Thunderhawks
Apr 21, 01:26 PM
I'd agree with you. Look at the craigslist computer forum and you'll see a high number of non-tech savvy folk. He's just making a gross generalization or taking a small % and extrapolating it to the whole, both of which are flawed.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Every time I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
Doesn't everybody turn their computer on the side?
I alternate, so put it on the right on odd days on the left on even days.
That way my neck doesn't get strained so much when I have to read something on the screen.
On a side note, my cup holder is flipped. Every time I put my drink on it, it spills right off. How do you keep your cup parallel to your desk on yours?
Doesn't everybody turn their computer on the side?
I alternate, so put it on the right on odd days on the left on even days.
That way my neck doesn't get strained so much when I have to read something on the screen.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 29, 02:45 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
It might help starving Africans, but we could also screw up our genetical inheritance royally. Cross breeding is a problem we know too little about.
digitalbiker
Sep 12, 04:31 PM
I'd like nothing better than to be able to dump Comcast completely, but without the ability to watch live sports, it's a no-go. If they start streaming games for a couple bucks, I'd definitely take a look at it.
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
1975 Chevrolet Corvette 2dr
Corvette Stingray 2009
2011 Corvette C7 Stingray
Corvette Stingray Concept
Corvette Stingray Front
Corvette Stingray
quot;2011 CHEVROLET CORVETTE
Concept Stingray Corvette
2011 Chevrolet Corvette
Is the C6 Corvette just a bit
Corvette Stingray 2011 Price
2011 Corvette Stingray - Among
Chevrolet Corvette Stingray
Concept Stingray Corvette
Concept Stingray Corvette
2011 Corvette Stingray Concept
-- Any regular-season game from any sport = $1.99
-- Any playoff game from any sport = $2.99
-- NFL season pass (1 team, 16 games) = $30
G58
Oct 18, 07:56 AM
If I thought it was Relevant to mention the people, I would have.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
Steve Wozniak co founded Apple. His inventions and machines are credited with contributing significantly to the personal computer revolution of the 1970s. Indeed, he created the Apple I and Apple II. The latter gained so much popularity it eventually became one of the best selling personal computers of the 1970s and early 1980s.
But, and here's the important point, he's nothing to do with the daily running of Apple now and has contributed virtually nothing since the early days. Yet Apple, in it's second phase with Steve Jobs in charge, is redefining mobile phones - totally without Woz playing any part in the lineage that made it possible.
Andy Rubin has also founded a company. But his history is that of a man who's come up with some possibly badly timed and poorly executed ideas, and partnered with the same haphazard wisdom. He also possesses more of an employee mentality, than a visionary to whom money is attracted.
It has to be remembered that Ubuntu [that other example of open source OS 'success'] is the only 'flavour' of the computer operating system based on the Debian Linux distribution to have broken out of the geek domain into the wider market. And this is as a result of Mark Shuttleworth's patronage. Therefore, Google are to Android as Shuttleworth is to Ubuntu - patrons. This isn't how business works. This isn't how businesses make money.
When I speak of lineage, I do so with some degree of authority and experience. The old 'Deep Throat' quote: "Follow the money" embodies wisdom that seems to have escaped you, yet it's true of everything from enterprise to terrorism.
What we have with the iPhone is a genuinely useful, definable lineage that can be accurately tracked in retrospect, as well as predicted to a certain extent in terms of future performance. But don't worry, you're not alone in not recognising that. Sir Alan Sugar made the same mistake of underestimating the iPod back in as did Steve Ballmer with the iPhone, and the whole of Wall Street did with Apple.
However, we are now in the middle of Apple's iPhone play. [Not literally, but figuratively]. And this play is very very well planned, conceived and directed. So much so in fact that I can see elements of Chinese military strategy at the heart of it. [But that's a discussion for another day].
In contrast, the Android project is like a flotilla of hopeful, yet dubiously piloted little boats, setting out on what they all seem to believe is the same journey, but by the best will in the world, can't possibly be. Not only are there too many interests that need to be served, there are far too many opportunities for the 'fleet' to loose contact with each other and their market, make no money, and eventually break up.
You say: "It's very likely to happen." re numbers of Android developers and apps etc. Sure, while the water looks good, phone makers have little to lose in pushing handset to run Android, and several will, inevitably, immediately diluting any potential gain for individual manufacturers. But as soon as interest wanes, users will find lines being dropped players will drop out of the game, and support will disappear.
So, even though the Android may well be, or is possibly, EVENTUALLY capable of being, as good a mobile operating system as Apple's iPhone OS is NOW, [albeit one developed by an un-monetised network], without the benefit of what Apple brings to the party, in terms of a single identifiable and desirable hardware solution, it's not a credible alternative. It certainly isn't ever going to be a game changer.
And don't forget, we've all been buying phones from these other players for years, and found them all wanting in a vast variety of ways, no matter how varied the choice of form factors and functionality.
Finally, psychologically this choice actually proves to be an enormous negative, as is always the case. More is not less. Fewer choices actually make choosing easier. So why are people betting on the opposite to what experience tells us is true?
Your knowledge of mobile history is a bit lacking.
Good ideas come from people, not companies. Both devices have long personal histories, even though the current iPhone and Android devices only started in mid 2005.
Android was begat by Andy Rubin, who worked at Apple in 1989, then was a major player in Magic Cap (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magic_Cap), WebTV, and Danger. So there's long experience behind both iPhone and Android teams.
It's very likely to happen.
As for quoting raw numbers, they're not always useful. There's been over three quarters of a million downloads of the Android SDK. Doesn't mean that many are working on it actively. Similarly, many of those so-called "iPhone developers" are regular users who bought memberships to get beta access.
Don't get me started on the "85,000" apps. Tens of thousands are poor duplicates. That goes for all platforms:
Sometimes I wonder how many really unique apps there can be, not just variations. Someone should do a study on the topic. Would be interesting. Must be in the low thousands, if any that many.
MacRumors
Apr 28, 07:18 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/28/081408-canalys_1q2011_pc_share.jpg
Research firm Canalys today reported (http://www.canalys.com/pr/2011/r2011043.html) its data for worldwide first quarter PC shipments, pegging Apple in fourth place with 9.5% of the market when tablets such as the iPad are included in the calculation. Apple slipped one notch from its third-place finish (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/01/26/apple-ranks-third-in-global-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/) in the fourth quarter of 2010 as the company shipped fewer-than-expected iPads to begin the year as it cleared existing inventory of the first-generation models and sought to ramp up production on second-generation models.
With the iPad being added to the mix, Canalys calculates Apple's year-over-year growth for the quarter at nearly 188%, but down 31% from the previous quarter.Apple continued with its strategy to dominate the pad market, with the iPad or iPad 2 available in 59 markets by the end of Q1. A combination of strong Q4 sales and the announcement of the iPad 2's launch across major markets at the end of March contributed to Apple's iPad shipments being down 31% sequentially. The full impact of the iPad 2 launch will not register until subsequent quarters, as Apple gets the product into the hands of consumers. While pad sales continued to lift Apple's results, PC vendors with a focus on the consumer netbook and notebook market, such as Acer and Asus, did not fare so well.Canalys reports that a total of 6.4 million "pad" devices were shipped during the quarter, with Apple accounting for 74% of the total.
Article Link: Apple Slips to Fourth in Worldwide PC Sales With iPad Included (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/28/apple-slips-to-fourth-in-worldwide-pc-sales-with-ipad-included/)
eawmp1
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
However, they should be careful. Moves like this have the potential to alienate customers.
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
Or perhaps enlighten them.
Good on ya, Apple!
AidenShaw
Jul 13, 07:07 AM
it depends whether you are looking at it from software-perspective or hardware-perspective.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
Actually, it looks the same from both perspectives.
Yonah, Conroe and Merom have full hardware SMP support on the package (or on the chip itself).
The cache coherency and inter-processor (in this case meaning inter-core) communications features are present, and must be present in order to avoid corrupting memory data and to support an SMP operating system.
The difference with Woodcrest is that Yonah/Conroe/Merom do not support SMP features *between* sockets - the cache coherency and IPC mechanisms are not brought out to the pins on the package.
Woodcrest brings those signals out to the pins, and the Woodcrest's 5000x chipset connects those signals between sockets.
javajedi
Oct 9, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Backtothemac
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Ok,
Tell you what. I am setting up a Dual 867 for the Mall store with 256 MB Ram, and this thing is installing Windows under VPC faster than the PIII 733's that we have here. They are not SLOW! They may not have as fast a clock speed as a PC but who really gives a crap!
Macs have again taken the lead in my opinion with OS X and the Dual 1.25.
No one will ever change my mind. Call me a zealot, but that is what I think.
How incredibly ignorant. You know as well as everyone else here that this is complete ************. What really pisses me of is when people with agendas put spin on an issue. This is exactly what you are doing. Your remark is equally as arrogant as saying "PC's are faster and nobody will change my mind because they boot in 10 seconds in Windows XP and the Mac takes over a minute."
This attitude does not help Apple, and it does nothing but hurt the Mac community. You know folks it's interesting when you look back to the early to mid 90's at all the Windows bigots... you know those people who we tried to show them something intresting, something different, and something cool... the Macintosh, and they are entirely closed minded and extremely aggrogant. No matter how what you did, said, or anything else mattered. I'm seeing the exact same thing here, and it's discusting.
I would suggest you �Think Different.�..
Virtualball
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
A lot of you guys are just ridiculous. This initiative is for LGBT support, this has nothing to do with whatever other subset of bullying you support. There are no ends to support groups for people who are overweight or a different race, but you don't see anyone slamming at the doors of the NAACP asking why lesbians aren't allowed in. As noted, being gay isn't the same thing as being fat. While both are terrible for teenage self-esteem, there's a key difference. When people come out, they run the risk of losing friends or even families. I've heard so many sad stories of kids being kicked out of their home for being homosexuals whereas overweight kids deal with people at school calling them fat. I'm not belittling their problems, I'm just saying that gays have it much worse than a lot of people think.
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
iJohnHenry
Mar 14, 04:34 PM
Does a partial melt-down equate with being a little bit pregnant?
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
of course things could still go South, but hopefully they won't
Inscrutable cat says
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
KidStallyn
Mar 18, 10:33 AM
The thing that I don't like about this is that data is data. Whether it's coming from a PC thru my iPhone, or directly from my iPhone.....it's still DATA. I can't stand that they charge an extra $20 for using data that I already pay for. It's double dipping, and therefore I will refuse to use the feature. I would absolutely love to tether. There's been times where I needed it, and even though I'm jailbroken, haven't used it. I seriously think this is an area for a class action.
moogleii
Apr 5, 10:16 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...
You can delete from the keyboard. Command+delete. I prefer it because an accidental delete press won't throw up a prompt that you have to answer if you weren't meaning to delete anything (the little things as you say). On windows, I never delete anything unless I'm sure, so I shift-delete everything anyway (been doing that for years and still no regrets!).
Note, there are two delete keys on a mac keyboard, which is what is probably confusing thatsallfolks.
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
It was weird at first, but now I actually prefer having an application's menu separate from the application's windows. You can close all of an applications windows, and now close the app. Sounds kind of pointless, but sometimes I'll accidentally close all the windows of an application under Windows, which is basically a full quit of the app, so now I have to relaunch the app, which is not always a trivial amount of time. Also weird at first was the reversal of the ctrl key with osx's cmd key, but I prefer it now too because doing crazy key combinations is much easier with the thumb than with the pinky.
The biggest gripe I have is the inability to cut and paste. I've gotten used to it, but if it's a huge deal, there's an app that mods Finder I believe that will add a cut operation. I also prefer using keyboard shortcuts whenever possible, and Windows seems to be better in that respect, although I'm always learning about new keyboard shortcuts in OSX.
For what it's worth, I've been a PC user for the past 17 years. I grudgingly bought a mac a few years ago in order to mess around with Xcode. It took about 1 month to become fully used to the differences between osx and windows, but after that, I solely used the Mac for quite some time.
I eventually upgraded my pc to windows 7, and now I spend about 50% on each. Windows 7 is pretty nice, but it still feels a bit less organized than OS X (just look at Win7's control panel, yeesh; I end up just using the run command or ctrl-fing).
Btw, OSX upgrades have traditionally been very cheap. I upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard for $25.
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...
You can delete from the keyboard. Command+delete. I prefer it because an accidental delete press won't throw up a prompt that you have to answer if you weren't meaning to delete anything (the little things as you say). On windows, I never delete anything unless I'm sure, so I shift-delete everything anyway (been doing that for years and still no regrets!).
Note, there are two delete keys on a mac keyboard, which is what is probably confusing thatsallfolks.
Also, if you enable "show path bar" in Finder, you can see the entire path you're in, and easily jump around.
It was weird at first, but now I actually prefer having an application's menu separate from the application's windows. You can close all of an applications windows, and now close the app. Sounds kind of pointless, but sometimes I'll accidentally close all the windows of an application under Windows, which is basically a full quit of the app, so now I have to relaunch the app, which is not always a trivial amount of time. Also weird at first was the reversal of the ctrl key with osx's cmd key, but I prefer it now too because doing crazy key combinations is much easier with the thumb than with the pinky.
The biggest gripe I have is the inability to cut and paste. I've gotten used to it, but if it's a huge deal, there's an app that mods Finder I believe that will add a cut operation. I also prefer using keyboard shortcuts whenever possible, and Windows seems to be better in that respect, although I'm always learning about new keyboard shortcuts in OSX.
For what it's worth, I've been a PC user for the past 17 years. I grudgingly bought a mac a few years ago in order to mess around with Xcode. It took about 1 month to become fully used to the differences between osx and windows, but after that, I solely used the Mac for quite some time.
I eventually upgraded my pc to windows 7, and now I spend about 50% on each. Windows 7 is pretty nice, but it still feels a bit less organized than OS X (just look at Win7's control panel, yeesh; I end up just using the run command or ctrl-fing).
Btw, OSX upgrades have traditionally been very cheap. I upgraded from Leopard to Snow Leopard for $25.
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:15 AM
Apple has released a statement regarding the findings and it is just as realiable as Greenpeace's.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
and the article says: "...performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
and maybe that's very important for Greenpeace. And I don't even know, if Apple takes back any electronics at all.
Besides, I said that Apple is doing what they can.
and the article says: "...performs poorly on product take back and recycling...
and maybe that's very important for Greenpeace. And I don't even know, if Apple takes back any electronics at all.
greenstork
Jul 12, 03:27 PM
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
I think his point was that most tech geeks are freaking out about the revolutionary core 2 architecture, be it in the conroe, woodcrest or merom. For people to view conroe as a lesser chip in some way smacks of mac snobbery and I tend to agree with him.
torbjoern
Apr 24, 01:42 PM
I was always under the impression that reincarnation was considered a kind of living hell, like reliving Junior High School over and over again.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
In Hinduism, reincarnation is a natural part of life. As long as you follow the rules of the caste you belong to, you will get better incarnation next time. In Buddhism, reincarnation is not a state of hell in itself, but it's a barrier to salvation - and it's caused by the insatiability of human wants.
There are several hells in Hinduism, none of which are permanent so maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. There are also heavens, but these aren't permanent either. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
The fire and brimstone of hell certainly figures in a lot of the fundamentalist sects of Christianity and many of the Protestant ones too. My father-in-law is a presbyterian lay preacher and constantly prattled on about it.
In Hinduism, reincarnation is a natural part of life. As long as you follow the rules of the caste you belong to, you will get better incarnation next time. In Buddhism, reincarnation is not a state of hell in itself, but it's a barrier to salvation - and it's caused by the insatiability of human wants.
There are several hells in Hinduism, none of which are permanent so maybe it's better to refer to them as "purgatories". The purgatories are called naraka and there are many of them. There are various narakas for different sinners, such as one for alcoholics, another one for liars, a third one for thieves, etc. The punishments are usually made to "fit the crime" in ironic ways. There are also heavens, but these aren't permanent either. In most teachings of Buddhism, there is a similar cosmology.
The "flames of hell" have been mentioned many places in the New Testament, but the original texts translate literally to "flames of Gehenna". Gehenna was a landfill outside Jerusalem, a symbol of total destruction at the time. People were throwing sulfur down on the flames to keep the fire burning. In other words, the Christian "hell" was intially the cessation of existance. This is what Buddhists refer to as "nirvana", i.e. no more reincarnations. It's a paradox that what in one religion is seen as salvation, used to be the opposite in another.
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:01 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
dante@sisna.com
Oct 26, 11:28 AM
Wow. You must be using some uber version of PS.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
I havent managed to break 110% whatever I am doing with my MP.
You have the CS 3 or 4?
Ooooh..
Have you tought that that might be the reason for the high cpu usage? Eh? By any coincidence?
No -- WE DO THIS KIND OF WORK EVERYDAY. We are a production lab with a 20 year history. We have used Photoshop in Isolation on multiple One Gig Files using Actions to process as many as 40 files at one -- so nearly 40 Gig.
Run an RGB to CMYK conversion on a 1 Gig Photoshop file with embedded profiles -- watch activity monitor. See that all four processors kick in for this processes. Many Photoshop processes efficiently use all four processors.
Besides the main point of the original post is that users don't see much improvement with Quad Cores --- this is just plain WRONG.
javajedi
Oct 9, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by TheFink
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
One point you are missing is that I can upgrade my PC 5 times over and still have the cost be lower than buying a new Mac. So a mac can run modern apps 5 years later. For the same price, I can get a PC, drop a new HD, video card, and CPU in a few years later and then end up with a leading edge PC, and not a bleading edge mac. My B&W G3 isn't even upgradable to the speeds of the current iMacs. With a PC a new mobo and CPU will get me into whatever is the current CPU class....
Very ture. For better or wose, that is what happens when you get locked into a single vendor that sells proprietary hardware *or* software.... just look at Sun :)
ct2k7
Apr 24, 04:44 PM
If honour killings are cultural why do they seem sanctioned in muslim majority countries?
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Are the action of a few countries a representative of Islam?
Have they, or have they not used the framework to full extent?
Did you notice that most of the situations talk about it being acceptable in Adultery? Not sure if you noticed, but they're also not following Sharia Law. These laws should not be implemented or executed, as per Sharia Law.
http://www.islamawareness.net/HonourKilling/honour_killings.pdf
Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Nigeria, Turkey, Algeria, Morocco, Niger?
In Israr Ullah Zehri, a Pakistani politician in Balochistan, defended the honor killings of five women belonging to the Umrani tribe by a relative of a local Umrani politician[86].Zehri defended the killings in Parliament and asked his fellow legislators not to make a fuss about the incident. He said, "These are centuries-old traditions, and I will continue to defend them. Only those who indulge in immoral acts should be afraid."
From Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Honor_killing#Support_and_sanction).
Nuc
Aug 29, 11:20 AM
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Yea they're really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Yea they're really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
strabes
May 2, 04:05 PM
I despise the "X is a file downloaded from the Internet" dialog introduced in SL. Really wish you could disable it.
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
http://www.macworld.com/article/145324/2010/01/filewarnings.html
Basically just run this:
defaults write com.apple.LaunchServices LSQuarantine -bool NO
dgree03
Apr 21, 09:07 AM
Look Android lovers... this is an Apple site. You don't need to call us "Fanboys" in a condescending way here. We are here because we love our Macs, iOS devices or we develop for them and like to keep up on the news. Yes... many here are "fanboys".
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
I generally agree with your post. My problem is, people comment on stuff they have NO IDEA about on this site. When anybody makes false claims, they should be called out, period. My annoyance is with "fanboys" as they seem incapable of thinking that "their" product my not be the best or the only fish in the pond.
I will defend apple on many things, I will defend android on many things, I will defend windows on many things, I will defend sony, samsung, monster(beats headphones), protools, BMWS, Dodges etc....
I wish more people here can be objective about most things, so we can have a real discussion and like you said NOT "a pissing contest." But sometimes a pissing contest is needed to shut people down who are spreading falsehoods.
We don't care about your customization, your 4G, your ability to steal music or video. It's stupid. You do know you can do all that on an iPhone too (with the exception of 4G - but who cares, very little markets have it). Yes, iTunes manages our music, apps and video, but I can add songs and videos from anywhere... just like you. If I want to be a geek and customize, I can jail break my phone and do all sorts of crazy things. You do realize the average consumer out there could care less right? They just want it to work.
So, anyway... go love your Droid device. It is a nice platform. But sorry to say, it's not going to kill the iPhone or iOS. Apple is good at what it does and consumers love it. Their sales continue to show it.
And, like it or not, Apple is the most influential high-tech company out there right now. They've done more for the PC and the Mobile industry than any other company in the last decade. You should be happy Apple exists as they've woken up many manufactures in the market as to what consumers care about. Quality product. Consistent experience and superior service.
Please... if you want to impress your friends with your customized HTC Thunderbolt, go over to the Android forum and beat your chest and stop the pissing contest here. There's pluses and minuses on both sides and we could argue all day with no productive end result.
I generally agree with your post. My problem is, people comment on stuff they have NO IDEA about on this site. When anybody makes false claims, they should be called out, period. My annoyance is with "fanboys" as they seem incapable of thinking that "their" product my not be the best or the only fish in the pond.
I will defend apple on many things, I will defend android on many things, I will defend windows on many things, I will defend sony, samsung, monster(beats headphones), protools, BMWS, Dodges etc....
I wish more people here can be objective about most things, so we can have a real discussion and like you said NOT "a pissing contest." But sometimes a pissing contest is needed to shut people down who are spreading falsehoods.
No comments:
Post a Comment