Santabean2000
May 2, 08:57 AM
Annoyingly this type of thing will become all too common. Damn Apple and their great products, making themselves popular and that.
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
I liked the security through obscurity world we've come from...
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 11:38 AM
At the risk of bumping this up to PRSI, let me just say that I thought 'saving face' was a thing of the past.
Multimedia
Oct 26, 01:46 PM
After much debate and anguish i finally decided to order my Mac Pro yesterday... figures this would come up now.... /sigh. I am assuming they will only add a higher end config, but honestley... do any of us know?So you didn't know they were going 8-Core next month? It's only gonna be an extra $300 over the price of the 4-Core 3GHz model for the 8-Core 2.66GHz model. If you are into video and especially compression, 8-cores will make a big productivity difference.
balamw
Apr 11, 08:42 AM
But, who knows... maybe some day.
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
So what is it that you and your family like about the iOS devices? Why did you choose them over a WinMo device? Why haven't you gone over to Windows Phone 7?
Why is it all or nothing? Mac or Windows and not Mac and Windows.
B
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
I stand by comments regarding this statement.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.
But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.
I stand by comments regarding this statement.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.
But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.
alexf
Aug 29, 12:02 PM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
Thank you for the very intelligent and enlightening comment. People like you (who don't give a rat's a$$ about environmental issues) are exactly what the world needs more of at this point in time.
ender land
Apr 23, 10:50 PM
In another forum that I left recently (because of the poor quality of discussion) someone used this same type of argument to "prove" the existence of aliens visiting the Earth.
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
And this invalidates what I said how? I'm not even trying to "prove" anything. Of course it doesn't prove something. But statistics are annoying. Maybe moreso to me because of my math/science background.
I'm sorry, but that sentence makes no sense at all.
Perhaps you should define atheism for me.
I was under the impression it was the belief no god(s) existed. Which would then lead to someone with atheistic beliefs affirming the veracity of the statement "there are no god(s)."
edit, iphone3gs16gb, yeah you really do ;)
Iscariot
Mar 25, 10:39 AM
I did not miss the fact that you tried to expand the discussion point. ;)
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
You misspeak and mischaracterize. A conservative member of this board has already narrowed the discussion from "hate" to "specific acts of violence linked diretly to the catholic church". A distinction that gives a massive amount of "stretch" and eliminates things like a Roman Catholic pastor in Texas comparing homosexuals to rapists or Mexican catholic priests fomenting hate in the wake of a same-sex marriage bill. And yet we are working within his narrowed definition.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
cluthz
Mar 19, 03:41 AM
In the perfect world, this wouldn't be neccecary.
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
I would rather buy a song without DRM than with DRM,
because you have very few rights with files with DRM.
If you buy tha same CD and encode it it won't have DRM, so why do the internet music stores need to have DRM?
Since this will create big trouble for apple I find this negative.
When then day comes that most cds are copyprotected I might buy something from iTMS, but i'll never buy a DRM file unless I have no other options!
legreve
Apr 6, 04:04 AM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
takao
Mar 13, 05:18 PM
To quote one of your articles:
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
Notice the part about it being used to test a wide variety of fuels and machinery? Also the fuel temperature instabilities? That's what caused the Cs-137 and Sr-90 contamination, as noted above. A reactor that's properly designed (with properly fabricated fuel) won't have the disadvantages of a test reactor, and shouldn't have that contamination. I'm not saying it's perfect now, but controlling those instabilities shouldn't be an issue, especially in light of salt or liquid fuel possibilities. Furthermore, what about MSR? It's not a pebble bed; it's molten. That itself should even out the fuel temperature instabilities a little, just the liquid fuel based system.
You raise a very valid point about Thorium, however I think one instance of a test reactor hardly justifies dinging the entire concept because the initial reactor wasn't designed well (see the cracked bottom of the AVR...), but rather it serves as a basis for future designs. Also, what about India planning to use thorium? They're not approaching this with guesswork-- there's clear advantages to using it over uranium. Differences in opinion I guess, but hey, to each his own.
EDIT: Also, I know my initial wording was a little fuzzy; what I meant to say was PBR with uranium, and MSR with thorium-- at least for now.
the second link actually is the "power-delivered-to-the-grid" 300 mw powerplant ... not an testing reactor
in reality creating the pebbles and preventing the pebbles from cracking was also highly difficult (and costly)... the production facility for them was afaik also involved in some radioactive leakages
i have nothing against further testing out reactor types or different fuels if it means finding safer and more efficient ways for nuclear power plants but the combination peddle reactor + thorium has been neither been safe nor economical (especially the pebble part)
also two general problems about the thorium fuel cycle:
- it actually needs to the requirement of having a full scale fuel recyling facility which so far few countries posess, of which all were in involved in major radioactive leakages and exactly none are operating economically
- Nulcear non profileration contract issues: the 'cycle' involves stuff like plutonium and uranium usable for nuclear weapons being produced or used: not exactly something the world needs more
perhaps a safer thorium reactor can be constructed but using it in actually power production is still problematic
perhaps MSR can solve the problems but that technology has yet to prove it's full scale usability especially if the high temperatures can be handled or if they have a massive impact on reliability on large scale reactors
it might take decades to develop such a large scale reactor at which point cost has to come into play wether it is useful to invest dozens of (taxpayer) billions into such a project
i'm just saying that sometimes governmental money might perhaps better be spent elsewhere
sawah
Mar 18, 08:49 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
I don't agree with some of at&t's policies such as this. BUT I signed their contract and I abide by them. If you didn't like what you were signing and weren't planning on following it, you shouldn't have signed it.
They are NOT charging you extra to use the 2 gigs of data, they are charging you extra to use the data on a different device. I'm not sure how you feel like you are entitled to use it wherever you want. They are a cell phone company. If you want home internet, call a internet company.
matticus008
Mar 19, 05:43 PM
I could really care less about breaking some DRM law or "international copyright law". I would love to see them try to enforce it.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
Just because a man can do a thing does not mean that he should do that thing. Whether or not you will get caught breaking the law is irrelevant to whether what you are doing is or is not legal. I can go to the supermarket or gas station and steal a bag of ice from outside without getting caught, but it doesn't mean what I'm doing is okay. You might say it's not a big deal--it only costs a dollar, and anyway the supermarket makes tons of money off the other things that they sell, and they probably don't deserve all that money because they underpay their employees.
Moral relativism and justification might make you feel fine about doing it, but it's still wrong and it's still illegal. If you don't care, that's your thing.
kirk26
May 2, 11:36 AM
Bigger, most Windows PC have anti-virus, can you say the same for Macs?
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
http://www.mcafee.com/us/products/virusscan-for-mac.aspx
I have it on mine just in case. ;)
Therbo
May 2, 09:41 AM
Please, enlighten us how "Unix Security" is protecting you here, more than it would on Windows ? I'd be delighted to hear your explanation.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
A lot of people trumpet "Unix Security" without even understanding what it means.
The Unix Permission system, how a virus on Windows can just access your system and non-owned files, where Unix/Linux dosen't like that.
But of course it dosen't protect agaisn't bad passwords or stupidity.
AppliedVisual
Oct 25, 01:17 AM
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
I sit about 35 to 40" from my 30" display. Seems to be about the ideal distance. I keep the height adjusted so my eyes looking straight ahead are about 1/4 of the way down from the top of the screen. My primary display is centered straight ahead and the secondary display is on my left on an angle. Works very well. Took some getting used to as I've always had my secondary monitor on the right, but with the room layout, it worked better on the left at my new place. Ah, it's late, but I'll post a picture tomorrow tomorrow night so you can get a feel for what we're talking about. These Dell 30-inchers are just plain cool.
Other than that, I second everything Multimedia said... Although, I already bought my second Dell 30" when it broke the $1400 mark. it's just too cool having 2 of these side by side. It's almost surreal having this kind of desktop real estate. Just be aware that with the G5 Macs, you need an FX4000 of FX4500 video card to use two of these. With the Mac Pro, the FX4500 again, or the ATI X1900xt will run dual 30" displays as well and is a bargain at $240 upgrade when ordering.
2ndname
Apr 10, 10:16 PM
I like to run both. I love Apple due to their simplicity. IMO it just focuses on working. You want to edit photos, get an Apple that is powerful enough to do that and it just works. You want to just surf the web, get an entry level Apple based on your preference (iPhone/iPad/Notebooks/etc.) and it just works. I'm actually waiting on the iMac refresh to set my fiance up with her first Apple desktop. I got her an iPad 2 and she loves it. For her, it's great to have a product that will work based on what she needs it for (Movie watching, surfing the web, editing photos). The fact that it looks clean and modern is a plus.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
As for myself, I work in the IT field and our shop runs Windows. I love building my own rig every year and it keeps me current with the ever evolving computer technology. I'm glad that we have options.
deconai
Aug 29, 04:04 PM
Greenpeace are terrorists. I have seen them endanger human life for the sake of an environment that does a pretty good job of taking care of itself. I laugh at their hitlists. Hahahahaha. :|
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
Capitalism thrives on being able to recycle resources, but it must be profitable in the first place to become feasible. You can't expect companies to take large hits on their bottom line to appease the Greenpeace crowd (not that they couldn't afford it, that would just go against the policy of capitalism). You can, however, expect them to do whatever is in their power to make business as efficient and clean as possible, mostly because it's cheaper in the long run. That's what Apple does. We really can't ask for anything more, unless we're willing to see them pack up and move to India.
cult hero
Apr 13, 12:08 AM
Hard to take anyone seriously as a professional who uses Adobe. Avid, sure, but the industry has moved to Final Cut Pro, at least the part of the industry I interface with.
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
You calling this Final Cut a "toy" after it was just presented to a room full of professionals who loved it seems odd. Why the need to diminish it when it is clear that if you werent' there, there's much we don't yet know?
Dude, didn't you get the memo? All the cool kids around here hate on Apple. Duh. (Why they hang around a site dedicated to Apple products is beyond me.)
ShavenYak
Mar 18, 03:30 PM
I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
From my limited knowledge of WMA from a miserable two days spent trying to help a friend's daughter with a crappy RCA player and Wal*Mart downloads, I think they may work differently. The license file is separate from the actual WMA file, so I'm betting the WMA is encrypted just once, with a long random key, and sent across the wire to any purchasers already encrypted. The key is then transmitted to the user and stored in the license file. Both the WMA and the license file are needed for playback.
I could be wrong, but it seems like it would be silly to separate the license information from the music file unless you were doing something like this. Of course, Microsoft is well-known for silly decisions....
TheRealTVGuy
Mar 18, 01:50 AM
Poor thing... he doesn't realize napster and limewire are history. Also, once the data hits my device, it's mine to do with as I please. Thank you very much.
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
>laughing_girls.jpg.tiff.
By the way, I agree with you. Once you buy something, you should be able to use said device to its maximum potential. NOT have to pay to unlock its built-in features.
And by the way AT&T, all I want from you is a large pipe full of 1s and 0s. What I choose do do with them, or how I use and distribute them should be of no concern... Just one flat rate for a big, fast, data pipe.
Until then I'm stuck because I believe in playing by the rules, no matter how F-d up they are...
appleguy123
Apr 22, 08:31 PM
proof?
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
I wouldn't want to succumb to the accusation made in the first post. :) http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1055916&highlight=
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:55 AM
Fine - use the E6400 which is $224 in bulk or the E6600 which is $316 @ 2.6Ghz. The point is I would like an iMac without the LCD and all the other bells a whistles with a Graphics slot. If they can't do that for $1200 then Apple needs to pack up shop. Dell can do it for less than $1000 (Dual core 930 @ 3Ghz) so saying I'm willing to pay $200 in Apple tax is about as far as I'm willing to go.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
930 is a netburst-CPU (P4) and those are absoluitely dirt-cheap these days, dual-core or not. Intel is basically donating them to OEM's these days. Not so with Conroe.
So Dell has a system with dirt-cheap CPU and that vaunted Dell-"designed" case for under $1000. And you are now expecting to get an Apple-system with kick-ass case and considerably more expensive CPU with just $200 extra?
That said, I would like to see a Apple minitower-system that uses the Conroe. It wont be as cheap as Dell, since whereas Dell might cut corners everywhere, Apple simply does not. Even their cheapest system (Mini for example) are very refined. Could you imagine an Apple-system that is made from cheap plastic (like this HP-system standing next to me)? I sure as hell can't.
