joemama
Sep 20, 06:04 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
Well said. This product will NOT sell (after the initial "craze") if there is no DVR functionality. People (general mass of people not macrumors folk) are not ready to pay for individual TV shows. People love DVRs because they can record, watch later and skip commercials.
In the future when Apple has such a stronghold on the cable industry that companies are forced to move to a pay-per-channel (a-la-carte) system, then sure, but not right now.
DVR is where it is at for the moment. Apple is going to miss the boat. Apple having an iTV does not make me want to buy TV shows. It simply makes me not want to buy an iTV.
Howdr
Mar 18, 11:39 AM
Why do they have to charge for tethering? It's a self-fulfilling prophecy. If I tether a lot, I will use more than 2 gigs in a month. Charge me extra at that point. At least they now give you 2 Gig extra for your tethering money. I would just prefer to not pay for that extra 2 gig until I need it. I only need to tether once a month at best, so I don't want to pay for a bunch of tethering. I also don't want to leave my unlimited plan. Sadly, I have never gone over 2 GB, but I like knowing that I don't have to worry about it.
Because it get's you off the unlimited GF plan then.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t
You all yell contract contract, At&t yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
Because it get's you off the unlimited GF plan then.
If you go Data pro you must decline the unlimited GF ( the way i understand it)
You see there is a reason for this two fold
At&t hates unlimited Iphone users, they do
if you have the 2gb plan and you go over you get 1gb more = 25 plus $10 = 35 and then go over to 3.1gb = 25 + 10 +10 = $45
5gb would be $55. so they loose $25 a month from every unlimited who tethers up to 5gb
20gb? would cost $205 a month right?
The person who used 90gb a month? $25 plus $880 or $1005 in usage ( profit loss) to At&t
You all yell contract contract, At&t yells profits profits profits.
even if you pay for tethering and use 3.9gb a month
its 45 vs 30 a month, do 15 x 50,000 theoretically thats a loss of 750,000 a month profit for At&t or 9,000,000 USD a year, I think capturing this would make my boss happy wouldn't it?
btrav13
Jun 12, 10:02 AM
However, you are unfortunately stuck in the position that if you buy the device, you are buying ATT service. As long as this continues to happen, then Apple really doesn't have any incentive to move it to other carriers. I mean, technically they do, but if there are service complaints, yet the very same people who complain still continue to purchase the new one ever year, then that's not sending a very strong message, in my opinion.
rovex
Mar 12, 07:58 AM
Ugh, just as soon as I had posted...
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
I haven't "been praising" their construction, I "praised" their construction in one post, if you can even call it that. The Japanese know what they are doing by and large in many of the things they do; that's why Japan has had 30% of its power delivered via well-developed, and well-understood nuclear sources for years, while the west is still outright paranoid of so much as a mention of the word nuclear.
The only thing I did was compare it to Chernobyl, or rather defend against it, as it certainly is not Chernobyl, and was built to higher standards than anything in the USSR during that time, that meaning Chernobyl.
You think they built the plant 40 years ago and have done literally nothing in terms of maintenance and/or upgrades since that time? You don't think regulatory statutes and codes have changed during the time, and they've had to comply with those and be subject to normal regulatory inspections that meet todays 2011 safety and energy protocols?
Just because the plant was built 40 years ago, doesn't mean it is the same plant as what was built 40 years ago. Trust me, I was and am full aware that the plant is older than Chernobyl. But the difference is that Chernobyl ate it during a time of 1980's USSR safety standards, when the international nuclear community wasn't nearly as effective as it is today. Today's plant may be 10 years older than Chernobyl, but it's 30 years further up to date. Nuclear plants in the first world don't exactly get the "build it and forget it" treatment.
I don't want to argue about this, because it's pointless since we are all hoping for the best and fearing the worst. But I do know a thing or two, and it gets tiring correcting false information proliferating throughout thanks to a bunch of people in the media who have no technical training and haven't a clue about anything. The Japan forums are ablaze with misinformation.
Nuclear power is generally pretty safe, and it's a shame the west hasn't been able to embrace it, IMO. That isn't to say tragic accidents can't happen, as they can, but by and large they are extremely, extremely rare.
Not entirely sure with "the west hasn't been able to embrace nuclear power." France are the global leaders in nuclear power in terms of how many nuclear plants there are in France, and how much electricity is being generated in the country through nuclear energy. powering something like 80% of the country's electricity. And The French EDF corporation has operations worldwide.
More importantly, there have never been any severe deathly occurrences with nuclear power plants in france since a long time, and with the large number of plants they have (59), that's impressive.
Nuclear energy is substantially better for the environment, countries like china however continue to use coal as they main source of energy because they have tons of it and it's cheaper than making the foray into building nuclear plants. Which inevitably results in poor air quality all over the country.
austin610
Feb 22, 09:44 PM
Surpass? I don't think so. Catching up.... maybe!:D
Chwisch87
Jun 7, 09:42 PM
what is the number one thing people actually use ... its the phone.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
atnt here in ATL has gotten noticeably worse over the past month. It was already bad. This puts serious damper on my staying with atnt and switching over to verizon with android.
63dot
Apr 23, 04:03 PM
I believe in God or a higher power as some would call it.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
However, I do understand atheists and people who ask, "Is there a God if this or that terrible event happens?" (war, gang violence, greedy corporations, etc.)
People know where I stand when I quote them John 3:16 from the Bible and once anybody reads the Bible in its context in the New Testament, they will realize that God is not a referee and we have our free will. Part of free will is having the human race run things and so far, things have been pretty bad.
The hope is, some say (including me), is that the human race may come to the conclusion that man is the most evil species (and destructive species) ever to live on this planet. We as a species don't deserve to be on top of the food chain.
Let's just say for a second there is no God. Then what a sad planet we live on if the future is up to us humans. my two cents
That being said, there is a lot of good people on earth, perhaps a majority of people. But the evil people, especially the ones with power/money/weapons, are more than enough to destroy this planet and frankly, I am surprised we are still here. I could say it's because God intervened but since the departure of Christ, and before the second coming, the human race is all alone on this planet and in the way of any maladies we create for ourselves. Who knows if God is letting us alone to learn a lesson, or learn to treat each other better, but the process has been painful of man trying to govern themselves and simply get along with each other and the environment they live in.
eah2119
Apr 28, 04:52 PM
The iPad now is definitely just a mobile device. It can't do a lot of things a laptop computer can. Apple's going to have to make some changes to the iPad to give it the title "tablet PC" along with the other "tablet PCs" that think they are "tablet PCs." They will have to make it a little less like iOS and more like Mac OS X. It's just too limited. It's not a computer. It's just a larger iPod Touch.
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 08:16 AM
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
On what basis? Solely because it confirms your prejudice? Being gay has nothing in the slightest to do with gender identity, nor does Joseph Nicolosi's work have any standing of substance in the medical and psychiatric community.
What Joseph Nicolosi does is run a racket. He's little more than a grifter, a trait often found in religious circles.
For over three decades the consensus of the mental health community has been that homosexuality is not an illness and therefore not in need of a cure. The APA’s concern about the position’ espoused by NARTH (The National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality) and so-called conversion therapy is that they are not supported by the science. There is simply no sufficiently scientifically sound evidence that sexual orientation can be changed. Our further concern is that the positions espoused by NARTH and Focus on the Family create an environment in which prejudice and discrimination can flourish.
In short, he's a fraud.
Huntn
Apr 26, 07:07 PM
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
I'm not enough of an Atheist expert to agree with you on this, but there is definitely a difference between belief in the non-existence of God and not believing in God because there is not enough evidence. As I said previously believe in God is based on a threshold. Non belief is based on anything less the threshold of belief being reached. Maybe one of our friendly Atheists will confirm or deny. :)
I'm not enough of an Atheist expert to agree with you on this, but there is definitely a difference between belief in the non-existence of God and not believing in God because there is not enough evidence. As I said previously believe in God is based on a threshold. Non belief is based on anything less the threshold of belief being reached. Maybe one of our friendly Atheists will confirm or deny. :)
emotion
Sep 20, 10:30 AM
That's pretty much my question too. The iTV is a mini without DVD, storage, OS, or advanced interface? I guess I just don't see a market for this at $300.
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
I do, it's like an ipod for video. Or more like maybe airtunes. Anyway. Read the whole thread I think some people get it.
I think I understand what Apple is getting at here. Not sure I'll buy one but they might be on to something
rdowns
Mar 24, 07:17 PM
The Catholic Church doesn't hate homosexuals
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
Hate the sin, love the sinner. ;)
pdjudd
Oct 7, 04:57 PM
Have you actually READ the link you posted?
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
Times have changed a bit since then, you know ...
Yes, I have. Several times. Things have changed, but the base premise of the article still applies - Microsoft Got Lucky - there is no way to suggest that Apple can pull that off in this day in age when the world depends too much on Microsoft. The article deals with past actions affecting the present. Its very relevant. Its point is that MS got successful because of how it parlayed successes over time, not because it embraced an "open strategy". They did that years ago. Read the whole thing. Grueber makes a point that still applies today because marketshare in the OS world has changed very little.
Due to Apple's grown popularity (if not ubiquity) it can be safely assumed that quite a few more people would install Mac OS if it were officially supported on non-Mac hardware. A highly significant number of people? Good question. To Apple's benefit? Probably not.
Popularity is irrelevant. Going up against Microsoft is suicide. Period. Their market share is too large and Apple's success is too dependent on hardware sales. Microsoft's objective is to rule the roost. They did that way back in the early 90's and they are too well entrenched to be taken out directly. They are just too big. You are simply conjecturing without any basis in reality. Apple tried the cloning market and it failed because people by in large do not want to undertake the massive pains to go to a completely different platform without somewhat of a safety platform. People want Windows because the stuff they run on depend on it. Thant and competing with Microsoft directly is a folly - going up against MS is going to be very bloody. You have better luck elephant hunting with a pea shooter.
Take a look at any other market that involves hardware and software. The article makes a good point about video games. They are totally incompatible with each other and are very closed systems. They remain successful because they can take one success and transition it to another - like the Mario franchise. MS did the same thing with computers years ago (with the objective of being really lucky thanks to boneheaded decisions by IBM). Apple did not. Of course Apple's objectives were far different back then, but Apple operates differently than MS does.
While Apple could get a few more customers, it just wouldn't last. There is no reason to think that it would or that they could sustain it. Its about making a good choice.
You cannot say that Apple's market strategy would gain them more money from copying MS business strategy, you just can't because they aren't the same. You cannot make a flawed assumption and think that Microsoft got achieved success by doing things the way the market was meant to be. They didn't. Microsoft got real lucky and rode on the coat tails of IBM business mentality and got massive market share because of that - way back in the 80's. That's just how things ended up. Doesn't mean that it works that way all the time and there is no reason to suggest that Apple is gonna want to chance it.
At this point in the game Microsoft has won - Jobs has admitted that years ago. Microsoft makes billions from the business market that by in large has no interest in making a risky and expensive change that going to Mac entails. Microsoft provides a very prediction, safe route that has massive industry support. Apple would have needed this kind of success really early on - but back in that day, they were adopting practices that were fundamentally different.
It doesn't matter that Apple's system is better - the lions share of the market made their choice years ago and that market doesn't tolerate direct competition. In Microsoft's world - they are the only game in town. And I say that the reason is that Apple is still around because they don't encroach into Microsoft's big markets. They don't license their software out to Microsoft's partners, they don't sell office software to PC's. There is a reason - Microsoft is far too big.
nebo1ss
Mar 18, 11:47 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
Every single UK carrier has a fair use policy. Check again. I agree with you on some points and prefer the UK plans but mainly because they charge different rates for those who own their phone than subsidized phones. I spend six months of the year in the UK and have a 12 month contract plan with o2 where for Sterling 15 or about $22 per month i get 600 minutes, unlimited text and 1g data plus unlimited wifi. I have an unlocked iphone that I use on Tmobile while in the US. I will be changing to "Three" as soon as contract up because they have even more attractive plans.
Every single UK carrier has a fair use policy. Check again. I agree with you on some points and prefer the UK plans but mainly because they charge different rates for those who own their phone than subsidized phones. I spend six months of the year in the UK and have a 12 month contract plan with o2 where for Sterling 15 or about $22 per month i get 600 minutes, unlimited text and 1g data plus unlimited wifi. I have an unlocked iphone that I use on Tmobile while in the US. I will be changing to "Three" as soon as contract up because they have even more attractive plans.
Analog Kid
Sep 26, 12:21 AM
Until they get the 45nm process up and going, I think this is going to be the top of the line. 4 cores topping out around the mid 2GHz range.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
I wonder if this is Intel's long term strategy-- keep the cores relatively untouched, but double the number with each process step. That'll be entertaining for a generation or so, but they're going to have to come up with something else.
My bet? Specialized cores. You've got some that are optimized for floating point, some for application logic, some for media. This is where Cell gets it right, I think-- they're a step too far ahead for now though.
Biggest problem is getting the system to know what threads to feed to what core, and to get application writers to specialize their threads.
dragonsbane
Mar 20, 05:54 AM
You live in a country, I presume? That means you're bound to the laws of your government, whether you find them morally sound or not.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
It's great that you have morals and that they drive you to an understanding of what is acceptable, but your morality does not place you above the law.
Did you read what I wrote? I said nothing about being above the law. I do not have enough money (yet) to be above the law ;)
Law is a common morality imposed to preserve order and protect rights. It's not perfect all the time, but neither is human reasoning (including morality). People cannot make decisions based on their personal beliefs and just what they can do, as this causes the strong to dominate the weak. Basic social theory. Law and governance serve to protect rights and to act as a guardian against actions that harm others. Acting based on the Will to Power will divide the strong from the weak, causing even greater "division" among people.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak - or haven't you read the papers recently? Persoanlly, I think your whole idea of law is faulty but then I would since I do not belive most of what you write. Good theories but they will never work in reality. What planet do you live on where borders, military, money and laws protect the weak? Sure some do sometimes, but why are we drilling in Alaska for oil again and why has our government stopped to keep Schiavo alive?
Do not confuse your personal beliefs with supremacy over the law. If you know the law, know the consequences of breaking the law, and still choose to do so, that's your decision as an individual. You might not think that it was wrong to do what you did, but correctness is not solely up to you. We do not live in a Nietzschean world, and if the government finds you in violation of laws, you must face the consequences. This software is wrong because it breaks laws and furthermore is used to gain something to which you are not entitled (which is wrong, even without the multiple laws saying so).
What is up with your fascination for "supremacy over the law"? All I said was that it is more important for people to feel and think for themselves. I wonder why that seems to bother you so. Don't like this app? Don't use it. Like it and do not find anything wrong morally with using it (and are willing to risk getting caught), then knock yourself out and do it. I tire of people standing on high preaching about moral certainty. Wonder how often you feel like you are on the wrong side of things. Sure is easy to be certain when you are right all the time.
Don't believe everything you think - Anonymous
hvfsl
Oct 8, 05:34 PM
Linux runs programs faster than windows on intel hardware so Apple has a fast OS, just not fast hardware. Mac are the fastest in things like MP3 encoding, MPEG4/DIVX encoding and photoshop. But PCs are faster in games and 3D graphics. I have top of the range Macs and PCs at home and have done the tests. But the Macs speed is all thanks to AltiVec, if not a $1000 PC would be faster in PhotoShop than a top of the range Mac.
randyharris
Sep 20, 12:52 AM
What most bothers me about the iTV is that it is a workaround to a PVR instead of embrassing it.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
I'm looking for an integtated system for music, movies and TV, not just downloading a show as needed, but with the inclusion of a full blown PVR.
I don't think this is too much to ask for.
javajedi
Oct 11, 12:50 PM
http://members.ij.net/javajedi
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
You're more than welcome to download the Java version, or the Mac OS X native one. When I said C, I really should clarify. It's actually a Cocoa version so the source is a .m objective c file, however the math function itself is from the C library. It's really cool how in objective c you can use regular C :)
For integer testing:
int x1,x2,x3;
for (x1=1; x1<=20000; x1++) {
TedIsraelson
Oct 7, 12:47 PM
Sounds amazing like the same business model that has been followed by the Mac. A device with OS competing against an OS that will run on many devices. Current Mac market share 5.12% current Windows 92.77% (based on numbers from Market Share) . Does anyone else see this connection?
Oletros
Apr 20, 05:26 PM
It will be interesting 10 years from now to compare the number of viruses that will have occurred on android vs. iOS.
Zero on both platforms? If they exists in 2.021
Zero on both platforms? If they exists in 2.021
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
It's no surprise that Apple will never make much headway as they stubbornly refuse to make a range of computers to suit a range of customers.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 01:26 PM
Personally, I very VERY much hope Apple do allow the iPad to grow into a fully independent device and break it's lock down link to iTunes.
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
Unfortunately, seeing as the iTunes link is Apple's money making link, I cannot see them allowing this to happen for a long time, meaning it will never grow to it's full potential as a fully independent device.
Well, in the future I'm talking about involving cloud computing, the link will be there but it will be over the air. But it seems you are talking about not having any link to iTunes. But then what do you want to link it to? The Android app market? Cydia? I mean, you need to have some place to link it to in order to hook into the world of apps (plus backups, etc.) Even our PCs are not standalone by that definition, basically needing a Net connection to get much done.
So what is an independent device to you? Independent of what?
ct2k7
Apr 24, 10:13 PM
no, i haven't been "infringed" by something lol.
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
i said the ahmadiyyah, a religious minority, are persecuted in indonesia. you said they're not muslims, as if that justifies their persecution.
do you understand now?
Erm, nope - not abuse - infringed by religion.
You didn't mention Indonesia.
Nothing justifies persecution, nor does belief in a religion :)
Right, I'm off to catch a flight home.
Cya laters!
