Dagless
Apr 13, 04:51 AM
Hmm, could be good. I've been using an old Final Cut that I bought whilst in university. Worked just fine for me but I only edit game trailers on it. If FCPX is that cheap in the UK too then I might just have to get it.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
Maybe.
Apple have been doing a lot of simplifying of late and I hope it doesn't lose any depth.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:10 PM
Backtothemac:
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
Um, Don't know what chart you were looking at, but with both processors being used, the 1.25 kicked the "snot" out of the PC's.
Ohhh, you mean that one test where the Mac beat an old dual Athlon by, look, 2 points? 38/40 hardly matters, especially seeing as how Athlon MP's are available at 1.8ghz rather than the 1.6ghz tested. Xeons are available at up to 2.8ghz if you want a real top of the line SMP PC. How do you suppose the dual 1.25 would do against that sort of competition?
citizenzen
Apr 24, 11:14 AM
What's the deal with religious people?
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
the new Sidekick 4G.
launch a new Sidekick 4G
its new SideKick 4G,
New Sidekick 4G - Magenta
the new Sidekick 4G.
the new sidekick 4g. new
T-Mobile Sidekick 4G
Buy Brand New Sidekick 4G
The new Sidekick 4G also comes
that the new Sidekick 4G
New T-Mobile Sidekick 4G
out a new Sidekick 4G by
New Sidekick 4G is a
The new Sidekick 4G also comes
tmobile new sidekick 4g. when
The new Sidekick 4G will be
It's just tribalism, upon tribalism, upon tribalism.
I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! don't do it!"
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 12:12 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
These test that this guy puts up are crap! The Athlon is overclocked to be a 2100+, none of the systems have the most current OS. I personally have seen great variations in his tests over the years, and personally, I don't buy it. Why test for single processor functions? The Dual is a DUAL! All of the major Apps are dual aware, as is the OS!
Try that with XP Home.
i don't think there is an easy way to test a mac vs a pc for speed issues
but overall, i like barefeats and i think those tests give one a general idea of what a machine can do and are not specifically one hundred percent accurate all the time in the tests
sometimes magazine comparisons between two pc machines are not equally matched in terms of ram, video card, etc...
one thing is certain, the athlon is faster than the duron, the pentium 4 is faster than the celeron, and the G4 is faster (in photoshop) than the G3...but beyond that, it is hard to get a perfect reading
my overclocked 2 cents;)
CaoCao
Mar 25, 11:17 PM
Then I think you misunderstand what the word 'mainstream' means. The majority of Catholics do not care about the Vatican's line on birth control, for instance.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
The Public Religion Research Institute recently published a report based on a survey of Catholics across the United States. Amongst other findings:
A small minority of Catholics may support your views, but they would hardly be considered mainstream.
The majority of American Catholics, but this is because many are cafeteria Catholics. I imagine if you only count people who go to Mass once or more a month (you're supposed to go every week) the numbers would be significantly different. Also a contributing factor is priests have been too timid to talk about it.
No- you have to prove why I should be denied that right. It clearly exists.
You guys continue to ignore that marriage is in fact, a right. That has already been proven to you. And again, quit comparing us to weapons of mass destruction or murderers. I'm sick of it.
I am not lost. I know exactly where I am. I am also not a sheep. I don't blindly follow any leader or religion.
Prove why I should be denied the right to copulate in public, and think of the children is not an acceptable answer
On the contrary, it is the obligation of the United States government to prove it has a legitimate interest in preventing you from doing something, especially if it is preventing you from doing something it permits to another demographic segment.
I suspect the government could demonstrate this to a court's satisfaction, particularly if it denies that ability to everyone equally. Even "treads are hell on asphalt" is a rational reason.
Both you and NathanMuir really think you're onto something with this red herring, don't you? To ignore a point is not to discredit it.
Tell that to the people who have benefitted from the "love and support" of Christians including Catholics. I know it's the party line, but you know quite well that "love and support" its a smokescreen for forced obedience wearing a phony smile. What religious leaders of all stripes "love" is to be obeyed.
Including for "lost sheep" who are not Catholic by manipulating secular law and convincing their followers it is an abuse of their civil rights if secular law does not follow religious law.
sure, homosexuals can go to a "church" and have a "wedding" ceremony, no one is preventing them.
What treads?
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/Centauro01.JPEG/300px-Centauro01.JPEG
Why should we have to prove that we have the right to be married? Either we all are allowed or none of us should be allowed. Why are you more important than I am? Why should you be allowed to get married and I can't?
And your lost sheep comment is exactly what is wrong with the Catholic view. We aren't lost and we certainly don't need to change our ways based on archaic principals and hypocrisy.
The Vatican needs to clean it's own house and stay out of mine.
Men are allowed to get married to women and vice versa everyone is equal (regardless of the reason).
I agree.
Speaking as one who was raised Catholic (the vast majority of my extended family are Catholics), I have observed that while Catholics are essentially socially conservative, they are in most cases less conservative than the Pope would have you believe, as your linked study indicates. Most Catholics support artificial contraception, many support same-sex marriage and abortion. As a group they are definitely less conservative than fundamentalist/born-again Christian sects, though they certainly have their hard-line elements, especially in developing countries.
The Church is becoming increasingly conservative. In the US people are working to destroy the spirit of Vatican II and teach what Vatican II actually is.
If that's what you mean by mainstream catholic, then i think i can safely say that less than 1% of the world in mainstream catholic. I honestly don't know one single catholic that follows all the rules of the catholic church. Really, not one. And i know lots of catholics.
And what do you mean by change their behavior? You mean make them straight? Not gonna happen, and the church will never win this one.
I know plenty of Catholics who are loyal to the Magisterium and I don't even attend Tridentine Masses. Yes people slip, but we help them up.
The Catholic Church recognizes that people don't choose to be homosexual, however it does recognize that acting on those urges is entirely their choice. Chastity is what they are called to.
skunk
Mar 25, 11:14 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.The fact that something is licensed does not change it from a right to a privilege.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution. Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses."
For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the 16th-century, Christian churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows—even without witnesses—the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.
State courts in the United States* have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage.
Doctor Q
Mar 19, 12:31 PM
Seriously: if I walk in to a store and take CD from the shelf, and not pay it, I'm stealing. If I make an identical copy of the CD and leave the original on the shelf, I'm not stealing, I'm committing a copyright-infringment. But I'm not stealing.We've had this dictionary discussion before. But when a book author finds somebody using a photocopier to make a copy of their book instead of buying it, the word used doesn't matter as much as the fact you got something they were selling without paying.Same logic: if I take someone else's car, and drive away with it, I'm stealing it. But if I create an identical copy of the car (using a replicator I got from Star Trek) for myself, have I stolen anything? From whom have I stolen?Same logic: Musical artists aren't selling you round bits of plastic. They are selling you a copy of their music. Same logic: When you buy PhotoShop, you are buying more than the CD and some packaging. You are buying a license to use it, and even if you download a copy without taking something away from somebody else, you are getting something worth money and the owner/producer has reason to expect payment.I find it rather surprising how blindly people here defend Apple, even after seeing how they remove your rights little by little. How many times can you burn your iTunes-songs to CD? It used to be ten times. But Apple reduced it to seven.Yeah, and I wonder why they did that. It was at the same time they increased the number of Macs you can authorize, so overall it was an improvement. Maybe they were tinkering with their deal with the record labels.Then they removed the ability to share/stream your songs from itunes to others.I can't imagine how they made that mistake, allowing sharing over the Internet instead of only over LANs when anybody could tell you the record labels (yes, them again) would be up in arms.Little by little, you feel the DRM-noose tightening around your necks. It seems like a major PR-coup to me, when you have Apple reducing your rights little by little, and you guys are screaming "Yes! Reduce our rights even more!"I wonder if they could offer a new program: You get to have all DRM removed in exchange for burly RIAA enforcers paying you surprise visits whenever they like to check what you are listening to. I'm just kidding, but it's too bad that honest customers have to bear the burdens of dishonest customers, and that any of us have to feel hogtied.
KnightWRX
May 2, 09:05 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
I haven't seen this malware first hand, but a zip file can be made with absolute paths, making "unzipping" the file put everything where it needs to be to start up automatically on next log in/reboot.
Who's the brainiac who made zip files "safe" ?
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
No viruses on the Mac. There's been malware for OS X for quite a while now.
Umbongo
Oct 28, 06:38 PM
Not likely as all four in one would have to share one FSB instead of two in two each having their own FSB. While the 8-core owners will have to live with this limitation, I doubt the 4-core buyers would want theirs running that way. That would make the older 4-core Mac Pros run faster than the new ones. Not progress.
We are now less than four weeks away from Black Friday. So it's all very exciting. I imagine Apple will be able to add this choice the same day Intel makes release official. So watching for Intel's release day is key. I believe I read some post that said it would be mid November. Anyone know exactly?
Monday the 13th.
We are now less than four weeks away from Black Friday. So it's all very exciting. I imagine Apple will be able to add this choice the same day Intel makes release official. So watching for Intel's release day is key. I believe I read some post that said it would be mid November. Anyone know exactly?
Monday the 13th.
theheadguy
May 5, 07:02 PM
I've never had a dropped call.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
I have had ATT for almost three years now - and I haven't had one dropped call.
Works fine for me here in L.A.
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call.
I haven't had any dropped calls yet.
I honestly can say no dropped calls for me in Boulder
For christ's sake -- Arn, why not make a sticky for people who's phones work?
Dismissive Title Macrumors!No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Get your politics out of this thread. There is a place on this site (http://forums.macrumors.com/forumdisplay.php?f=47) for that crap.
leekohler
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
It's one thing to say whether popes cared whether those artists were "gay." It's quite another to say that the popes thought the homosexuality of those artists was relevant to whether they thought they they would hire them. If I wanted someone to paint a mural in my home, I would be willing to hire a gay artist. But I still wouldn't accept gay sex. Neither would any orthodox pope.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
I'm sorry, but who says you have to have gay sex? Obviously, it's what made those artists happy, but ultimately it's none of your or anyone else's business. Why you constantly try to make it your business is puzzling.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Oh- I most certainly do. It means, "Be who you are, just don't act like who you are." It's quite clear. And if me loving another human being and building a life with them makes your god angry, so be it. I have no use for that god. I'd rather spend eternity in hell than spend eternity with something that horrible and judgemental. Fortunately, "god" does not exist, and when we die, we die. While I'm here, I will make the most of my life and help others do the same. You can do what you want.
leftPCbehind209
Apr 12, 10:25 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Evangelion
Mar 20, 09:44 AM
If you go to a concert, theatre play, any kind of performance or into any of fee-charging class or course and smuggle yourself in through some kind of backdoor without paying for the ticket or the course, did you steal anything?
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
Not according to your logic.
Should this behaviour be allowed?
So, what did I steal? Steal: To take (the property of another) without right or permission. Note: I'm no saying whether it's right or wrong, I'm merely discussing whether it's stealing or not. The example you gave is not stealing. I did not take anothers property without his permission.
york2600
Aug 29, 02:59 PM
If you head over to Apple's environmental page and read through it (which I have done several times) you'll see that much of what they claim to be doing for the environment is actually more along the line of what is called natural capitalism. That's not to say it's bad, but don't let them fool you into thinking they have the environments best interests at heart. They're looking out for the bottom line. They make claims about LCDs, but manufacturing energy and toxic inputs on LCDs vs CRTs is a pretty poor argument (read LCD vs CRT report by EPA to see exact figures). Apple can claim a lot of environmental victories, but many of them are simple side benefits of the movement in their product line. LCDs use less energy and have lower cooling costs in lab environments. Core Duos take less energy than G5s. These are true, but Apple didn't switch to save the world.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
Dell has come under a lot of pressure recently for their poor environmental track record. From their lack of a takeback program to their recycling of components using prison labor. They're been forced to clean up their act. They have a pretty amazing takeback program. Apple has a really horrible one. I've used both. Apple needs to step up here. They have a program that seems to exist simply so they can say it's there. Apple has also pulled products from the European market instead of redesigning them to meet new toxics standards. Dell switched suppliers and kept their products world wide. Greenpeace should be targetting Apple here. I hope Apple reacts. Good quality products, with a long lifespan a low environmental impact benefit everyone.
ATD
Sep 26, 07:08 PM
Nope, Bernard of course. :D
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
Bernard was going to be my 2nd guess. :rolleyes:
I'm Platinum Member, it's seems with all the upgrades it's cheaper in the end. I'm going to have to slow down and take a look at 8.
DD has helped me out a few times with other things.
That's what I was thinking about with leapard. I'm glad Apple is finally offering 64-bit gui support. I really didn't see a need for it, but now that these 3D apps are giving OS X the shaft, I'm eagerly awaiting it.
I would like to try out some of 8's new modeling tools. I'm going to have to wait though, since it's practically full price for an ugprade and I'll be moving to Intel this coming year. I wish Autodesklias had a more affordable upgrade path for small shops. This coming year is going to be expensive and probably buggy.
<]=)
Bernard was going to be my 2nd guess. :rolleyes:
I'm Platinum Member, it's seems with all the upgrades it's cheaper in the end. I'm going to have to slow down and take a look at 8.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 12:49 PM
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Go away? i didn't say that.
No, a merger by acquisition which would result in a merging of the Wii and Apple TV of course.
miketcool
Sep 12, 03:39 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
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?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
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?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?
Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.
Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.
Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?
Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
skunk
Mar 14, 06:08 PM
If you're talking about energy consumption, yeah, and that's primarily because of oil. If you're talking about electricity consumption, we're actually not that bad.I beg to differ: your electricity consumption is shocking too. It's all that AC. We Brits always made do with punkah wallahs. Useful local employment opportunities and saves on polluting the atmosphere, too. You have a ready supply of "illegals" who would jump at the chance.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:45 PM
For the purposes of the various arguments which try to prove the existence of God, they are all referring to the Judaeo-Christian God. The arguments try to fit in an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent being within a framework.... Although when I say fit it's more like shoe-horn.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
The main argument against the Judaeo-Christian God is: there is evil in the world, God is meant to be all-powerful and all-loving, and all-knowing, yet evil continues unabated. Either God is not powerful enough to stem the tide of "evil" in which case he's not worthy of worship, or God doesn't know we're suffering, or God knows and is powerful enough but chooses not to do anything.
You should read Spinoza's idea of God, pantheism (if you don't know it already, I'm sorry for assuming). It's the one that most appeals to me :D
It's been too long since I read any of that stuff. Regardless of their arguments, when I discuss the possible existence of a creator/god it is not specifically the God Judeo-Christian God.
dashiel
Oct 7, 01:45 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
hmm i've had the opposite experience. coming from an actionscript/javascript background i've been thoroughly impressed with the sdk in particular and obj-c in general. there's definitely a learning curve, but i suspect that would be true going to any real programming language.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
hmm i've had the opposite experience. coming from an actionscript/javascript background i've been thoroughly impressed with the sdk in particular and obj-c in general. there's definitely a learning curve, but i suspect that would be true going to any real programming language.
blindzero
May 5, 05:49 PM
I'm just outside of DC and don't have any issues with dropped calls or missed voicemails.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
I did when I was on Edge, but since 3G it's been great.
Call quality on the other hand wildly variesfrom unbearable to decent sometimes within the same call.
deannnnn
Oct 7, 10:11 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
I hope the 4G iPhone is out in time!
No comments:
Post a Comment