mkrishnan
Sep 12, 03:19 PM
So it seems from the coverage that the device has no optical drive, and no internal mass storage? Is that correct? And also that it is not itself a DVR? Don't get me wrong -- I'm reserving judgment. I just want to understand at this point. It sounds as if the basic purpose of the device is to draw high quality AV off a computer and onto a home entertainment system, sort of as the Roku SoundBridge did for the iPod's audio, but in a very Apple sort of way? In other words, it follows the computer-centric sort of model where a desktop or notebook Mac on the network is the "server"?
Dippo
Mar 18, 07:44 PM
Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced".
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
BC2009
Mar 18, 12:22 PM
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
To those who have limited data and just want the ability to use it any way they like -- I totally feel your pain. I fully agree that it is really dumb of AT&T to cap the data and then charge you extra per device. It is non-sensical to anyone with a basic sense of logic. To me, why not let people use the data up and pay for more if they need it (i.e.: upgrade to 4GB if they need that much data or 6GB or 8GB).
But it is still does not escape the fact that they are the ones who erected the wireless towers and built up the network infrastructure and they can license it as they see fit. And we as consumers have the option to not license it at all. I think the more dumb decisions they make the more likely folks will change carriers or somebody else will come along that offers something better.
I think Cable companies have been sticking it to Americans for years even though they are subsidized with municipal permits to build out their network under public roads. Now better things are coming along and some of these Cable companies are scared out of their minds. First Dish Network and DirectTV offered a better alternative and now the potential for wireless WAN or other internet providers to replace the need for subscription television.
Cable companies are becoming a commodity for pure data. Eventually the wireless providers will as well But for now, if you sign an agreement it should be with the intent of keeping that agreement. Most folks would expect others to keep up their end of any bargain, why shouldn't these wireless carriers expect the same or enforce it otherwise?
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 9, 07:32 PM
It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
ipod touch 4g iPod Touch and
They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.
The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.
Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.
Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.
toddybody
Apr 15, 10:01 AM
It's not that easy to fit in. Sophomore year I lost a lot of weight and kept it off for about a year. Looking at pictures now, I wasn't fat during that time. But I still got picked on for being fat. I got called fat by guys who actually WERE fat.
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
Alot of similar comments are missing the point...all these examples of bullying are age old, and as such have alot of positive examples of future success and how to combat them.
best ipod touch 4g wallpapers.
Apple iPod touch 32 GB (4th
Remove new ipod touch 4g
Ipod Touch 4G 32GB
32GB iPod touch (4G,
ipod touch 2g 8gb from a
ipod Itouch+4g Multi-touch
iPod Touch Unboxing middot; Unboxing
iPod touch 4G - 8GB 4.1
4G iPod touch 8GB
Apple iPod touch
8GB iPod Touch, 32GB
4g 32gb in box, ipod touch
Apple iPod touch 32 GB (3rd
The calculus isn't so simple to figure out. Why were there big fat popular bullies that didn't get picked on? Probably something to do with a degree of violence and intimidation or perhaps some sort of charm or leadership quality they expressed. Who knows.
But trust me, if you get made fun of for your clothes, then go out and get some cool clothes to "fit in", you will be laughed at even more for trying, and they will not relent until you stop wearing those new clothes and go back to your old ways so the kids can go back to bullying you the way they wanted to.
Alot of similar comments are missing the point...all these examples of bullying are age old, and as such have alot of positive examples of future success and how to combat them.
rjfiske
Sep 20, 03:25 PM
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
/soapbox
I'm not sure I understand your question/comment. You say that a DVR isn't worth it because there are too many channels, and then you say that you don't want to watch advertisements. You seem to be against TV in general, which is fine. However...
The purpose of a DVR answers both of your initial concerns. That is, we have a DVR BECAUSE there's so many channels and BECAUSE there is so many ads. We can watch a 1hr program in 40 minutes, whenever we want, however we want. (don't even get me started on Football games). This (not surprisingly) frees up a tremendous amount of time where we can read, cook, work out, etc. Not once in our 2.5yrs of having TIVO have we had to say, "Sorry we can't do that because 'Survivor' is starting in 5 minutes". There's where the real value of a DVR comes into play. Just my opinion. :)
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 04:10 AM
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.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
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.
Quoting your OLD post...
Why would anyone run XP Home on a dual processor. They should be running Windows XP Pro.
But to play the devil's advocate... let's see... Windows can use up to 32 processors (Windows .NET). Try that with Mac OS X! Oh wait, you can't. Of course, no 32-way Power Macs available.
BTW, Steve Jobs has made it clear that since his time at NeXT that it's the software, damn it! If it weren't for his work at NeXT, we would not have the Cocoa library nor Mac OS X.
aftk2
Sep 12, 07:02 PM
I agree with a previous poster who was longing for a developer kit, and with the recent post about third party addons. This is an exciting aspect to iTV, made possible because it streams its content from the host Mac.
For example, I'd hope they'd put in some simple way to stream the contents of my dashboard with one click onto a transparent overlay onto whatever I'm watching. Heh - check MySpace from the couch.
Wait! Did I say that? I mean, uh...get weather reports. And up to date stock information. Er. Yeah. That's it.
For example, I'd hope they'd put in some simple way to stream the contents of my dashboard with one click onto a transparent overlay onto whatever I'm watching. Heh - check MySpace from the couch.
Wait! Did I say that? I mean, uh...get weather reports. And up to date stock information. Er. Yeah. That's it.
BettBee
Jun 7, 03:27 PM
They should also RUSH the micro cell to all markets immediately, and GIVE it to people! Seriously.. for the money we pay, they should GIVE the microcell away to anyone on AT&T who will take it. It will relieve pressure on their network and possibly save them from additional towers.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
The device is cheap comparatively .. and we are the ones who are paying for the internet connection that it utilizes! For the nearly $6,000 I've given AT&T over the last 3 years (we have 3 iPhones on a plan) I think it's only fair they give us a service that at the very least they are trying to improve.
I would love it, and it would indeed be only fair for ATT to give the micro cell to folks who don't get decent service, but they are not concerned with fairness. Anyone who has had ATT for awhile knows that. All the [expletive deleted]s had to do was allow the service to suck where they could get away with it by stinting on towers and service, then offer the device everyone wants, but let it suck because of the terrible service. So now they come along with another bit of tech for us to pay them for, plus monthly baksheesh to make it work as it should. Brilliant effing strategy on ATT's part.
God I hate ATT.
MacCoaster
Oct 10, 02:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage.
And hardware. No hardware double precision floating point Altivec unit.
I can just about assure you that the Mac is at a severe software disadvantage.
And hardware. No hardware double precision floating point Altivec unit.
macfan881
Feb 25, 05:16 PM
This could also be a flaw, I would be really annoyed if I bought the best droid available and then a month later another six of them come out better than mine. A lot of people like buying the best available and then riding it out until the next model is available, but when there phone gets replaced by another 40 phones I am not to sure how people will react.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
Its going on now I mean look at the Motorola droid when it first came out. then few months after thats out The Nexus One Incredible etc. This is why i hate this because I'm currently looking at a Droid as my next phone, but with the Nexus one and incredible coming out in March then there's the Droid and Eris too it makes it hard to chose one of these phones.
snoopy
Oct 12, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by benixau
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
for crying out load, who cares if a pc can do its sums better than a mac. . . . . if i am more productive on my mac then it doesnt matter that it might be a little 'slower' . . .
True for many of us. For applications that use a lot of math functions, it makes a big difference. So, for others it does matter. They may be in the minority, but a very important group of users. In less than a year the picture will change, and that small group will be very pleased with the Mac. For now, there is nothing anyone can do about it.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:34 AM
Apple's point is that your computer more or less has that capability (ok with an Elgato dongle), and in any case they don't want to follow that business model. I guess you're not the target audience.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
Only time will tell if anyone buys this.
I think the focus should be on the business model than the "you can always use a computer". Apple is reinventing TV. If you assume that an iTV user will be downloading pretty much everything they watch, then a DVR just becomes redundant.
Indeed, I think the lack of a DVR tells us a lot about Apple's thinking. It would certainly help shift boxes in the short term if they made a DVR an option, but in the long term it would essentially mean Apple would be shouting "We're co-existing with cable."
Of course, at this stage, it's too early to tell. For all we know, iTV will be launched in January (1G iPod 5Gb), and then in April we'll see it replaced with three variants (2G iPods - iPod 10Gb, iPod 15Gb, iPod 20Gb), one with more disk space, one with a DVR, and one that integrates with CableCards. I don't see them doing that, but I'm less certain of that than I am of them not releasing an iPhone.
thejadedmonkey
Apr 12, 11:43 PM
I was just sitting at work, with 3 co-workers today. We were looking at a cut of footage I had from when my organization visited the capitol. Tweak this... 4 minutes later... good, but try moving that there instead... 4 minutes later...
That alone has me all psyched. This was a brand new i5 machine, too. Got in about a week ago. Being able to save 12 minutes moving a clip back and forth by .08 seconds is a lifesaver.
For what I use FCS for, FCPX looks great! With the price drop, somehow it's less money for a MBP than a comparable PC and Adobe... I'm psyched for a new portable setup come next fall!
That alone has me all psyched. This was a brand new i5 machine, too. Got in about a week ago. Being able to save 12 minutes moving a clip back and forth by .08 seconds is a lifesaver.
For what I use FCS for, FCPX looks great! With the price drop, somehow it's less money for a MBP than a comparable PC and Adobe... I'm psyched for a new portable setup come next fall!
spicyapple
Oct 25, 11:18 PM
HDV render = 60% on every core. WTF?
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
What type of filters are you applying? Perhaps the plug-in hasn't been optimized for multiple cores.
neilp4453
Feb 12, 03:14 AM
All I'm going to say is that Apple isn't doing enough to keep iPhone users...well, iPhone users!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
Two of my cousins now own droids. One had an iPhone and got a Droid once he started working at a Verizon store. The damn phone is jampacked with features that Apple refuses to include.
In order for Apple to improve their device, they must first be beaten. Otherwise, they will sit on their asses just watching the cash come in. They do it with their current line of computers and they are doing it now.
I love my iPhone but I think it is just that time. Hopefully they can come back. It is time to loosen their grip on the App Store, let Google do their "thang" and add numerous features that are available NATIVELY!
munkery
May 2, 05:41 PM
What is "an installer" but an executable file and what prevents me from writing "an installer" that does more than just "installing".
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
My response, why bother worrying about this when the attacker can do the same thing via shellcode generated in the background by exploiting a running process so the the user is unaware that code is being executed on the system.
I don't know of any Javascript DOM manipulation that lets you have write/read access to the local filesystem. This is already sandboxed.
The scripting engine in the current Safari is not yet sandboxed.
Here is a list of Javascript vulnerabilities:
http://cve.mitre.org/cgi-bin/cvekey.cgi?keyword=Mac+OS+X+Javascript
The issue is Safari is launching an executable file that sits outside the browser sandbox.
In the current Safari, only some plugins are sandboxed, so this wasn't execution outside the sandbox.
All that having been said, UAC has really evened the bar for Windows Vista and 7 (moreso in 7 after the usability tweaks Microsoft put in to stop people from disabling it). I see no functional security difference between the OS X authorization scheme and the Windows UAC scheme.
Except this:
Switching off or turning down UAC in Windows also equally impacts the strength of MIC (Windows sandboxing mechanism) because it functions based on inherited permissions. Unix DAC in Mac OS X functions via inherited permissions but MAC (mandatory access controls -> OS X sandbox) does not. Windows does not have a sandbox like OS X.
UAC, by default, does not use a unique identifier (password) so it is more susceptible to attacks the rely on spoofing prompts that appear to be unrelated to UAC to steal authentication. If a password is attached to authentication, these spoofed prompts fail to work.
Unix DAC is turned off in OS X in the root user account.
IBradMac
May 5, 08:38 PM
AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls
Four years now. wow.
Four years now. wow.
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 04:19 PM
javajedi: Well, well... I finally figured out GNUstep and ported your Cocoa program to it--works 100%. Funny thing it's slower than the Java one, but it might be the extra crap I put in there (menus, etc.). 10 seconds compared to 7 seconds with Java. But that's still faster than 70 seconds on a G4. I'll be making a pure C port if anyone hasn't.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
Reacent Post
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:30 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
danielwsmithee
Sep 12, 04:14 PM
If this is all iTV is going to offer for $249 then forget it.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
I'll just use a cable to hook my laptop to my TV.
Voila! I just replaced iTV for less than $5.00.Price for me $1099 cheapest MacBook plus $5 cable $1104. I think I'll take the $249.
MorphingDragon
May 2, 09:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer. :rolleyes:
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
Well we need to study the context of the Zip file first to see if its a malicious candidate. ;)
So much for apple computers not getting viruses
Yes so much. Because Malware can copy itself and infect a computer. :rolleyes:
Hate to break it to you, but it's someone at Apple that flagged "Zip files" as safe for Safari to open ;)
That guy needs his head examined.
Well we need to study the context of the Zip file first to see if its a malicious candidate. ;)
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
0 comments:
Post a Comment