Multimedia
Sep 26, 04:48 PM
You're kidding, right? Here we are sitting around waiting on the C2D and you're saying that in about two months we'll have the option to buy a QUAD? Please say your kidding. PLEASE.No I am not kidding. What option to buy a Quad? Clovertowns are Quads used in pairs to make 8-core OctoMacs not Quads. Clovertowns are scheduled to begin shipping in November. This is not news. It's been known for at least 3 months. Did you not see that thread?
SwiftLives
Mar 13, 11:36 AM
NIMBY. I'm okay with nuclear power as long as it's far far away from where I live. Of course, it's not like my town is prone to natural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charleston_earthquake) disasters (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hurricane_Hugo) or anything.
citizenzen
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean ... ?
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
I see it as a most fundamental natural right. The right to free association.
I like you. You like me. Let's spend some time together.
I love you. You love me. Let's spend our lives together.
It's one of the most natural things we do in our lives: choose who we want to share our time with.
AppleScruff1
Apr 28, 02:58 PM
That makes me smile.. :)
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
You must be very young :D
It's funny as I'm sure the world of computing managed to perform quite well as did I with all my many computers, many many MANY years before the internet was around and in use my the public in any real numbers and we could download pictures of naked ladies :eek:
A PC can do anything and everything you want, It's a full computer, not a web browser.
But the internet brought p0rn mainstream. :D
mcrain
Mar 16, 12:35 PM
Also, for the record, just because we could do it, doesn't necessarily mean we should. The free market should determine this. IF we're willing to pay more for American fuel, then so be it. If not, we'll continue buying from others... but don't let the government manipulate the markets and destroy common sense capitalism.
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?
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?
milo
Sep 20, 11:21 AM
This must be a US-centric view. Here (UK) PVRs with twin Freeview (DTT) tuners and 80GB HDs are everywhere. And they are very cheap now (120 quid upwards).
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
I'm thinking of ditching my cable provider (NTL, I only get it for Sky One, which is just Simpsons repeats) and going with something like this:
http://www.topfield.co.uk/terrestrialequipment.htm
Apparently you can DL what you record to your Mac (USB). I suspect you'll then be able to play that on iTV.
Looks like a cool box, but still pretty expensive, $525 USD. And I assume not available in the USA. Anyone know what the cheapest PVR you can buy in the states is?
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
And the fact that you can't use the iTV as a computer! The iPod can play audio and video like a mini can, does that make the iPod "a cut down mini" too?
If I have a mini, couldn't I use it as an iTV with frontrow? Why would I get an iTV when I can get a refirb mini for $200 more, when it can do more?
Because it's $200 more. And this is just the initial pricing, as time goes on the iTV will get cheaper faster than computers do.
I'm wondering why they couldn't/wouldn't just combine the mini and the iTV into a single unit. The mini's size could allow for a DVD slot/player/burner and maybe even allow for the Mac OS in the box, so you don't need another computer to stream your media from. In fact, I assumed that was what the Mini was ultimately destined for anyway.
Because it would be way more expensive than $200, with little chance of prices dropping much.
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
Well, the first step of the plan is to cost less than $700. :eek: At that price, the technology will never be anything more than a niche.
because everything on cable is available at itunes. your analogy is wrong.
He was talking about the future of iTunes/iTV. Who's to say that someday everything on cable won't be on iTunes?
Evangelion
Apr 15, 10:54 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied?
I was a fat kid at school, and received my share of bullying. Nothing extraordinary, though.
So, what's the difference between fat kids and gay kids. Well, there's nothing you can do about being gay. Obesity is something you can deal with. Eat less crap, excersize more. There are some medical conditions that cause obesity, but usually it's self-caused.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
bullying is never ok. But it's even worse when you are bullied because of something you have no say over.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 10:05 AM
iTV is a great product. If you want a DVR, buy a DVR, if you want the next level of streaming, iTV is it. I already use Airtunes alot. It is hooked up to my stereo. Anytime I'm out in the yard or having a BBQ, I just plug in the Express and some speakers out back and stream music there.
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
I personally don't buy tv shows and movies, but I like the idea of being able to code anything video into iTunes and view it on my tv along with slideshows, music, trailers.
I might buy the iTV when it finally arrives. It really depends on what I can do with it. Right now it feels slightly anemic to me. It is more or less just a beefed-up Airport Extreme.
The iTV would be much more appealing to me if Apple offered a TV-tuner in it (BTO or third party). If not, well...
MarkCollette
Sep 12, 08:31 PM
I realize they are saying that you're getting high-def, and it's wireless, but I have a hard time believing that a movie you can download in a half hour will be as good of quality as a DVD which is nearly 8gb in size.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
To be fair, these videos are encoded using H.264, which is a newer and more efficient codec, bitrate wise, than MPEG2 which is used in DVDs.
EDIT: Plus I think these are 640x480 progressive scan, whereas DVDs are interlaced. Sure, that'll take more space, but it will also give it better quality.
rdowns
Apr 15, 12:45 PM
Those priests obviously weren't celibate, then.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
Yes, it really does suck that there are bad people everywhere.
I know, right? You can't blame the Catholic Church because some of their chosen leaders like to diddle children. Sickos are bound to be found even in the most pristine of institutions.
What really sucks is how the leaders of the Catholic Church covered up this abuse and allowed it to continue. Surely they will burn in hell over that.
ductapesuprhero
Mar 20, 01:58 PM
I say break the law and be done with it.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
It is a stupid law that deserves to be broken IMO.
I paid for the song and will do what I want with it - passive resistance is all well and good but sometimes there is no substitute for direct action. Given the sheer size of the P2P communities it is clear that the "law makers" are not representing their electorate very well.
HAHAHA. LMAO. Wow. Where to start?
This logic is faulty on so many levels. Because enough people break the laws in place, it should become legal? If raiding and pillaging started affecting your hometown, would you try to stop it, or simply give in and join in? Would you, as a legislator in your small town vote to make pillaging legal simply because so many people do it? I should hope not. Pillaging is taking away the rights of your citizens, the same as music piracy. People are taking advantage of the music without accepting the terms it comes with, thus taking wrongful advantage of the artists. DRM simply helps to maintain the license that you are purchasing to listen to their music.
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
UWF404
Jul 7, 09:51 PM
My very first call dropped and when I grip the phone as one would naturally hold the phone I lose 3 bars. The phone looks cooler than the older 3GS. However, the sharper edges make it uncomfortable to hold compared to old phone. The supposed upgraded screen seems to me only marginally better. That said, who here who has a 3GS ever said "geez, if only the screen was better" :rolleyes:
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
The glass on both sides to me is just down right stupid. Just because you it looks cooler does not mean it's functionally better. It only makes the phone more delicate and prone to damage. This phone is a case study of design not in sync with engineering.This phone feels delicate and no as sturdy like the 3GS. All in all I'd give it a thumbs down and I'm baffled at Apple for putting out this phone.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 08:51 AM
If AT&T were to allow tethering with unlimited, they know that ASAP people would start dropping their home internet en masse. Not saying everyone would, but plenty would for the same reason they dropped their home landline telephone. Will this happen eventualy anyway - yes. But AT&T, as the provider has the right to do as they see fit for their business and their shareholders.
While you might not use more data via tethering, if it were allowed with no extra charges, and on unlimited plans, AT&T would see a huge spike in usage that would not go down - and they would be doing so without any increase in their revenues (in fact, they'd see a decrease as noted above).
While you might not use more data via tethering, if it were allowed with no extra charges, and on unlimited plans, AT&T would see a huge spike in usage that would not go down - and they would be doing so without any increase in their revenues (in fact, they'd see a decrease as noted above).
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 12:06 PM
Really? ;)
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so� But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
So I can have same-sex sex and it is just as OK (in the eyes of the Catholic Church) for me and my partner as it is for a straight couple to have sex?
Kewl.
I don't think so� But nice try anyway.
Ah, semantics.
Of course most people (and I am sure good Catholics) equate it with sexual abstinance.
What are you talking about? Don't blame your ignorance on semantics. Try understanding what you read first.
If you are talking about an unmarried straight couple, then yes, you can have same-sex sex and it's "just as OK", i.e., equally not OK.
Pants
Oct 9, 04:18 AM
Ive been using xp pro for 3 months here at work, and I have to say I'm quietly impressed. Its never crashed, nothing has unepectedly quit (and its running a bunch of custom pci cards, so if ever it was flakey, id have expected it to be so with this rig...). My only complaint is the 'look' of it - osX does look nicer, but then osX is a lot less snappy.
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
So where does my money go to with Apple? I posses a bunch of apples, and each time I buy a new one i feel a little less 'happy' and a little more like a regular consumer. After all, the days of non proprietory hardware being used in apples are gone - its all usb and firewire (and not even cutting edge usb at that). Some of my reasons for disliking M$ are also beginning to surface with appl� - .mac for a start. What osX has done is open my eyes to using linux at home (or maybe x86 solaris) ...switching? hmmm....
oh, and did anyone mention that apples floating point performance was good? no - its awful!
notjustjay
Apr 6, 11:58 AM
forgot to add that the "+" (maximize) button is wildly inconsistent in its function.
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
maximizing to full screen in general isn't the way OS X "works", which is why most programs don't do that...but it seems Apple never really decided what the maximize button is supposed to do.
That's because Apple didn't decide what the maximize button was supposed to do. That was supposed to be up to each application developer.
Don't think of it as a "maximize" button, think of it as "optimize". As in "Hey, application, the user just clicked your green button. Go ahead and resize yourself to whatever you think is most appropriate given what document is currently open." Most apps should resize their window to display the full width without needing scrollbars. In theory.
I agree with the person a few posts up who said "Don't think about how you did it in Windows. Think about what you think would make sense" and it usually works.
As for the other little quibbles discussed in this thread: yes, OS X is a little different (most of these issues are with Finder versus Explorer, I notice). You just get used to it. I use XP at work and OSX at home every day, and I learn to work with each. I do some of the tricks mentioned in this thread (like adding a shortcut to my Applications folder on the dock to mimic a Start menu) but not so much because "I prefer the Windows way" as "this is efficient and makes sense".
tigress666
Apr 10, 12:18 PM
Yeah that is why they have the top selling game on console in COD and the top selling game on PC in WOW :rolleyes:
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
That being said, I would love to see games like the old school RPG FF games or even starcraft type games.
Those would own on the ipads and work pretty well on the iphone/ipods as well
Uh, they have Final Fantasy 1-III on the iPhone :) (III is the most expensive game I've seen on the iphone, 16 bux!). I'm working on II right now (then going to try I and got a few more games so waiting for III to be on sale or for when I finish the other games, whichever comes first).
I'm just hoping they eventually get to VII (that they find porting these over to iOS is worth doing more Final Fantasy's on it). Shoot, maybe if they keep going by number, they can get X on an iphone (maybe by that time the hardware will be able to handle that?).
And I'd love to see Lunar Star Story on the iphone. That would be pretty awesome too. Or Breath of Fire IV. There's a ton of old rpgs that would do great on the iphone. And touch screen wouldn't be too bad of an interface for the old style rpgs either. Actually, for old style rpgs, touch screen would have advantages (no scrolling through lists, just pick it out with your finger).
Personally, I'd just be happy with them porting over the popular games to the iphone that are on other platforms. I honestly think for me the iPhone is the best portable player cause it is with me everywhere (so with the amount of games I am finding on it now even I'd probably not be really tempted to buy the other handhelds. The iphone being so portable gives it a major plus compared to the more dedicated handheld game systems. Now a console, that would be different).
I do think that it does have one issue, that since it is my phone as well, it is kind of annoying I have to worry about keeping some battery life so I still have my phone (For example using it on a plane flight I still need to have a usable phone at the end of the flight).
OllyW
Oct 8, 07:11 AM
As for the prediction of Android surpassing iPhone's market share -- maybe, maybe not. But if it's going to do that, it'll have to suddenly hit the 'wow' factor and also gain an international distribution, network, and support of some kind.
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
They already have the major networks in Europe.
The four major European networks, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, and Telefonica (O2), are all planning to launch handsets powered by the Android platform during the second half of 2009. (http://www.talkandroid.com/1364-european-networks-shift-to-android/)
I hear GOOG and VZN are in bed now but that seems U.S.-centric. To have any prayer of surpassing the iPhone, GOOG is going to have to hook up with a lot of other providers in other nations.
They already have the major networks in Europe.
The four major European networks, Vodafone, T-Mobile, Orange, and Telefonica (O2), are all planning to launch handsets powered by the Android platform during the second half of 2009. (http://www.talkandroid.com/1364-european-networks-shift-to-android/)
CalBoy
Apr 23, 05:45 PM
I don't think many people say they're Catholic to fit in or be trendy... Maybe Jewish, but definitely not Catholic.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
How do people make atheism "trendy?"
The very notion of making critical thinking subject to blind fanaticism is contradictory.
I've concluded American Atheists who are continually challenged on their beliefs and "surrounded by enemies" are more likely to read into atheism and all it entails, rather like a convert to a religion knows the religion better than people who were born into it. Europe is very secular, compared to the US at least, and thus a lot of people are "born into" atheism/secularism.
Have you spoken to people born into an atheist household? What evidence do you have to back up this claim? It certainly isn't what I've seen, and it runs counter to who atheists (and more specifically atheist parents) are.
Europeans, moreover, consistently out-perform Americans in scientific literacy. Even if Europeans are being born into atheism, it doesn't seem to have negatively affected their knowledge of the relevant facts (quite the contrary, in fact).
You can use pure reason, that's what many of the early church fathers did to try and prove God's existence, via the various famous arguments, and of course later philosophers too. Sometimes the nature of God changes to help him fit into a scheme, like Spinoza's pantheism where he argues God and nature are one and the same, and we exist in God as we exist in nature. For Spinoza God is like a force rather than a sentient being.
I should have put it better: it isn't possible to use pure reason to prove a deity without committing a host of logical fallacies and/or relying on false presumptions.
If you think you can do this, post your argument and let it be put to the test.
A lot of people seem to entertain this notion that theists don't use any sort of logic or reason to ground their faith but they do. God has to fit a framework (the Judaeo-Christian God, not the God of islam which the qur'an itself says is arbitrary and unknowable because it can do whatever it wants). The problem is that faith is required to take those extra few steps into fully fledged belief because there can't, at the moment, be any conclusive proof one way or another (although theists are getting more clever and appropriating physical principles to try and help them explain God, such as Entropy and thermodynamics).
It isn't really logic if you're building faith into your reasoning structure. The "framework" is really just one opinion on the matter. I could conceive of a god that uses a different framework entirely, and it would be just as valid as any existing religion's. All religion ultimately boils down to one consistent rule: Trust us.
If someone told us a hundred or so years ago that photons can communicate with one another despite being thousands of miles apart we would call that supernatural, but as time goes on the goal posts are moved ever further.
First of all, photons do not communicate. Humans manipulate them for the purposes of communication. It's no more accurate to say that photons communicate than it is to say that paper does.
Secondly, moving the goal posts is precisely the problem with religion. It's very easy to be "right" if you always mean something different when your prior statement is proved categorically false.
The point really is that after debunking supernatural beliefs for so long, we shouldn't really stand by any one of them without some evidence. God is no different. Without evidence, the idea is just as absurd as believing that killing a young virgin every spring will result in a bountiful harvest. Religion gets a free pass because the indoctrination occurs early, often, and with a very large bankroll.
Rend It
Aug 29, 02:14 PM
But diesel has significantly more particulate matter in it - bad for respiratory health - particularly in cities.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
That's what particulate filters are for:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diesel_Particulate_Filter
Low-sulfur diesel fuel standards are being phased in now, to make the US diesel more like that available elsewhere, like Europe, where diesels are much more common. At this point in time, diesel represents the most feasible option in terms of improving our individual utilization of fossil fuels in cars. A Jetta TDI is easily capable of 40+ mpg. Ideally, it would be a hybrid with diesel. Eventually, with the same hardware, we can move to biodiesel, and further reduce our oil dependencies.
fifthworld
Mar 18, 08:40 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
BruiserBear
Apr 15, 09:23 AM
and 8 morons hit the "negative" button. That's why videos like this are necessary. Because there are a lot of stupid people out there who don't understand the world as it is.
BoyBach
Aug 29, 03:36 PM
Greenpeace is nothing but a group of eco-terriests in my opinion.
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
Is that a logical or an emotional statement?
No comments:
Post a Comment