Uragon
Apr 21, 02:30 AM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
MacBoobsPro
Sep 20, 04:09 AM
I don't want to have to put yet another box on the shelf under my TV and have yet another remote control kicking around my living room.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
I already have a DVD, a VCR, and a Sky+ box (DVR). I know that in theory I should choose just one or two of these, but that doesn't work in practice. What happens when my mum records something on a video for me - I still need a VCR, and until Sky bring out a Sky+ box with a *much* larger hard disk then I'll need a DVD for keeping things long term.
If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.
Its probably a moot point anyway as I doubt iTV will be launched in the UK for a long while anyway.
Im hoping Apple bring out a HDTV of there own, with iTV built in. Basically a 50" iMac :D Seriously though that would be cool and I would buy it straight away. Eventually i think thats where Apple will end up.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 10:47 AM
Sense tells me that the truth value of God's existence is unknowable. However, in my opinion, it's not just unknowable but also totally irrelevant for how we should live. In other words, it is not important to know if there is a God or not. Is that closer to agnosticism or to atheism (if we separate these two notions completely)?
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
Absolutely correct. It is irrelevant because it is unknowable so let's not pretend or imagine or try to know the unknowable. Let's live our lives in peace.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
I certainly feel that most atheists are what I would call agnostic atheists. They lack belief in a god but leave the question of such a being existing either open and yet to be proved or unknowable and, therefore, pointless to contemplate. Only a so-called gnostic atheist would say they have seen sufficient evidence to convince them there is no god and I have not seen to many of them in my travels. It's more likely that they have yet to see sufficient evidence so, while they do not specifically believe in his existence, they cannot categorically deny it either. The blurry line between atheism and agnosticism is fairly crowded, I think.
UberMac
Sep 12, 04:02 PM
Anybody else a little suspicious of just "802.11"...I'm thinking it's got to be 802.11n otherwise they would specify extreme. (Which means new adapters for computers on existing technology)
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
Also the small matter of the interface (which I love)...I reckon that's the "new" FrontRow interface we'll be gettign in Leopard which is nice to look forward to!
Uber
balamw
Apr 6, 03:21 PM
Frankly I'm a little bummed, since I was quite tempted to get a Mac -- pretty soon, in fact. Now I'm really not so sure. I (personally) might be better off with Windows 7. Not sure.
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Is your name Joe? :p
What are you bummed about. Specifically.
And why is this all or nothing? Any current Mac you buy would be a decent Windows 7 box, but your Windows 7 box won't be able to run OS X.
As I said before I'm not a "switcher" as many folks around here I use both OSes. My preference for most purposes is for OS X on a Mac, yet I understand that there are things I want to do that may be better done under Windows or even in Linux (though most of that I can actually do on OS X with a bit more effort or a quick trip to MacPorts).
alust2013's idea to pick up an older Mac to play with is a good one as nothing you do is particularly demanding. My 2006 iMac is still a very decent machine for most purposes.
B
Mr. Gates
May 2, 03:59 PM
Macs are more vulnerable than people think.
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
They just have such a lower market share and percentage of users than Microsoft that its not worth it to write malware and virus's for them.
As Apple and OSX grows, this kind of thing will become more common and Apple will be more at risk
AppliedVisual
Oct 14, 03:58 PM
Wow, the Quad Xeon is the Pentium D all over again!
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
The Quad Xeon is two Dual Xeons glued together, and the Pentium D was two Pentium 4s glued together.
Its still faster than the Dual Xeons, but it isnt as good as it can be.
Yeah... Kinda disappointing. Although, my 3D rendering work will benefit just fine from them as while it's CPU intensive, it's not bandwidth hungry and the software itself isn't all that great for thread scheduling, so it's better to run multiple software instances for each CPU/core. I'm curious to see how the Clovertowns compare to the upcoming AMD quad-core chips, which have full 4-way shared data pipe and L2 cache. I think it's going to be just like the AMD X2 vs. the Pentium-D all over again. AMD will hold the quad-core performance title until Intel releases their 45nm process chips with all 4 cores being fully linked. But such is the way it's been for the last few years, AMD and Intel continue to play leap-frog. Which is great for the consumer as it drives CPU tech ahead so fast... Too bad my wallet can't keep up. :(
cambox
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
So basically what you are saying is that you are a two bit hack and a kid with just an ounce of creativity can easily replace you because any kid can afford a $300 program, whereas a $900 one keeps them artificially out of the game.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
The really ironic thing about your post is that FCP 1.0 was a cost revolution itself bringing video editing to he masses for really the first time ever, which you took advantage of. Now that Apple is doing it again and you are at risk you seemingly outraged.
Try and get your facts right before spouting off and obviously you are no pro app user. Premier was before FCP and FCP was taken from premier as the person who built FCP was the same. Premier was the first cost revolution not FCP.1 as Macs didn't sell many at that point. It stands to reason that if you dilute something in price it will then be worth less, and in business you need a premium product to keep your head above water.. Its all very well Apple releasing garage band as this is ment for kids and individuals to play around with and when or if they decide to go and pursue this for a career they can up sell them to Logic or Pro Tools etc. This is a huge step up for that route, but what I am saying is this: If everyone has the same tools then how can it be called a pro app? The new FCP is pretty much based on Imovie and for those who dont except that try and use them both together and then you will see.
Take the Red camera.. this could sell for 5k and everyone would have one, so why would you pay a daily rate of $1500 to have someone use a camera that only costs $5k? Wake up and smell the coffee but as your post indicates you dont live in the real world as companies will pay more for something they feel is better than it really is. Its simple business logic and psychology. Companies pay a premium for a professional using professional gear not an app you download from the app store.
G5isAlive
Mar 18, 09:51 AM
Sir it is perfect.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
You are paying for the same thing.
I have an unlimted plan
and I never have gone over 5gb
if one has a 2gb plan and never goes over and we both surf on the internet
Tethering whats the difference?
I have no idea why you can't understand Data=Data
Water=Water
both are pure
the logic so you understand
I drink water = use Data on the phone
I pour water over my head = Data through tethering
So its valid. Using the same amount of substance, what we pay for, to do things in different ways, what should not matter.
Amount should be the issue not how I used it.
even my 10 year old son LOL when we talked about this, he said he doesn't understand why you would pay twice for the same thing.
Obviously it escapes you.
Sir,
I recommend you go to someone other than your 10 year old son for legal advice as it is clear you have no idea what a contract is. While you may wish the amount is the issue, that is not what you agreed to. Its also clear you don't understand how AT&T comes up with their pricing models and how your selfish actions effect us all.
Again, no one forced you to enter into an agreement with AT&T. There were other phones. And now that Verizon has the iPhone you can even switch carriers.
But you did agree, and now you are operating outside that agreement and crying foul. Sorry, the foul is on you. It doesn't matter if you think they are charging too much etc, any more than you can go in to a store and buy one bottle and steal one bottle of your beloved water because you think their price is too high.
If you feel you are operating under your contract legally, then have the backbone to enter into legal action. I am sure there is a class action hungry lawyer who would love to take on AT&T for some quick bucks, if in fact you do have a case.
But we both know, you don't have a case because you are in fact operating outside the contract.
Just because you can fool a 10 year old into justifying your actions, does not mean you can fool the rest of us.
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
Rocketman
Sep 26, 01:12 PM
How many "page outs" per second does your system do? If you have enough RAM not many. Even those few writes DO go into RAM. There is likey a large RAM cache built into the disk drive. As for "page ins" they mostly come from your Applcations Folder, not the swap space. Mac OSX is smart enough to know that it does not need to write RAM pages to swap space if the RAM page contains only executable code. If you want to make the system go faster you would put your applactions in the solid state SATA so as to speed up page ins. But if space is limited a better way would be to put only the applactions you are currently using in the solid state SATA but to go even faster why not skip the bottleneck of the SATA interface and put the RAM that would have gone into the solid state SATA on your system bus. This is what modern computers do. They maintain a RAM cache of the disk(s). With the data (cache of the disk) in system RAM it need not even move. The OS simply does some "magic" with mapping registers and the data appera to move without need of any physical copy. A write to a register is more than 1000 times faster then moving data off a sold state SAYA drive.
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
The ONLY cases where a solid state SATA disk could improve performance is (1) if you have already maxed out the computer's system RAM and need to add even more. So either your Mac Pro is at 16MB or you imac is at 3GB and you need more. or (2) You have a huge abount of dta to process and you put the data in the solid state drive. This means the drive will be hugely expensive. Cheaper to use something like a SAN storage.
I snipped nothing.
The specific examples I refer to are putting applications in RAM, wherever that ram might be (ramdisc of main memory, ram based solid state drive on the drive bus, or memory drive on the graphics bus). Some applications greatly benefit from residing in RAM, such as compilers or image manipulators. Photoshop uses alot of swap space so you would need large ramdrives to benefit. I mainly am an advocate of ramdrives and see them underused in applications that would clearly benefit. Apple could gain some marketing points by simply offering such an option then bragging about it on TV of how a Mac is 20x as fast as a (stock) Dell :)
Rocketman
Sodner
Apr 20, 08:36 PM
The android market has been growing at a faster rate then the Appstore.
Yea, one can never have enough FART SOUND APPS.
Yea, one can never have enough FART SOUND APPS.
cmcconkey
Jul 12, 12:15 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
AidenShaw
Sep 26, 06:44 AM
...speculation would indicate that Apple would elect to only use the X5355 and E5345, as they are the only models that support a 1333 MHz front side bus, which is what current Mac Pros use.
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
Intel's 5000 chipset runs at both speeds, so nothing would have to change on the hardware to use the 1066 MHz bus.
Well I'm already finding quite a lot of hesitation over this chip because it will attempt to squeeze too much power through a smaller FSB and create a huge bottleneck in system performance!
If this is true, maybe it would be better to stick with the current Xeon chips until Clovertown is revised to address this issue.
You'd be better off with a faster Xeon 5160 for a single-threaded application (or up to 4 single-threaded apps). This is simply due to the clock speed issue - the fastest dual-core is one notch faster than the fastest Clovertown.
Running multi-threaded or lots of apps, though, the 8 core system will never be *slower* than the 4 core one at the same GHz. Dual 1333 MHz memory busses give a lot of bandwidth....
The memory bottleneck simply means that on memory-intensive apps the 8 core won't be twice as fast as the 4 core. Probably something like 50% to 75% faster would be expected at the lower end. (Remember that 8 MiB of L2 cache - cache-friendly apps may scream!)
takao
Mar 13, 09:36 AM
I'm strongly in favour of nuclear.
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
The Fukushima power plants have stood up remarkably well given the magnitude of earthquake that hit them - and this is with 40 year old technology.
i recommend thinking about what the results might have been if the earthquake hadn't been dozens of miles away, but in closer proximity (even at a lower magnitude)
and emergency cooling systems not working on 6 reactors and 2 meltdowns are now considered "stood up well" ? those reactors just had saftey improvements/reworks done last year
We mustn't let incidents of this type put us off implementing new reactors in the west - our future relies on abundant electrical power, and it really is the only viable route out of our reliance on fossil fuel.
uranian isn't limited: with current nuclear plants and those in construction the point of running out of easy usable uraniam for nuclear electricity is perhaps 30 years away
economical that point might be reached faster since uranium mining will become more and more expensive with oil/fuel becoming more expensive
that's why nuclear plants are actually worse than estimated in the past, in terms of energy produced in lifetime/ energy used during construction + operation. Vattenfall themselves actually found that out.
i'm no fan of the oil industry either but talking about how an other industry is 'just as bad as the oil industry', doesn't exactly help ;)
the Three Gorges Dam is perhaps on the same scale of impact compared to Assuan or the one planned in brazil but i can easily ask: what is your opinion on the Hoover dam ?
Tulse
Mar 20, 08:54 PM
it might be morally okay to use songs in your wedding video, but it's not morally okay to break the law in order to put them there when you have legal means of either doing so (which is the case--buy the CD)As I understand it, the issue of using music in your wedding video has nothing to do with breaking DRM, but instead with violating copyright. Even you get the music off of a CD, it would still be illegal.
boncellis
Jul 12, 06:16 PM
The upcomming WWDC has everything to be the coolest, most agressive WWDC ever. If Apple is up to it, we are set to see the strongest Apple line up ever. And thats saying a bit, since the current lineup is already mighty all by itself
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
I hope so, maybe we'll even see a slight MBP upgrade/speed bump. If not, I anticipate Apple referring to some new features of Leopard as well and that should get this crowd excited.
Even if it turns out to just be the Mac Pro unveiled, that should tide folks over until MWSF--assuming the Paris Expo doesn't see anything new.
Multimedia
Oct 11, 04:19 PM
Got my coupon and tested it. It doesn't stack...total price is $1349.00Thanks for the update. Still as cheap as the refurbs. I think that's cheap enough for me.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
Thanks for the coupon tip rxse7en. I got one that lasts thru Monday. Going to buy it. I know it may still get cheaper, but it's cheap enough now to go for it - esp cause I have credit with Dell.
the 30" is 4,096k pixels = $1349
the 24" x2 is 4,608k pixels = $1420
30" = 512k pixels smaller but one big canvas.
One card can drive a 30" + a 24" for a total of 7,400k pixels.
Going up from my current level of 4,224k or + 3,176k pixels.
Got my coupon and I'm good to go with my balance available on Friday to get this deal for $1460 including tax.
Thanks for the coupon tip rxse7en. I got one that lasts thru Monday. Going to buy it. I know it may still get cheaper, but it's cheap enough now to go for it - esp cause I have credit with Dell.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 05:42 PM
exactly ^^^ you either believe or you don't
deputy_doofy
Apr 21, 07:54 AM
This virus talk is full of ignorance. Mac OSX is not more secure than Windows. Windows is just targeted more, because of the marketshare.
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
If you think that Apple writes perfect code everytime then you have no idea what you're talking about.
I keep hearing this, but in just over 10 years now, I have yet to see one virus -- you know, a self-propagating piece of software (not counting trojans or user-initiated apps). For all the IT "geniuses" on this board, you obviously ALL failed statistics (because OS X should not have a virus count == 0, but it does).
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
If honour killings are cultural why do they seem sanctioned in muslim majority countries?
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
VPrime
Apr 6, 05:46 PM
My main issues when I switched was no
-cut/paste files in finder.
-No maximise window
-red x didnt quit program.
-enter/return renames instead of opens
-No directory location bar in finder (to tell you the folder structure/where you are)
-Plus a few more that were already mentioned
But after a few weeks all the problems went away. These "issues" are not really issues, it is just a different OS and you are still in the windows mindset. Once you accept things are different you learn and adapt.
Cut and paste in finder, sure it would be handy sometimes.. But the UI of OSX is built around an alternative. you can click and drag any file, hold t over a location and the folders spring open. Its not a perfect replacement (sometimes quite slower) but it gets the job done.
Or you just get accustomed to having more windows open and drag between them (usually the case especially because expose is awesome)..
This being said, I still want cut/paste in finder.. But the alternative is quite usable.
-Maximize.. Really this is just a different OS. You cant expect it to behave the same way. OSX is a great multi tasking OS. Having multiple windows open is much easier to manage (especially because of tools like expose). The "maximise" is really a fit window to contents button. It will increase the window size to make sure everything fits. So a web page will get as big as it needs to fit with out scrolling... The only problem I have with this is that it isn't consistent with every app.. Some programs don't enlarge the window to fit the contents. It is up to the developer.
But after using it for a few weeks you get used to it, and actually like it comapred to taking up the full screen (usually...).
-return/enter renaming.. This is just a different OS. you have to re learn some hot keys. It's the way of life. Instead of enter, you press command+o.
-No Directory path... Well there is. inside of finder you can turn on 2 options. One to show the folder structure at the bottom of the finder window (like a status bar) and navigate up/down a folder tree. open up finder, go to View> select show PAth bar.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
Really, there are changes. Some annoying, but that comes with the territory . You are using a different OS after all. Most of the annoyances or frustrations are early on and mainly because you are not familiar with the OS. But after survive them, you really do tend to work faster and more efficient in OS X.
I have been a windows user since 3.1, grew up with windows. Windows was work.
But A few years ago I took the dive and switched to OSX.. I love every second of it and don't think I will ever go back to using windows full time..
My brother who was even a big gamer and used windows exclusively.. even said he would never use another OS full time other than windows (used linux ont he side..) has switched to OSX. Bought a macbook for school (due to large battery and build quality). Now he plans to buy an iMac to replace his desktop because he likes OSX so much (which he didn't at first).
-cut/paste files in finder.
-No maximise window
-red x didnt quit program.
-enter/return renames instead of opens
-No directory location bar in finder (to tell you the folder structure/where you are)
-Plus a few more that were already mentioned
But after a few weeks all the problems went away. These "issues" are not really issues, it is just a different OS and you are still in the windows mindset. Once you accept things are different you learn and adapt.
Cut and paste in finder, sure it would be handy sometimes.. But the UI of OSX is built around an alternative. you can click and drag any file, hold t over a location and the folders spring open. Its not a perfect replacement (sometimes quite slower) but it gets the job done.
Or you just get accustomed to having more windows open and drag between them (usually the case especially because expose is awesome)..
This being said, I still want cut/paste in finder.. But the alternative is quite usable.
-Maximize.. Really this is just a different OS. You cant expect it to behave the same way. OSX is a great multi tasking OS. Having multiple windows open is much easier to manage (especially because of tools like expose). The "maximise" is really a fit window to contents button. It will increase the window size to make sure everything fits. So a web page will get as big as it needs to fit with out scrolling... The only problem I have with this is that it isn't consistent with every app.. Some programs don't enlarge the window to fit the contents. It is up to the developer.
But after using it for a few weeks you get used to it, and actually like it comapred to taking up the full screen (usually...).
-return/enter renaming.. This is just a different OS. you have to re learn some hot keys. It's the way of life. Instead of enter, you press command+o.
-No Directory path... Well there is. inside of finder you can turn on 2 options. One to show the folder structure at the bottom of the finder window (like a status bar) and navigate up/down a folder tree. open up finder, go to View> select show PAth bar.
2. customize the finder tool bar and add a path icon. This adds a trop down button which shows the path and lets you jump back.
3. Terminal command which shows the directory path right at the top of a finder window. This replaces the current directory name with the path.
Really, there are changes. Some annoying, but that comes with the territory . You are using a different OS after all. Most of the annoyances or frustrations are early on and mainly because you are not familiar with the OS. But after survive them, you really do tend to work faster and more efficient in OS X.
I have been a windows user since 3.1, grew up with windows. Windows was work.
But A few years ago I took the dive and switched to OSX.. I love every second of it and don't think I will ever go back to using windows full time..
My brother who was even a big gamer and used windows exclusively.. even said he would never use another OS full time other than windows (used linux ont he side..) has switched to OSX. Bought a macbook for school (due to large battery and build quality). Now he plans to buy an iMac to replace his desktop because he likes OSX so much (which he didn't at first).
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 11:23 PM
A bad workman always blames his tools. ;)
Cheers!!
Cheers!!
citizenzen
Apr 23, 09:29 PM
http://carm.org/entropy-and-causality-used-proof-gods-existence
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Of course this is a Christian Apologetics site so necessarily biased.
Biased, yes. And it reveals the key difference between theists and atheists.
Even if we accept all the steps which lead us to point #6, we are left with (and I paraphrase) ...
Our universe was caused by something very powerful, that isn't itself our universe.
While we could argue that point at length, let's for the moment take it at face value. The problem is the next step derived from from that point. There they make a major leap of faith ...
6. The Bible teaches that God is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. God's existence (in Christianity) is not an event, but a state.
B. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning.
C. This means that God is uncaused.
7. Therefore, the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
Just because the Bible says something, doesn't mean it is the truth. Psalm 90:2 says that God is God without a beginning? Is that supposed to be what amounts to evidence? And based on this very flimsy evidence, "therefore" the God of the Bible is the uncaused cause of the universe.
That logic is simply laughable.
It begs the question, did any other religion describe their God[s] as powerful, everlasting, creators of the universe? Why aren't their God[s] likewise the "the uncaused cause of the universe?" Since apparently all it takes is attributing those qualities to a God to make them so.
For example, I have my own God. His name is Darren. Darren is the creator of the universe. He is incredibly powerful. Darren is eternal.
Now to prove Darren is the "uncaused cause of the universe" just refer to the argument that edifyingGerbil linked to, but when you get to #6, substitute this ...
6. Citizenzen teaches that Darren is uncaused, is not part of the universe, created the universe, and is incredibly powerful.
A. Darren's existence (according to Citizenzen) is not an event, but a state.
B. Citizenzen says that Darren is God without a beginning.
C. This means that Darren is uncaused.
7. Therefore, Darren is the uncaused cause of the universe.
No comments:
Post a Comment