firestarter
Mar 13, 03:58 PM
The obvious real answer is a globally connected power grid with generation all over the place so as night is not such an issue. Of course we'd need to agree on voltages, frequencies, cost etc.
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
Back to the original trigger for this whole thread... it's interesting that the Japanese are running rolling blackouts on the North East coast, because they can't even agree a mains electricity frequency standard for the country! :o
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/cb/Power_Grid_of_Japan.PNG
Remember also that grid losses are significant when transporting electricity over any distance, even at 400kv+
redkamel
Aug 29, 06:57 PM
3 The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. ...
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
man I just had to post....the nerd in me...
Probably (no sarcasm) because most water vapor is naturally produced and can be recycled as rain, while greenhouse gasses usually stay in the atmosphere. CO2 can also be recycled, however it does not recycle itself as water vapor does, it requires another source to convert it to organic carbon.
While nature may produce 3x the CO2 as humans, I do not believe the level of CO2 produced by nature is increasing. Nature also has built in systems to use the CO2 it makes to capture energy, or to store the CO2 as carbon in fossil fuels or matter. Humans only produce CO2 by making energy for themselves to use, and their production is increasing, without a way to draw the CO2 they made back out. Therefore the increase in CO2 that will not be removed is the concern. There are also other chemicals, but CO2 is widely publicized because everyone knows what it is, too.
Its like if you have a storeroom people drop things off in and take things out of, but it happens at pretty much the same rate. Except there is just one guy who only drops stuff off. Eventually all his stuff will take up a noticeable space in the storeroom.
Increases in greenhouses gasses are not immedieatly felt. We are now feeling the effects of gasses from decades ago. Also, although you say 'worldwide pollution has decreased", even though I doubt it is true, you mean our RATE of poullution has decreased, not the total amount of pollution we have put in the air, which is still increasing. When we decrease the amount of net pollution produced by humans, then it is a good sign.
Also to everyone complaining about out environment being ruined, yet want GM crops to grow food to stop starvation...(disclaimer: I am not cold hearted, I am realistic). The problem we have on this planet, as many agree, is too much pollution. Pollution is caused by people. So if we have more people, we will have more pollution. More people=more pollution.
When a system's carrying capacity is reached, the population level declines until resources can recover, then it climbs again. But if you artificially raise the carrying capacity (as humans like to do), then the crash will be bigger....and the resources may not survive as they are deprived of the humans that run, control, and supply them.
Believe it or not, our planet was not designed to sustain 8 billion people. Finding ways to produce food efficiently is great...but it should be used for less resources= same amount of food, NOT same resources=more food. It IS too bad people have to starve. But using that efficiency to make more food for more people will only lead to more people wanting more food, and goods. Eventually it will not be able to be supplied...for some reason or other. And you will have a very, very large crash.
Though experiment: you put a bunch of fish in a small fish tank. Keep feeding them...they reproduce. Clean the water...feed them all, they reproduce. Eventually they waste faster than you clean, or you forget to clean one day...and they all die.
TheOrioles33
Oct 7, 08:37 PM
You guys are all forgetting. The world is going to end in 2012 so it wont matter. :)
Sm0kejaguar
Oct 26, 11:09 AM
I am pretty excited about this, because if i read it right...
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
Thats what i'm worried about!!! Ahhhhh!!! guess i can always wait a month and pay my 250 dollar restock!
the new mac pro's will possibly come out at the same price point's as the higher end model's.
which when these come out... would mean that the ones out now may DROP in price. hey just a thought. a good one :p
Thats what i'm worried about!!! Ahhhhh!!! guess i can always wait a month and pay my 250 dollar restock!
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:36 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).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
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).
This was the selling point for me--HD downloads. So far what I know about this machine, I'm sold. I will gladly download 9GB files. Since I download various large files regularly anyway, this isn't a killer for me.
The HDD space worries me a little. I'm betting they'll offer different versions with $299 being the entry level model with the smallest hard drive. More space will come on higher priced sets. But the harddisk size is something I'm a little concerned about. Does anyone know if it was mentioned wether movies bought can be transfered to another harddrive for safekeeping, or something along those lines?
EDIT: Ahhh... so no harddrive? It just streams content you've downloaded on your computer? That's even more awesome! :)
Personally, I notice a huge difference between DVD and regular TV. Of course, that's also dependent upon the quality of the HD transfer. Often, HDNET movies are just quick and dirty HD transfers of old movies so they don't look as nice as say an HD NFL broadcast for example. A few weeks ago, some friends were over and we were watching 2001 on HDNET movies, and they were expressing that it looked nice, but not that great (IMO, it looked amazing. I'd never seen it look that good.) Anyway, I went and got my DVD of put it in the player, cued it up to about the point in the movie where the HDNET version was at, and then I switched between the two. Everyone's jaw dropped at the difference in quality. I was even surprised a little at the disparity between the two.
But, my fiance' is one of those who doesn't really notice that much of a difference, just like a lot of people. Regular broadcast or DVD and HD aren't like night and day. They're more like a nice day and a rainy day, if you catch my analogy.
Anyway, to make a long story short, I'm really excited about this set top HD box. :)
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
edifyingGerbil
Apr 24, 01:40 PM
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
umm, everything? Did you read the bit I quoted from you?
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
If I told you I were a homosexual would that discredit or vindicate my views? Would it make them more... acceptable?
citizenzen
Apr 24, 01:30 PM
I'll support any group (religious or secular) that:
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
A: Doesn't try to curtail my freedom and liberty and
B: Acts as a bulwark against any group which does seek to curtail my freedom and liberty.
I sure hope you're pro gay marriage.
dgree03
Apr 28, 08:47 AM
The complaint isn't that iPads aren't being included in the smart phone market. The complaint is that there is a sole focus on smart phones when comparing Android vs. iOS market share when clearly the iPad and iPod Touch are very significant portions of the iOS platform.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
This is not a "smart phone" platform battle. This is a new mobile computing platform battle. But since Android has no viable competitors to the iPad or iPhone Touch, people (Fandroids and analysts alike) conveniently like to leave those devices out of the equation.
The tangible item is the smartphone hardware itself. Thats like saying the battle between Sony and Samsung LCD tv's, isnt exactly about tv's... its about Google TV(Sony) vs Samsung Smart TV.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:44 PM
Um....should we just not heat our homes then? You first.
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too
Even early man built fires to stay warm.
Im not saying stop using energy. I'm saying use a different source. Wind, water, sun. theres plenty of other ways to heat your home out there. Geothermal too
~Shard~
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
The iTV sounds great, however if I buy one I�m going to want to be able to utilize it to its fullest extent. And right now, living outside of the US, without access to TV shows on iTunes, let alone the new movies, it just doesn�t make sense for me to buy one. Hopefully things will change next year by the time it is released, but I have my doubts. As a result, there are going to have to be some other amazing features incorporated into this box to convince me to buy it, otherwise I�m not shelling out good money for a STB which Apple has essentially crippled for me. :cool:
jefhatfield
Oct 10, 11:45 AM
Originally posted by benixau
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
it reminds me of that janis joplin song...imagine the music in the background ;)
when motorola was stuck at 500 mhz for 18 months, then i started becoming very vocal about dropping them on the high end stuff and going to ibm when there were rumors that they can make a faster chip
but motorola has climbed, though somewhat slowly, out of their pit, and are doing ok
sure, it may be many months ahead when the pcs hit 3.5 ghz+, but i think motorola will deliver a 2 ghz chip sometime next year
and really, after 2 ghz, does anyone think speed will be a top five factor in why one buys a machine?
when i was a computer salesman in 1999, speed and price were the top two issues...and while price will remain a top issue until all computers get really cheap, i think speed will diminish in its importance for the average consumer
many seem to like the dual 1.25 ghz machines and we know apple will speed bump their whole line of powermacs early next year, if not sooner
a lot of the complaints about apple's speed on their machines sound like a lot of benchmark stats reading and not real world usage
most of us do email, internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and light graphics most of the time in the majority of users in the field...of the many machines i sold, i did not come across one high end graphics user or audio professional who needed more than our store was able to provide them
Dear lord,
If you have any heart for 25 million of your wiser men, please make apple use the power4 chip at lightning speeds, and please lord, do it soon. It is becoming hard for us mac men to defend ourselves.
PS. If you could give me a brand new top of the line mac while your at it i wouldnt mind either.
Edit: There is no blasphemy intended here
it reminds me of that janis joplin song...imagine the music in the background ;)
when motorola was stuck at 500 mhz for 18 months, then i started becoming very vocal about dropping them on the high end stuff and going to ibm when there were rumors that they can make a faster chip
but motorola has climbed, though somewhat slowly, out of their pit, and are doing ok
sure, it may be many months ahead when the pcs hit 3.5 ghz+, but i think motorola will deliver a 2 ghz chip sometime next year
and really, after 2 ghz, does anyone think speed will be a top five factor in why one buys a machine?
when i was a computer salesman in 1999, speed and price were the top two issues...and while price will remain a top issue until all computers get really cheap, i think speed will diminish in its importance for the average consumer
many seem to like the dual 1.25 ghz machines and we know apple will speed bump their whole line of powermacs early next year, if not sooner
a lot of the complaints about apple's speed on their machines sound like a lot of benchmark stats reading and not real world usage
most of us do email, internet, word processing, spreadsheets, and light graphics most of the time in the majority of users in the field...of the many machines i sold, i did not come across one high end graphics user or audio professional who needed more than our store was able to provide them
alex_ant
Oct 8, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
So as I might get flamed for this post, get off Apple's back. Their products are not the pieces of crap everyone on here tries to make them out to be. You pay more for Apple because they don't sacrifice quality. If you want only speed and don't care about software, OS, or hardware quality, then why are you here??? Get a cheapo PC. The new Macs are not slow computers, sure there are some PC's that are a little faster and win the old GHz race, but when you make a purchase you have to look at the entire picture. Look at everything the machine offers, value, quality, style, longevity, productivity, etc... Apple is better.
I don't think many people here are making Apple's computers out to be pieces of crap. It's just tough to say something like "Apple's computers are about the slowest there currently are" with any sort of tact.
I would also disagree somewhat with the paying more for quality comment. I don't think you really pay more for quality when you buy a Mac. What you do pay for is anyone's guess - software, R&D, or whatever - but Apple is notorious for its very high margins. Whatever you pay more for, it's definitely not the hardware, because most (all?) Macs are made in the same massive Asian factories as the big PC manufacturers' are anyway.
And I disagree that all PCs are crap as you say they are. Windows has come a long way, like it or not, and PCs are not the BSOD-every-hour computers they used to be. They've gotten a lot better in recent years, and this is why so many Macrumors posters are worried and yelling at Apple to get a move on with the faster machines.
Alex
Mr-Stabby
Apr 12, 10:28 PM
Does anyone know if the new FC will take AVCHD files natively as Premiere CS5 does?
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
From what i gathered, if it doesn't, at the very least it transcodes them in the background as you've imported them, so you can work on them straight away.
But it might actually work natively. It was strongly suggested a lot more files could be imported natively, DSLR was mentioned.
beaster
Sep 12, 05:41 PM
Nail on the head, imo.
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
There's no reason they would've put component outs on it if it won't (eventually) do HD.
I don't doubt the device will be capable of outputting HD resolution. But they still have 2 big problems to solve before they have me as a customer - bandwidth of the wireless network and content. Maybe they can solve (have solved?) the wireless bandwidth problem with a new wireless protocol or some really slick new compression technology - I sure hope so. But then they need HD content. Maybe that'll be a Blu-ray drive in the Mac. But HD downloads for feature-length movies? That's a lot of bits to move and store somewhere - will fill up a typical hard drive in no time. So you need a way to archive those movies - writeable Blu-ray maybe, or more hard drive space. My point is that there's still some kinks to work out to deliver HD content through this device to a TV. Until those problems are solved, I'll pass.
-Sean
Multimedia
Sep 28, 04:40 PM
Is there any advantage or disadvantage (other than future expandability) to getting to 4GB of memory by using 8x512MB versus using 4x1GB?Aparently the answer is "technically yes". See below. I did not know that. But from what they say and a practical point of view the answer is still no.
OneMike
May 2, 09:09 AM
significant, but you have to install
deus_ex_machina
Apr 21, 04:40 AM
I live in a country of excess. Excuse me if I don't weep at night because Kanye West or Lil Wayne are missing out on my $1+ for their songs.
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
If an artist isn't mainstream, I'll gladly pay for their music to support it. But since my musical tastes tend to gravitate towards major artists, I don't think twice when I torrent their albums.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
sawah
Mar 18, 08:55 AM
Not AT&Ts fault for selling unlimited data that they've violated and chose to limit?
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
Stfup, you have no idea what you're talking about.
AT&T, you've stepped over the line. I've contacted my attorney about this issue months ago letting him know something needs to be done about this flagrant misuse of the word unlimited, and AT&Ts attempts to back out of their commitment.
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
Please start swearing at me. They aren't limiting your data, they are limiting where in their contract you signed, they said you could use said data. Good luck spending money on a lawyer that's not going to do anything for you.
Grow up.
ShnikeJSB
Oct 26, 05:16 PM
My question is: if desktops are ramping up their cores so quickly with quad-core and dual quad-core processors, why are we to be stuck at "only" dual-core for notebooks for so long? As far as I have seen from my own "research" is that notebooks will be stuck at dual-core until at least Nehalem (45nm - 2009), and more likely Gesher (32nm - 2011), but certainly not Penryn (45nm - 2007). What gives??? Hell, at around the same time that Gesher arrives, Intel's Kiefer is supposed to be 32-Cores!
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
I know, heat and power, blah blah blah. But are laptops really going to be left THAT far behind?
r0k
Apr 5, 10:14 PM
Can't just hit Delete? Can't move up a level in the directory structure? Yikes.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts.
I'm still on Vista... maybe going to Windows 7 might be the smarter move in my particular case.
Thanks for your help everyone, I sincerely appreciate your input.
Gotta do some serious thinking about this...
The delete thing bothers me a bit. What do you mean you can't move up? You mean with backspace? There is a preference in finder to show entire path so I never have trouble navigating up folder structure. If you are used to Vista and leaning toward 7, perhaps OS X isn't for you.
It's really not about how I delete things, nor is it about the pretty colors. It's about how much of my time I have to spend futzing with stuff like broken drivers, missing printers, yada yada yada.
I will admit I wasted a few hours this week chasing a Time Machine issue but that's about all the futzing I've had to do since about November. I'm willing to deal with the limitations and quirks of OS X because OS X doesn't waste my time. And it wasn't something I had to do in order to send my taxes or print out show tickets. I did it when I felt like I had the time, unlike so many windows problems that crop up on the way to an important meeting. I haven't seen an "are you sure" on my Mac since I got it. To me sometimes it seems like Windows was written to harvest clicks while OS X was written to avoid unnecessary user intervention.
Sure there are some quirks. Like the way copied folders are replaced, not merged with destination folders. Like the missing "cut" and "delete" features. But for me these quirks are no big deal and I look forward to sitting down in front of my Mac after suffering with 7 all day at work. But what we say in this thread isn't necessarily relevant to your situation. Based on what we have described, you can get a sense as to how "different" OS X is. To me, it's really not that much different. What is more important is how different it is to you and whether it bothers you.
gwangung
Apr 20, 07:05 PM
Delving into this would drive the conversation in an entirely different direction, and I don't feel like going off topic. Pay for your music, it's your choice. I'll continue to illegally download mine and enjoy it just as much.
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
I'll also continue to pirate software. Cry about it.
As an artist who creates work people pay for, I think yer...what's the word? Scum. But I'm sure that keeps you awake at night. :D
Spectrum
Aug 30, 10:08 AM
I think people are missing the point....
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
Congratulations! You just got added to the list (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2772247#post2772247).
stunna
Jul 12, 03:19 AM
I hate to say it but since I got my macbook black I have been using winxp and not osx. XP runs faster, is compatible with all apps like photoshop and office natively and runs perfectly. I have been very impressed. So impressed that I decided to build a core 2 duo desktop from newegg and I did it for Under $900. Now lets see apple top that pricing. (core 2 duo chip on order from buy.com)
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
Sorry but I think I have lost hope for OS X. I got the media center edition OS with the new computer I am building with dual tuner TV card. Watching tv via my xbox 360 is a dream. Mac will never be able to accomplish this task. Front row sucks.
If I bought a new mac pro (which I won't because its going to be a rippoff) I would just run XP on it.
For instance, I got two Radeon 16xPCIe X1600xt supporting crossfire with 512mb ram each from newegg for $120 each. Everything is just cheaper.
After a while you get to a point in your work where you realize seeing the neat apple OS is just not that important. Not when you can run crappy XP (which sorry to disappoint never crashes) for 1/3rd the price and 4x the speed.
Comon apple, make a media center mac and figure out a way to use PC graphics cards. After spending $500 on my Radeon 800xt with 256mb ram I wil l NEVER do it again. Not when I can get dual crossfire cards for half the price and 4x the performance.
I guess I am a half reverse switcher. Using macbook pro but XP only. LOL!
You are a smart man.
no sarcasim or anything i'm being serious
At the end of the day you gotta tell yourself why pay more and get less
No comments:
Post a Comment