Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
100Teraflops
Apr 21, 05:09 PM
CMD+Q does the same thing, either from within the app, or when it's highlighted when using CMD+TAB to cycle between open apps.
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
Thanks for the shorthand! :cool:
joepunk
Mar 11, 11:17 AM
From BBC News Live Twitter update thingy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
Cutwolf
Mar 18, 01:35 PM
There are quite a lot of people in this thread who sound like AT&T employees trying to add to the scare tactics.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
The cheapest and most efficient way for AT&T to "detect" tethering would be to monitor data usage and accuse high data users. They anticipate a lot of them will be uneducated and believe they have really been caught and switch to the official tethering plan (losing their unlimited, which I believe is AT&T ultimate goal here), or will simply ignore the text and they can automatically switch them, accomplishing the same thing.
If AT&T accuses you, and you refuse to switch to the new plan and claim you're not tethering, and they switch you anyway, you'd almost certainly be entitled to cancel with no ETF, legally at least. Particularly if they refused to do anything more than say "we suspect you are tethering" without providing any support.
To be fair, AT&T contract does say they can modify or terminate your account if the simply believe you are tethering, but no court would hold that belief, without a legitimate basis, is grounds for modification or termination, and it's hard to believe that 20 gb of data usage in a month would be a legitimate basis for that belief (those who are reaching ridiculous numbers like 50+ might be a different story.
My take (law student with no tech background): if they accuse you and send you the message, call them and play dumb and say you do a lot of streaming. If they buy it, great. If they end up switching you anyway, or forcing you to switch, you can presumably get out of the contract with no ETF. If this fails, and you have money to blow to prove a point, you can probably seek an injunction preventing AT&T from altering your contract, or a declaratory judgment that the contract permits you to get out of it without an ETF in this circumstance.
Odds are that AT&T would be unlikely to show up for any lawsuit filed by an individual over a few hundred bucks, which would entitle you to both the ETF and your legal fees.
Granted, I'm a student not yet a practitioner, so all of this should be taken with several grains of salt. Additionally, none of this should be construed to constitute legal advice.
AppliedVisual
Nov 1, 06:35 PM
Well then color me crazy and put me back on the bus! I'm all about the top speed 2.66GHz model and nothing else. :p
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
We won't see lower power 4-core offerings until Intel goes 45nm with a unified core design. 45nm should take them to 8-core, maybe 16 or even 24, but Intel doesn't seem too sure just yet.
puma1552
Mar 14, 01:04 AM
Yea, this is one of the few controversial posts I've made here, I expected some criticism, and likely deserve it as I definitely don't get the whole picture, then again who does.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
I'm not saying oil isn't a HUGE problem, or rebutting some of the good points here.
When a nuclear disaster happens hundreds of thousands of people can die, if unleashed in war it could be the end of the world, plus accidents, human error, countries letting power plants age and neglect updates not because they can't afford it but instead because they want the incredible profits from it.
It's not good, I'll never be convinced otherwise. Look at countries like Denmark and the rest of Scandinavia how well they manage their power, the research, alternative (green) energy sources in play and working NOW ... it's incredible and goes unnoticed.
There is better ways.
NO nuclear.
You know, I really don't think a lot of the people in this thread "get it" so-to-speak.
Japan has 130 million people, in a space 10,000 square miles SMALLER than California, and is an archipelago. 85% of that are sparsely populated mountainous regions, so do the math to realize what a premium we have on space here and try to understand that we need the absolute maximum power for the space and resources we have, which is why we get a third of our power from nuclear sources.
What do you think, we have unlimited resources and space to use bogus green energy methods? Everyone talks about green energy this, green energy that, but nobody seems to grasp that green energy methods are horrendously inefficient, unrealistically and unsustainably so; if they were so good, don't you think we'd have our fossil fuel crisis solved?
As an example, solar power's MAXIMUM efficiency is a pathetic 12%, and that's before you even think about it's asinine cost, or the asinine amount of square footage you need to even get a tiny amount of power.
Wind isn't much better, at a maximum of 30% efficiency, and that's when the wind is blowing over 30 mph.
Neither of these are feasible, nor realistic for Japan.
Guys, we have nuclear power here out of necessity. Maybe that's difficult for you guys to grasp, but with 130 million people in a place smaller than California, most of which is mountains, we need power that's efficient. I don't understand why this is so hard to understand.
Nuclear is a result of circumstance here, and up until now has had a flawless record.
By the way, lowly natural gas has a 10x higher fatality rate than nuclear, but I don't see anyone fearing natural gas.
edit: I don't mean to harp on you specifically, entlarg, I'm just tired of seeing post after post in this thread from people that don't seem to understand that at least here, we don't have a choice but to use nuclear power.
Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 01:18 PM
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
jaguarx
Oct 30, 06:11 PM
Of course it will probably be slightly more expensive but with any luck less than it currently is to go from 1 to 2. Or for that matter 1 to 4. I find it hard to believe Apple will leave it's premiere flagship workstation shipping with less ram by default than it's laptop range. The RAM thing is confusing, I don't know whether I'm better off buying it with 1 gig then buying 4 1G sticks afterwards or whether that will affect performance and I'm better off just buying 4G straight from Apple.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 12:50 PM
I am in the process of selling my Dual 2.0 GHz PPC. I was planning on replacing it with the Mac Pro 2.66 GHz. Should I consider holding off in the purchase of the new system. What potential impact would there be the system that I am considering buying?
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
On a forward thinking basis, what potential(speculation) revisions are possible to this system in the next 6 - 12 months?Know your workload. Do you use applications that are multi-core aware? Do you want to run them simultaneously? Do you want to run several applications simultaneously - each doing work at the same time? Leopard is bound to be very multi-core friendly since 4 cores will be the norm when it ships.
Since you have hung on to the Dual 2GHz model for far past its hayday, I'm thinking you don't need 8 cores. I had a Dual 2GHz G5 back in '04 and got the 2.5 soon as it went refurb early '05. By early '06 I was in a panic with not enough power to do my Multi-Threaded Workload. I was in a cold sweat when I ordered the Quad G5 in early February.
I found its limit within a few months and have been enthusiastically awaiting these 8-core Dual Clovertown Mac Pros since before the 4-core Mac Pro shipped.
Since that does not describe you, you may be happy with the 4 core Mac Pro. But if you can afford it and you do Video, 3D work, lots of heavy Photoshop processes and/or want to run a bunch of single core processes simultaneously in the course of a day and/or nights, you would be much better off in the long run with the upcoming 8-core. Figure with RAM it will run you around or above $4k. Does that work for you?
Oh, and I'm not selling my Quad G5 either. :)
skunk
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
The Christians who kill do not do so in the name of Christ, who would have been repulsed at their actions. It's not sanctioned anywhere in the Bible.Maybe not in the New Testament, but certainly in the Old.
motulist
Sep 12, 03:20 PM
Apple gave a sneak peak of an upcoming product. Is that a flying pig I see out my window?
evilgEEk
Sep 20, 10:21 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. Waste of time, unless I'm missing something.
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
But I don't need DVD, storage or an OS. Why would I want to spend $600 when I can spend $300 on exactly what I need/want?
kainjow
Oct 25, 10:31 PM
OK. I know that many of my apps aren't going to take advantage of this level of multithreaded power, but I can't help but get excited by this development. After so many years of sluggish improvement, it feels like we're in the midst of rapid (and radical) change.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Each process is it's own thread. And most processes have multiple threads. Unless you only always have one program open at a time, more cores always can help speed up your system.
Carl Spackler
Sep 12, 04:29 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I don't know why it wouldn't. Isn't iTunes basically and interface for Quicktime? I would imagine anything one can play in QT, you can play through this.
All it is is Apple's version of a media extender. I would, however, like an optical drive, but I can't see the price staying at $299 if they add Blu Ray. Otherwise, I think it's a fair price for a quality piece of equipment. Roku's SoundBridge M2000 is $299. For the same price I get to also sent 1080p content to my home theatre. Sign me up.
pdjudd
Oct 7, 11:24 PM
I'm sorry OSX market share would most definitely go up. From a business perspective though it would would be a terrible move, you are right about that. Profits would drop as Apple would get next to nothing from the sale of software only. The market share of OSX would drop once Apple went bankrupt.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
Which is kinda the point. Short term improvements are meaningless if they go right back down. I don;t contend that they would go up, but the whole point of increasing sales is to hope that they stay up. Otherwise it�s just a waste of time. You can;t just say �market share will go up�. Their market share goes up the minute a Mac gets sold. We have to look at the long run which you point out, will invariably go down and possibly lower than the base. A net loss kinda contradicts the idea of increased market share.
But this is all conjecture since Apple has already indicated that they are not playing the market share game.
[QUOTE]Allowing greater access to your product almost always leads to larger sales volumes, but it isn't always in your best interest.
Of course that statement is true. But does that require Apple to license their hardware out to others? I argue that it�s not the case. Taking the MS approach fundamentally changes Apple�s business. They don�t have to do that. Of course the Grueber article covers that too. There are tones of ways to increase access to your product. The tough part is making it profitable. Both Microsoft and Apple accomplish that goal just fine without getting into a fight that results in a bad outcome for Apple or MS.
awmazz
Mar 12, 04:16 AM
Why is this Chernobyl?
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
What are the similarities?
What are the differences?
What's your background?
Do you understand why Chernobyl is uninhabitable for several hundred years, while Hiroshima and Nagasaki are thriving, gorgeous cities?
Did you freak out at the "1000x" radiation levels too, like the rest of the western media did who didn't have the remotest clue that it was still magnitudes below the hazardous level? You certainly buy into the "Huge Explosion!!!" headlines, as evidenced by your post, so it's hard to take anything you say seriously.
It's a serious situation, but you are panicking a little too much, with next to zero information.
And inversely, you're way too calm with zero information. Or too trusting. I'll tell you exactly what the similarity is with Chernobyl. Being told by 'experts' that it's safe, nothing to worry about.
History says I'll turn out to be right and you wrong.
So if I'm a fool by buying into the 'huge explosion' headline and footage, what are you? Denying there was any explosion at all? This goes back to my first point, I see a huge explosion at a nuclear power plant with my own eyes on my TV screen and the steel skeleton of the girders all that's remaining of the building, and yet here you are an 'expert' claiming there's no problem because I have zero information? WTF?
Hey, I've been hanging out on the forum for the iPad. But frankly i'm a little confused right now about what i just saw. From appearances (I mean appearances), the nuke plant in Japan BLEW UP, and they are lying about it if they say it's a minor issue. I don't want to believe this . You can see it with your own eyes, but i'm not sure exactly what i'm seeing. Certainly it isn't a small explosion.
Until I know what's really happening I'm officially, totally, freaked out......Any takers? :D
Building #4 is apparently totally destroyed by the looks of it, just the skeletal steel structure left standing. Some reports are saying it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded. The question then is why did any hydrogen tanks explode at all? Because they were depressed and suicidal? Or because some really bad sh** going down in a freaking nuclear power plant made them explode? But according to puma1552 it's nothing to worry about and don't believe your lying eyes because you don't know what rad levels are.. ;)
jefhatfield
Oct 8, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by nixd2001
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
True, but hardly going to provoke torrents of postings of heated debate and disagreement - surely a necessity in modern society :p
So that's 2 cents of irrational exuberence then?
no. just enough to get a decent woody going:D
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.
deannnnn
May 5, 01:06 PM
Check out this poll that was on Facebook today!
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
Anyone wanna guess which answer I chose? ;)
tsboy69
Nov 15, 01:10 AM
I was very happy with the IPhone 4 vs. my 3G - much less dropped calls, faster, etc. etc. This was in June
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
For the past few months though, the service seems to have gotten worse in the Los Angeles area - I drop a ton these days.....
That being said, I will admit I have a Vapor case on the phone and that is probably part of the issue....
joepunk
Mar 11, 11:17 AM
From BBC News Live Twitter update thingy (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698)
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
1708: Nuclear physicist Dr Walt Patterson tells the BBC it sounds like there is a "serious problem" at the Fukushima-Daiichi plant. "It's the sort of thing that nuclear engineers have nightmares about," he says. "If it is not resolved in the next few hours it will get serious. If the core is uncovered, then those rods at the top may get hot enough to melt themselves."
1706: The Tokyo Electric Power Company has said the pressure inside the No. 1 reactor at its Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear plant has been rising, with the risk of a radiation leak, according to the Jiji Press news agency. Tepco planned to take measures to release the pressure, the report added. The reactor's cooling system began to malfunction after the earthquake. People living close to the plant were later evacuated as a precaution.
Gelfin
Mar 26, 01:50 AM
However it isn't tyranny because the government isn't actually depriving them of liberty, merely not supporting them.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
You will say anything to rationalize your prejudice, won't you? I have trouble believing anyone is as dense as you pretend here.
Just in case, though, the government offers legal concessions to men and women who legally (not religiously) commit to a marriage. It refuses to extend those same concessions to same-sex couples, and can demonstrate no legitimate state interest in this discrimination. That is denial of equal treatment under the law, and is unconstitutional.
Cox Orange
Apr 16, 07:00 AM
Moving files of course...
oh, ok, couldn't think that one could think of actually "cutting" a programm out of its place and "pasting" it in another place. :) Now, I understand what people mean by whole other way of thinking things.
oh, ok, couldn't think that one could think of actually "cutting" a programm out of its place and "pasting" it in another place. :) Now, I understand what people mean by whole other way of thinking things.
mscriv
Apr 6, 01:39 PM
i think some people just hold their preference too dearly sometimes, and then insist that anything that falls outside their comfort-zone is annoying.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.
that's like saying it's annoying because in another language you have to say 'house white', instead of 'white house', or english is better because you only have 'the' and not 'la' or 'le'... or german is annoying because 'no' sounds like '9'.
in my opinion nothing is annoying about one or the other, they're just different.
take control of the situation and become fluent in both.
approach it with the right frame of mind.
you either 'want' to learn, or you 'have' to learn.
Fgirl, I just wanted you to know that I think your post is right on target and I enjoyed reading it.
I'm what I call "bi-platform" in that I use Mac in my personal life and Windows at work. I'm "fluent" in both and agree that it's not typically one being better than the other, but just being different.
For the OP, in terms of general navigation and customization I would say a Mac can do everything you are wondering about. It will do it differently than Windows does, but it can do it. The "shift" vs. "cmd" for shortcuts is an example. The buttons function the same, it's just a different button on a mac keyboard than on a PC keyboard.
Best of luck with your decision.
Oh, and for the person who made the "troll" post... seriously??? The OP put "for switchers only" because he wants to hear from people who have actually made the decision to switch. He wants to learn from their experiences as opposed to just getting bashed by Apple fanboys who'll belittle his question and not provide any genuine help.