Squonk
Aug 29, 11:18 AM
I wonder if they mentioned the fact that Dell has made the computer a disposable purchase with their $299 PCs. I'm serious people buy a new Dell every few years because they are garbage. Do you honestly think people give them back for recycling. They sell them on ebay or craigslist, and the new owner after about a year puts them in the dumpster. With Apple people keep their machines much longer, and are much more likely to recycle them because they are smaller and easier to take to a recycling center (no CRT). This alone makes Apple greener then Dell.
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
I was thinking along the same lines. Over the course of 4 PC's in my household, I have only had 2 macs and these have always been my primary machines. I don't want to part with my 5 year old iMac, it still serves me well for basic surfing and audio streaming needs.
But, the point of the article is that the machines that Apple makes are not as eco friendly as the other manufacturers. Of course, if you looked at the units shipped, wouldn't Dell be less friendly. Aka, they are "making it up" on volume?
If this article is true, then Apple needs to improve what they are doing. It's that simple. The truth hurts when it hits so close to our hearts...
Steve121178
Apr 28, 08:03 AM
Horrible headline.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
You do not "slip" upwards.
The headline is as false as the story. The iPad is not a PC.
p0intblank
Sep 20, 08:01 AM
So it does include a hard drive? Very nice! I was already planning on purchasing an "iTV", but this just makes it sound that much cooler. :D
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Exactly. There are more people. So if people today create 1/2 the pollution they did 20yrs ago but now there are twice as many people there is no change.
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
We are doomed! :D
You understand my point :D
Doctor Q
Mar 18, 04:10 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?
Cromulent
Mar 25, 03:25 PM
You have to prove the rights existed in the first place otherwise I could argue the government is denying my right to drive a tank
You can drive a tank, at least as long as it has passed an MOT (at least in England you can).
Edit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-409518/Man-shells-14k-army-tank-supermarket-run.html
You can drive a tank, at least as long as it has passed an MOT (at least in England you can).
Edit:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-409518/Man-shells-14k-army-tank-supermarket-run.html
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
AppliedVisual
Oct 26, 10:34 AM
Considering that Windows supports up to 64 CPU cores, and that 64 core Windows machines are available - it would be nice if you could show some proof that OSX on a 64 CPU machine scales better than Windows or Linux....
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
Are you being overly pedantic or do you just want to argue? I said WinXP. -- "probably as good or better than WinXP". WinXP only supports two CPUs with a max of 4 cores each right now as per the EULA. The Windows kernel itself actually handles CPU division and scales dynamically based on addressable CPUs within a system all the way up to 256 CPUs or cores, with support for up to 4 logical or virtual CPUs each. And just think where those 64-CPU Windows systems are going to be in the near future as they're updraded with quad-core CPUs from AMD/Intel...
BTW: You have to buy Windows Server Datacenter Edition to get to all those CPUs.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:48 AM
Miiiight want to check that out again. Laptops have been outselling desktops since 2008.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Actually, phones outsell PCs now.
But the point of Eras is that each one is bigger than the one that came before it because it expands the market for users:
Mainframes had a limited market.
Minicomputers had a larger market, while mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
PCs had a larger market yet, while minicomputers and mainframes continued to be around for those who need them.
Tablets will have an even larger market yet, while PCs, minicomputers and mainframes continue to be around for those who need them.
I meant "installed base" more than shipments.
Analog Kid
Oct 26, 01:35 AM
Just convince Apple to buy SGI.
Not a half bad idea really...
Not a half bad idea really...
fivepoint
Mar 16, 01:03 PM
I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
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?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
This is interesing...
To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.
Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?
Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?
I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.
Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.
I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.
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?
What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.
I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:
Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.
1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?
jav6454
Mar 18, 01:39 AM
Somehow this doesn't surprise me at all. However, this is one more reason to stick at 4.1.0.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
So far, the only real reason for 4.3.0 is Personal Hotspot, but since that is being monitored, then, I'll be happy to stick in 4.1.0 and give the finger to AT&T.
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 12:33 PM
This takes responsibility away from what God would want, to what we think is right. I believe this to be a more realistic approach.
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
Comma added, because my brain was starting to hurt. ;)
And I agree, but then 'power' is lost, and that just won't do, now will it? :rolleyes:
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:56 PM
Pray to Ba'al lately?
Yeah, I didn't get any good drops though...
http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Baal
Yeah, I didn't get any good drops though...
http://diablo2.diablowiki.net/Baal
RichP
Oct 24, 10:30 PM
Damn multimedia, you are making me want that Dell! I just went to the Apple store to check out the 30" (pulled a stool up to the machine from the genius bar and tried to see if I could handle all that real estate). I am usually a sucker for Apple stuff and having matching componentry...but that dell is so CHEAP!
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
AV/multimedia, how far do you sit from your screen?
Al Coholic
Apr 28, 10:31 PM
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
sth
Apr 13, 04:20 AM
Some pro-style questions that have been left unanswered
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Some of those questions actually were answered (for example that full keyboard control has been retained) and others are more or less no-brainers (like the stabilization question - you can enable/disable and even fine-tune that even in the dumbed-down iMovie, so why shouldn't you be able to do that in Final Cut).
Apple OC
Apr 24, 06:15 PM
just what we need in the world ... a McPeace treaty:cool:
Big-TDI-Guy
Mar 14, 04:59 AM
So if the NYT is telling the truth - this now officially a concern in my eyes.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
A US warship - 100 miles off the coast - passed through a cloud from the reactor - exposing it to one-months worth of activity. (not the helicopter pilots - the warship itself).
So, 100 miles away, and in one day, accumulated 30 days worth of radioactivity.
The low-level radioactive steam earlier mentioned was only truly dangerous for 5-15 seconds.
Somehow this does not add up. Especially if a warship is measuring 30 times higher levels from 100 miles away. The US warship has decided to move away from this flow. So, I would hardly blame anyone in Japan for wanting to to the same themselves.
Rodimus Prime
Mar 15, 11:47 PM
I thought the same thing ... I wish I knew what was going to happen between now and the Concrete Fix.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
my guess keep cooling it with water. the reactors are shot and will have to be replaced as the sea water destroyed them.
I think they are trying to keep them cool and cool them off enough to be able to take the reactors out and replace them. This would allow the planet to keep on be used. Pumping concrete in them forces the reactor buildings to be worthless and stuck their were forever as they can not move the waste to a better location.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 12:03 PM
http://modmyi.com/forums/iphone-news/755094-t-cracking-down-mywi-tethering.html
UPDATE: Based on user comments that some users are getting the message that don't tether at all, it looks like AT&T is targeting users who have high data usage. As it turns out, MyWi shows up as 0 tether bytes.
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
UPDATE: Based on user comments that some users are getting the message that don't tether at all, it looks like AT&T is targeting users who have high data usage. As it turns out, MyWi shows up as 0 tether bytes.
They're bluffing and hoping to get those high data users off of their unlimited data plans by having them forget to call in and opt out. So just stay on your toes.
SPUY767
Sep 26, 09:48 AM
Also solid state drives are needed to properly service the I/O needs. Why NOT put a solid state SATA drive in one slot on a MacPro so you can use it for a swap space? Or a PCI slot based device?
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.
Remember, price is no object! I used to run my Mac+ in ramdrive mode and it was faster that way than my friend's IIfx for apps that would fit in the limited space. External SCSI drive for strorage in that mode.
I must be old :)
Rocketman
There'a a nifty device that I use, I forget who makes it, but it's a PCIe Card that holds up to 8GB of DDR2 Ram that is recognized as a Drive, I use it for VM, Paging, and a swapfile. Makes applications start up super fast.
Phayz
Apr 5, 05:39 PM
If you use keyboard shortcuts a lot - e.g. window switching, copy& paste, start+anything, you may find it different when first using it.
rtdunham
Sep 22, 01:56 PM
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
i think you misunderstood the recent reports: the consensus interpretation is that iTV does require a computer, and that the hard drive is just for buffering.
