UnixMac
Oct 12, 05:49 PM
You guys lost me and prolly (I like that, Prolly) about 90% of this forum....
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
have fun, and lets see how many pages you can get this thread to go to? I predict, 12.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
maccompaq
Nov 11, 07:30 PM
It is looking good for Verizon to get the iPhone next year. That will take a lot of pressure off the overloaded AT&T network.
Another benefit, the Apple stock will go up a lot.
Another benefit, the Apple stock will go up a lot.
InsanelyApple
Mar 18, 09:53 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:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
alexf
Aug 29, 12:00 PM
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies. I'll gladly buy my Merom MBP and sell my Rev E 17" pbg4 as soon as Apple makes it available to me. :)
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
Oh yeah? Please kindly explain to all of us just what the "real agenda" of these "evil groups" such as Greenpeace is...
With all due respect, are you asleep?
brap
Mar 20, 07:35 PM
I'm a little late to this party, but FWIW I don't see much of a difference between this and buying a CD (apart from its tangible nature). CDs are data discs without rights management, after all. It thus similarly boils down to the consumer's conscience.
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
I can't see it having any knock-on effect with regards diversity, as has been said before labels are pretty much 'locked in' to the ITMS; there's also the inconvenience of downloading another application. It removes the ease-of-use facet, effectively ruling out a large proportion of the ITMS' customer base who simply want a quick 99c. fix of the latest song by whatserface.
Without going into the legal aspects of it, on the whole I cannot fathom any kind of moral problems with this. You're paying for the product -- and the ITMS pays labels a whole lot more than the other options, whether Russian or distributed.
From an alternate point of view, though, nobody in the 'scene' would consider a 128kbit AAC worthwhile downloading anyway..!
dejo
Oct 8, 09:34 AM
The need of first buying a Mac and then learning how to use it, the SDK and Objective-C will stop too many great developers from giving it a try.
Great developers are not inhibited by things like that. In fact, they often consider it a challenge. It's lazy developers that don't welcome the opportunity to embrace different technology and just too-quickly dismiss it.
Great developers are not inhibited by things like that. In fact, they often consider it a challenge. It's lazy developers that don't welcome the opportunity to embrace different technology and just too-quickly dismiss it.
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
Kelly Clarkson
Eve, Kelly Kelly and Gail Kim
Kelly Kelly Hot Wallpaper
WWE-Diva-Kelly-Kelly-Wallpaper
Kelly Hu iPhone Wallpaper
Grace Kelly wallpaper
(Kelly Kelly wallpaper)
Mary Jane Kelly Wallpaper
wwe kelly kelly.
WWE Diva Kelly Kelly
maccompaq
Nov 12, 07:56 AM
All of my people are on AT&T so I cannot switch, because of the mobile to mobile calling feature. AT&T has a strong signal where I live, and I really like my iPhone4, so switching would not make sense. Even with all the dropped calls, I just redial and continue on.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
I am sure that when many of the iPhone users switch to Verizon, the AT&T experience will improve.
greenstork
Sep 12, 06:30 PM
Honestly though, who would want to stream HD??
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
1st, if the iTV did support HD, apple would "probably" have to sell HD content - and like hell I'm downloading a 9GB movie!!
2nd, HardDisk space disappears fast enough as it is...!
3rd, Why??? I have an HDTV and I barely see the difference between DVDs and 720p HDTV... (1080i is another matter).
Just because you can't see the difference between 480p and 720p doesn't mean that other people can't. I think this distinction is like night and day, but quality is subjective, I'll give you that.
GGJstudios
May 2, 04:10 PM
their 4% worldwide marketshare (or it might be less) keeps them safe and even if they weren't the user base is too small to be significant in the malware space.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
The market share argument is BS. It's been debunked in many of these threads.
ObsidianIce
Aug 29, 12:50 PM
not sure this is totally accurate...seems like greenpeace is complaining that they don't know what in apple products....so who's to say it does contain the items that Greenpeace is complaining about? Not to mention Greenpeace...can be more than a little over the top at times...not saying Apple's perfect....but we're only seeing one side of the coin here.
eric_n_dfw
Mar 20, 07:19 PM
But what if I got hold of that wedding video and decided to, I dunno, turn it into a music video for my own music... and that music video got onto MTV? No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. I'm not stealing. I'm -merely- infringing copyright.
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
The videographer is being hurt, you and/or MTV have stolen the royalties they are due. (Asuming you are saying that it is someone else's video, not one that you shot and/or editted together.)
If it was produced by a videographer, they were probably smart enough to mark it with a copyright (you don't have to file anything to do so) and then they can sue you for that infringement because you are profitting off of his/her work. (Or, more likely, they'd sue Viacom for broadcast of their video without permission since they have the deeper pockets. But Viacom probably is imune because you signed a paper saying you owned said production - THEN they'd sue you.)
The theft in this is the result of the infringement. By admitting it's infringement, you are admitting that it's illegal. The only reason to copyright something is to protect your interests from those who would, well, infringe on them. :rolleyes:
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
FF_productions
Jul 11, 09:54 PM
I cannot wait!!!
Daveoc64
Mar 13, 08:44 AM
Here is a good question: Would you want to live next to a nuke power plant?
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
Living "next" to a Nuclear Power Plant is probably better than living "near" one.
In the event of a meltdown the area that would be irradiated is very large. Those further away would suffer more long term effects, while those much closer would die a relatively quick death!
I live 10 miles (and that's driving, so it's probably less if you draw a straight line on a map) away from a Nuclear Power Station and it doesn't worry me.
AJsAWiz
Jun 13, 06:17 PM
I loved the iPhone, but the AT&T service is crap! It drops calls with 5 Bars and 3G, so the Towers are not the issue. If Steve Jobs would wake F&*$ up and get with Verizon then AT&T would go out of Business. I am now with Verizon which is where I came from to get the iPhone and I have not dropped a call yet?
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
C'Mon Steve get the iPhone to Verizon.
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year. This problem was far worse when I was with Verizon. It was so bad that Verizon, after seeing the history of calls to customer service, finally let me out of my contract without having to pay a termination fee. Then I went to AT&T.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
digitalaviator
Jun 21, 05:52 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
Computerworld reports (http://www.computerworld.com/s/article/9139026/Android_to_grab_No._2_spot_by_2012_says_Gartner) that research firm Gartner is forecasting significant growth in Google's Android operating system for smart phones, noting that it expects Android to surpass Apple's iPhone to claim the number two spot behind Symbian OS with 14.5% of the global smart phone market by 2012.The predicted margin is small, however, with Apple predicted to grab 13.7% of the smart phone market in 2012. Both companies are forecasted to take significant share from Symbian, which currently holds approximately 50% market share but is expected to fall to 39% over that time.
Article Link: Android to Surpass iPhone in Market Share by 2012? (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2009/10/07/android-to-surpass-iphone-in-market-share-by-2012/)
bahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahaha ahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahah ahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahah ahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahah ahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaa hahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahaha hahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaahahahahaahahahahahahahaaha.....
.....not likely
dethmaShine
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?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
Mac users tend to be a better target for old fashioned phishing/vishing because...well, 'nothing bad happens on a Mac..' right?
Now from google pointing 'sources', you are consistently jumping on to mac users, eh?
Good going.
Yup nothing happens to my mac except for what I do it. It's that simple. Why don't you just ask Google why they decided to abandon Windows?
jiggie2g
Jul 12, 03:23 PM
Yes it would. Ever heard of economies of scale? If Apple told Intel "we want to buy 600.000 Woodcrests from you", they would get a nice discount. Spread that purchase over several different CPU's, and the discount is not that nice anymore. Furtermore, having two different CPU's, two different chipsets and two different types of RAM in single line of computers, is going to make inventory-management and maintentance quite a bit more expensive than having single lineup with one type of compoennts.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
This may be the case for say HP or Gateway , however Apple is Intel's new Darling and gets the best deal in the industry , so good infact that it prompted Dell to no longer feature Intel as it's exclusive chip vendor and as a resuld Dell will be introducing AMD based Desktops in August just to spite Intel for doing this.
No matter how u configure a machine a Single CPU Woodcrest will never be as cost effiecient as a Conroe. Not to mention the need for ECC-ram , and expensive EPS12 PSU and Server Mobo.
twoodcc
Oct 10, 10:32 AM
it's too early to tell yet. this is all just speculation at this point. wait until more android phones and android 1.5 is out first
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.