ezekielrage_99
Aug 30, 07:29 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
I wonder if Dell rated highly because of that battery thing :confused:
bedifferent
May 2, 04:51 PM
unbiased as opposed to a Mac site.... yeah right!
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Sure it can, but it's the percentage and the variables of these "bad" incidents that are key as you are generalizing without specifics.
How about unbiased studies, and percentages of viruses and malware between the two? Those would be facts (again, from an impartial party/experiment).
Also, you're on a Mac based website, so of course there are OS X defenders. Go to Engadget, et al if you don't wish to be here, you're free to decide :)
SuperCachetes
Mar 26, 08:05 PM
I didn't say in the street
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
Examine the benefits of heterosexual marriage, examine why they are given and then compare with homosexual couples
Marriages don't need to be about love, they need to be a permanent commitment.
Fine, you said "in public," but it's irrelevant given the explanation that was, as I said, already furnished. It's not an arbitrary rule based on any morality.
I can examine the benefits of a heterosexual marriage from within one. They have nothing to do with the sex life of my wife and I.
And I don't really know how you got off on the tangent of love and commitment. In either case, these are things that gays are just as capable of as any straight couple.
Nothing other than they are both expected to practice abstinence according to one of our Catholic posters here. I thought that point was pretty clear in my post.
It wasn't clear in the least. Your post:
I'm not condoning the belief but priests are expected to do it, so why not gay people?
...seems to be asking the absurd question, so I guess I'm asking not "why are condoning the belief or not condoning it," but rather "what possible sense could it make from a practical perspective." Being gay and being a priest have absolutely nothing in common.
�algiris
May 2, 09:14 AM
so much for the no malware on macs myth :D
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
It's an app, pal.
funny how the apple fanboys are getting all defensive :rolleyes:
It's an app, pal.
Backtothemac
Oct 10, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by benixau
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
maybe, anyway I tell my buddies that a mac works. It is great to have all that speed but here is a thought:
I have a PC that is really 5x as fast as a mac
I spend 5x as long setting it up as i do the mac
I am also 5x less productive on it then a mac as it keeps breaking
I may not be a great mathematician but 5x5 = 25. 25x less usable than a mac. Personal experience proves this.
Long Live King Mac!! Long Live King Mac!!
For the dark side to wonder at how easy I get my life done
There someone in this thread actually gets it. Sure the PC may be faster, SO FRIGGIN WHAT! I will never go back to a PC, and do not know a single Mac user that really would. Sure we bitch and moan, but the fact is that we know that we are on a much better platform!
ReyesJonathan
Feb 28, 09:21 PM
Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight, a cupcake is going to take down iPhone?
:D:D:D:D
:D:D:D:D
munkery
May 2, 05:07 PM
on the desktop/laptop side which browsers will use webkit2?
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
Chrome and Safari?
in which case its virtually pojntless (for the community) as the 2 biggest browsers won't have it...or will they have something similar??
Chrome already uses a Sandbox similar to Webkit2 but it is built on top of webkit rather than implemented within webkit. Supposedly, Webkit2's split in the process will be better placed than that of Chrome.
Safari will use Webkit2 as it is based off of Webkit. Safari based on Webkit2 will be released soon, with the release of OS X Lion.
ddtlm
Oct 7, 03:15 PM
MrMacman:
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Perhaps you missed it the first few times around, but Athlons are available at speeds of 2400+ (2.0ghz) and there are even a few 2600+ (2.13ghz) models out there. Why does it matter if they overclocked an old Athlon to 1.6ghz? Tell you what, to make it fair why don't we add in my overclocked dual 800?
Mord
Jul 13, 10:24 AM
no, i looked up real numbers and took off ~40% which is the amount apple would get off from retail prices.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
+ if the low end mac pro has a single cpu if we are lucky it may have an empty socket ready for an upgrade.
Stelph
Apr 21, 05:37 AM
I love the title simply because it reads like its discussing Steve Jobs' involvement in fragmenting Android :D
Chaszmyr
Jul 14, 02:08 PM
This is good news for me.. it will make it easy to resist buying one this year. No 3ghz xeon, no bluray, no new case design.
gb3651
Mar 19, 07:46 PM
You can't download full albums for 9.99...you have to pay .99 for each song. I'm sticking with Jhymn
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 03:22 AM
Then you don't accept us as we are. All of us are what we do. That's the measure of any human being. We can all say all kinds of things, but in the end, what we do is what matters.
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
Then I don't know what you mean by "accept."
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 21, 09:07 AM
You apparently didn't read the article you quoted.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
That version of Skype (since fixed) did not itself send any private data, which by the way, it has your permission to access.
It had a bug in the file permissions it used for caching contact etc info, which meant that it was possible for someone to write an app to look at it, since Skype didn't encrypt their cache files. There's no evidence anyone did so, though.
Kind of like how iOS apparently has a bug where our location history is available to anyone who writes an app to look at it.
Skype did a good job of quickly fixing the bug, but that is hardly the case in EVERY app out there. It was one example a potential flaw, of which there have been many on Android devices.
AppliedVisual
Oct 6, 11:50 PM
And what would be your choice of graphic cards, considering that money doesn't grow on trees and price would be a factor?:)
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
At this moment, an nVidia 7950GX2oc would be just dandy. Or the ATI X1950XTI. I'd also take the current FX4500 if they would get with the program and knock $500 off the price tag. I can buy the PNY FX4500 for a PC right now in oem whitebox packaging for $1349. Apple wants $1650 as an upgrade price. Ouch... And while it has extra features like stencil buffers and multiple overlay planes, it's stuff that isn't really used except by very specialized visualization software. Even my 3D apps - Lightwave, Maya, Modo don't use those features. So, not worth the money since it barely outperforms the X1900XT option for most everything else.
Ultimately, I'd like to see some support for multiple cards working in parallel like SLI. Dual 7950GX2s would be great and I'd buy in an instant. ...Dell has that very config as an option and it's cheaper than what Apple wants for that FX4500, c'mon Apple, let's go!
Huntn
Mar 15, 07:27 PM
Not really. When all power is lost, the plant is still able to cool itself through other means
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
I'd say some Japanese reactors are proving this statement false. Backup generators designed to ensure cooling of the reactors either failed or were knocked out by something- earthquake or water. Could it be that the infrastructure to deliver the cooling was damaged? If not damaged, would the un-powered system continue to provide adequate cooling? I'm not asking you for an answer, just thinking out loud. My impression is that the initial shutdown functioned properly, but shutdown is not something that happens in a matter of minutes, but in a matter of days and without cooling water, things turn to **** quickly.
Chernobyl utilized a design that did not utilize many of the safety systems in place as today's plants, such as having multiple layers of containment for one...
Yes, but the comparison to Chernobyl is based on severity of the event and the release of radioactive material into the atmosphere, not the design.
alfonsog
Mar 18, 10:11 AM
I believe nobody is abusing the system; instead, it's the system -unlimited, 2GB, 4Gb, whatever- that is unable to cope with the different needs. As AT&T can monitor the usage of the databand, just give us a plan where we pay based in usage, for example $5 for each block of 1GB, and be done with it!
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
That seems like the best and most fair system for users and the company. Pay for what you use. Of course the company makes a lot more profit by overselling plans and hoping people underuse the minutes and/or data.
As for the unlimited plan I'm sure they can phase out the grandfathering, they can choose not to renew your 2-year contract and force you to sign a new one. They just don't want to risk losing a customer for now, but then again where else can you go; Verizon said they will be dropping the unlimited soon as well.
The contracts are technically legal but at the same time probably the whole exclusivity is against some kind of monopoly law that is rarely enforced. Verizon hasn't affected pricing, so there is really no competition if you want an iPhone. Maybe if it was offered with every carrier. If we had some government regulation and oversight and a national based cell phone tower infrastructure we wouldn't be so far behind other advanced countries and be able to offer the iPhone on all carriers. Also I'd rather pay unsubsidized price and do what I want with it.
840quadra
Apr 28, 08:09 AM
I disagree. The only reason people stopped buying the iPod was because it was more convenient to have a phone and iPod in a single device. Once people started buying iOS and Android devices, they no longer *needed* an iPod.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
So the iPod didn't die down because it was a fad... it died down because technology has replaced it. The need for a PMP such as the iPod is still very much alive, just in a different form.
Right, but how is that not a fad? By definition, it doesn't matter how said fad ends, it simply means that it's overall existence is temporary.
I agree that it it was replaced by newer technology that does more, but it still was a fad in the end.
tempusfugit
Dec 3, 11:06 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
Ok we'll add you to the list of people who, despite not having AT&T, are displeased with it.
Liquorpuki
Mar 13, 09:56 PM
They were talking talking about a 100 square mile solar plant. Take this PopSci link (http://www.popsci.com/environment/article/2009-06/solar-power) for example. A 20 acre site produces 5 Megawatts. One square mile (640 acres) would provide 160 Megawatts. Ten square miles would provide 16000 Megawatts (16 Gigawatts). The link says the country will need 20 Gigawats by 2050. The worst possible accident in this case does not result in thousands of square miles being permanently (as far as this generation is concerned) contaminated.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
In contrast Japan Disaster May Set Back Nuclear Power Industry (http://www.usatoday.com/news/world/2011-03-14-quakenuclear14_ST_N.htm). As far as I know, solar farms don't "melt down" at least not in a way that might effect the entire population of a U.S. state. I understand the nuclear reactors are built to hold in the radiation when things go wrong, but what if they don't and what a mess afterwards.
You need to separate capacity from demand. Capacity is just the maximum power a station can theoretically produce. In practice, most of these renewable stations never reach that max. I've checked the stats at my utility's wind farm and that thing is usually around 9% of capacity. Considering a wind farm costs 4 times as much money as a natural gas generator to build for the same capacity, efficiency-wise, the station is a joke.
What's more important is demand - being able to produce enough energy when we need it. This is where solar and wind fall short. They don't generate when we want them to, they only generate when mother nature wants them to. It would be fine if grid energy storage (IE batteries) technology was developed enough to be able to store enough energy to power a service area through an entire winter (in the case of solar). But last I checked, current grid energy storage batteries can only store a charge for 8-12 hours before they start losing charge on their own. They're also the size of buildings, fail after 10 years, and cost a ton of money.
This is why a lot of utilities have gone to nuclear to replace coal and why here in the US, we still rely on coal to provide roughly 50% of our electricity and most of our base load. There are few options.
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.
Lau
Aug 29, 11:05 AM
Apple is more green than dell. period.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
Makes me question the whole report if greenpeace thinks dell is more green then apple.
Do you have evidence of this just out of interest? I too was surprised to read this, so I'd be interested if you had evidence the other way.
Edit:
Did I read that correctly?
Sorry, I may not have been clear. I meant it as in I would much prefer to use OSX over Windows or Linux, and so would find it difficult to choose, say, a Dell because it ran Windows and I would find that unpleasant, even if Dell had a better environmental record.
wpotere
Mar 18, 01:31 PM
They will never make me switch!!!!!! I will never give them any money!!!!!
No Service...
WTF???
:p
No Service...
WTF???
:p
alexdrinan
Sep 12, 04:15 PM
I totally agree with this. This is the perfect device for Apple to start selling subscriptions to shows to replace cable. A la cart cable legislation is picking up steam and this will put iTunes in the cable business. Think about how many households have iPods, now compare that number to the HUGE number of houses that have cable. Wouldn't you rather pay for only the shows that you watch?
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.
I don't think any of these services will ever replace cable. Maybe the "premium" packages that offer ondemand and DVR etc., but never just plain old cable TV. Sometimes you want to just turn on the TV and flip around to see what's on, beyond just the local channels you can pick up with an antenna.