digitalbiker
Sep 12, 05:08 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes. When I had my Mac Mini wireless and I tried using Front Row to watch movies from other computers (similar to what iTV is supposed to do) it had a real spotty connection sometimes. The consistency and reliability of a wired connection is yet to be paralleled with anything else.
I agree 100%. Wireless loses to wired everytime. In addition before too long there are going to be so many 80211 type devices, and phones that soon the bandwidth will get crowded and error prone.
I agree 100%. Wireless loses to wired everytime. In addition before too long there are going to be so many 80211 type devices, and phones that soon the bandwidth will get crowded and error prone.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
Ahh. Any proof, or just making up stuff?
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Best thing I could find
http://www.pewinternet.org/Reports/2010/Gadgets/Report/Desktop-and-Laptop-Computers.aspx
Gaelic1
Nov 1, 12:21 PM
If it's a simple swap of processors, then I would believe the rumors. :) 8-cores, wow! Much much faster than anyone anticipated.
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
Just who will write the programs for all this parallel processing? It's not simple and full of crashes as one core competes with memory etc. I believe it will be a long time before programming will catch up to these processors. That doesn't make them worth the money just yet.;)
dnedved
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
This is the device I've been waiting for 2+ years for Apple to come out with. Those who think this isn't a Tivo killer don't understand Tivo's plans. This hasn't just killed the current Tivo, this has killed the gen4 Tivo that isn't even out yet. It's stolen its thunder by at least a year if not much more.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
It's been obvious for awhile now that Tivo has been moving in their slow ponderous way towards a method of content delivery over internet. They have been doing it for ads for years now, and they want to do it with content so bad they can taste it. They hired a key guy from bittorrent several years ago, but haven't done anything impressive since. They want it, but with it taking them 3 years to go with cable card and dual tuner, they just aren't able to get their act together in time.
Apple has played their cards exactly right. They've done what Tivo, Netflix, Microsoft, Sony, and Blockbuster would all give their collective left nut to do. They've done what every local cable company and even every media mogul SHOULD have been laying awake worrying about, which is to have made them irrelevant in one fell swoop. Not to every single consumer by a long shot, but to a significant demographic of tech-savvy consumers who know what they want and will shift paradigms to get it.
As much as I want this right this very second, waiting for 802.11n is the right thing to do and I'm glad Apple did it. I don't have a TV, but I'll buy a 20" monitor and one of these the day it comes out. I'll buy a second one and a projector as soon as possible afterwards.
This is going to be a much bigger deal than the iPod, and that's saying a lot.
BlizzardBomb
Jul 12, 12:34 AM
If Apple don't do some sort of Mini-tower hopefully one of the slow models (2GHz or slower) would be used as just a dual so we could have a budget PowerMac. Probably not likely, but with customers now able to make direct comparisons with PCs, it makes sense to have a cheap option. Great news though, although most of us knew it was coming.
For those of you who want to speculate:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Woodcrest
For those of you who want to speculate:
http://guides.macrumors.com/Woodcrest
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:52 PM
It may be his favourite question, but very valid.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
From what I have seen you'll come up with a list of (self?)published books� Not quite the same thing as "published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing".
I haven't cited any self-published book about any topic.
DavidLeblond
Mar 18, 10:08 AM
I think it's a great convenience. I'm just saying that the inevitable wrath-of-God response from Apple is somewhat unwarranted.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
It's a great convenience until the RIAA gets pissed and either changes their mind about downloadable music or tells Apple to hike their prices.
We shouldn't worry though, Apple will defeat this in no time.
TheUndertow
May 2, 12:00 PM
"Bigger".
I prefer More Magical...
The fact that this is news says something about the relative lack of threats.
Seems like "Child's Play" compared to Malware and Viruses on most Windows devices I've owned, despite anti-spyware, malware, and anti-virus loaded, updated, and in "full" protection mode.
I prefer More Magical...
The fact that this is news says something about the relative lack of threats.
Seems like "Child's Play" compared to Malware and Viruses on most Windows devices I've owned, despite anti-spyware, malware, and anti-virus loaded, updated, and in "full" protection mode.
Taz Mangus
Apr 20, 08:00 PM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
long straight blonde
Written by on 19 April 2010
Long straight blonde prom
long straight hairstyles.
2010 Long Blonde Hairstyles
2010 Long Hairstyles
long blonde hairstyle with
More on Long Straight Blonde
Christina-Aguilera-Long-
long straight hairstyle
Reacent Post
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
akw
Mar 20, 05:50 PM
Echoing a comment I saw elsewhere, why doesn't someone just hire this guy. It probably costs more for Apple to sue each person than it would be to hire them and keep them busy fixing these problems internally.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
Maybe he's not for hire. Not everyone can be bought. Or, maybe he's already working for Napster.
slu
Sep 12, 03:31 PM
I think Apple had to compromise to be able to get TV shows on itunes pledging not to have a pvr to networks.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Elgato is here and they are good, so it's just a matter to buy it and use it to stream videos to your TV via ITV.
Elgato is OK. Until it is able to change channels on my digital cable box like my TiVo can, there is no a chance in hell of me ever buying one.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 26, 06:46 PM
So what you are saying is skunk was correct in every respect (and he was) but you just had to argue anyway.
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless. But I figured out what it meant. So it wasn't meaningless.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Something about what?
No, I'm not saying that. Skunk said Ciaociao's Latin sentence was meaningless. But I figured out what it meant. So it wasn't meaningless.
Is that something taught in the catechism? Based on this thread I'd been wondering.
Something about what?
munkery
May 2, 05:30 PM
so a very small percentage of the market will be using it (the better tech) then?
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
if IE or FF don't do something similar then it won't really matter from a cybercrime point of view as 'no one' uses Safari and only the foolish use Chrome.
sad really..
I read somewhere that Chrome may drop it's own sandbox in favour of Webkit2 given that Chrome is based on Webkit.
Webkit2 will sandbox plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine (Javascript) from the UI frame and that sandbox will be the same regardless of the user account type running on the Mac, even root.
IE sandboxes tab processes from each other and the UI frame but it does not sandbox the plugins, rendering engine, and scripting engine from the tab processes.
Also, the Windows sandbox is turned off or lessened if the user turns off UAC or lessens UAC restrictions. This effect of UAC on Windows sandbox also affects Chrome on Windows given that Chrome uses that technology to achieve it's sandbox in Windows. So, do not disable or reduce UAC in Windows!
You have to remember a browsers sandbox is based on the sandbox technology of the underlying OS. Windows sandbox is based on inherited permissions much like the older sandbox technology called Unix DAC that has always been implemented in the default user account in OS X. The newer sandbox in OS X, the TrustedBSD MAC framework, does not function via inherited permissions.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 22, 09:32 PM
Hmm, I might argue that what happens in your head may have personal value, in fact it may change your life, but it really has no bearing on the reality of our existence, just what we imagine it to be, and has no real right to be called "proof". It's jut faith if you see the distinction I'm trying to make.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
It would still provide evidence for the individual concerned, right? It may have no bearing on the reality of our existence, but our existence doesn't matter. It's their existence that matters. Faith, true faith, involves a lot of introspection.
There's concrete reality and abstract reality, the world of the Forms if you like. It's in abstract reality that physical principles are proven, yet we couldn't see or feel them otherwise in the concrete world.
Thus, if the person has an epiphany, and then reflects on what just occurred logically, it could still be called proof.
kas23
Apr 28, 09:00 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2 like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C134 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
I think this is a very interesting quote from the article:
"iPad owners used a significantly wider range of categories than other pad users. The most popular apps among non-iPad owners tended to be relatively functional ones, such as e-mail, social networking, news and banking. While iPad owners also used these apps, they reported a much higher use of general web browsing and video consumption."
citizenzen
Mar 27, 07:37 PM
What does "anti-gay" mean?
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
It means that his motivation is to get rid of the gay and not necessarily the welfare of his patient.
For instance, a sex-change doctor/therapist wouldn't care if he's treating a man who wants to change into a woman or a woman who wants to change into a man. They're just there to facilitate whatever change the patient seeks to make.
I doubt your doctor would ever consent to changing the orientation of a straight person to gay, because he's not interested in facilitating his patient's needs, he's really only interested in forwarding his own (anti-gay) agenda.
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 07:06 PM
I think it's pretty safe to say that Nicolosi is anti-gay.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
But I do think there is a place in this world for therapists to work with people who feel conflicted with their sexual orientation. Heck, we accept that people can change gender ... why not sexual preference as well? In either case it's important that this would come from the patient's desire to change and not from the therapists desire to change them.
People try all sorts of wacky therapies that aren't backed by science. I wonder how many parents have followed his book, A Parent's Guide to Preventing Homosexuality.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 24, 11:19 AM
Originally Posted by ender land
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
But it's common to assume that you experience more self-examination than others do. Most people don't verbalize it.
I have personally thought through my beliefs extensively (likely more and more frequently than most of you have thought through your respective beliefs).
What a condescending statement. :rolleyes:
But it's common to assume that you experience more self-examination than others do. Most people don't verbalize it.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:10 PM
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
Eidorian
Apr 13, 02:00 PM
The professional amateur, amateur professional arguments aside.
It came to me when I was trying to fall asleep last night that Apple only really wants to get you to make an AppleID and then entice you to bleed your wallet dry. Now I am quite sure the shareholders enjoy that but people really appear to have little control over their impulses at $0.99.
Death by a thousand paper cuts or...
When am I going to need a birth certificate and SSN to get an AppleID?
It came to me when I was trying to fall asleep last night that Apple only really wants to get you to make an AppleID and then entice you to bleed your wallet dry. Now I am quite sure the shareholders enjoy that but people really appear to have little control over their impulses at $0.99.
Death by a thousand paper cuts or...
When am I going to need a birth certificate and SSN to get an AppleID?
jholzner
Sep 20, 09:58 AM
Woohoo a hard drive! :D
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
I wasn't planning on buying CenterStage, but the DVR functionality(?) would make it very appealing.
Not sure how it would have DVR capabilities since there is no coax input but who knows. If it could do DVR I'd buy in a second and replace my Tivo. However, it seems Apple wants to sell you shows not let you record them for free so I don't see them adding it. Here's hoping!
TheGeekNextDoor
Mar 18, 12:30 PM
Because it get's you off the unlimited GF plan then.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t
You all yell contract contract, At&t yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
I guess where I was going with it is for AT&T to charge me $25 for 2GB. I get to use that data how I wish. If I go over, charge me $20 for an additional 2GB. Don't make me pay $20 more per month just for the ability to use a feature of the phone. Charge me for what I use. I would be much more inclined to drop my unlimited.
AT&T doesn't hate all unlimited iPhone users. My wife has never used over 400MB in any one month, yet I fear to give up her unlimited that I'm paying $30 a month for. I very rarely go over 800MB. I have spiked to 1.4GB, but that was only once. I still pay $30. So I think AT&T is loving me paying them $60/month for an actual usage of less than 2GB per month spread across two phones.
I would much prefer a family plan "pool" of data. Give me 6GB for $60 to share amongst all of my phones. I have 4 of them. 2 unlimited, 1 2GB, 1 250MB. I pay $100 a month just for data! It's/I'm crazy/stupid. :)
I share minutes. I share texts. Why not data? Then I could tie in my iPad, my refrigerator, my alarm system, etc. into AT&T and they would own me out of centralized data convenience. I don't want to pay big monthly fees for each IP based device I add onto my account.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t
You all yell contract contract, At&t yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
I guess where I was going with it is for AT&T to charge me $25 for 2GB. I get to use that data how I wish. If I go over, charge me $20 for an additional 2GB. Don't make me pay $20 more per month just for the ability to use a feature of the phone. Charge me for what I use. I would be much more inclined to drop my unlimited.
AT&T doesn't hate all unlimited iPhone users. My wife has never used over 400MB in any one month, yet I fear to give up her unlimited that I'm paying $30 a month for. I very rarely go over 800MB. I have spiked to 1.4GB, but that was only once. I still pay $30. So I think AT&T is loving me paying them $60/month for an actual usage of less than 2GB per month spread across two phones.
I would much prefer a family plan "pool" of data. Give me 6GB for $60 to share amongst all of my phones. I have 4 of them. 2 unlimited, 1 2GB, 1 250MB. I pay $100 a month just for data! It's/I'm crazy/stupid. :)
I share minutes. I share texts. Why not data? Then I could tie in my iPad, my refrigerator, my alarm system, etc. into AT&T and they would own me out of centralized data convenience. I don't want to pay big monthly fees for each IP based device I add onto my account.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 11:39 PM
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 08:09 PM
I consider myself an atheist who tries to back up my points with facts. I've seen most other posters who are atheists do the same. I hope you are wrong about it being a "trendy" thing to do but I do hope more people see the reasoning behind atheism and join us for the correct reasons. As far as agnostics go, I know the difference between us and I couldn't care less....close enough in my eyes!!!! An atheist and an agnostic arguing to me is like hearing a Catholic and a Protestant argue....such a small difference in something so important.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
To be fair there are both agnostic atheists and agnostic theists. I would assume most atheists fall in the former category.
0 comments:
Post a Comment