 12:34 PM
What about BLU RAY?
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Am I the only one who hopes/thinks that we might see a bluray drive in the new mac pros? I mean, Apple is, afterall, a member of the br camp. And they always seem to want to be the "first" to have a new standard (wifi, dvd burning, firewire)...yes, I know they didn't invent any of these, and they may not have been the absolute first, but you know what I mean
Last year was supposed to be the "Year of HD", but we really didn't see a whole lot of it other than h.264. I think It would be really impressive if we saw at least a BDROM drive, if not a BDR would be hella cool
Peace
Sep 12, 06:22 PM
I am dying to see what this thing looks like. Does anyone have an image of it?
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
Please?!
look on the previous pages.I posted links
or go to engadget.com
No comments:
Post a Comment