Huntn
Mar 13, 05:53 PM
It's the cleanest and usually the safest type of electricity available that can produce energy on a large scale.
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
When there are no accidents it is a good source of power except for the incredibly toxic waste. Murphy's Law says there must be accidents and unforeseen events.
There are inherent risks with nuclear power and there is the waste issue yet to be solved. But likewise, there are risks for other types of power, whether it's gas, oil, coal or even hydroelectric. Choose your poison.
Speaking of poison- ten thousand barrels of radioactive waste with a half life of 1000 years... Who gets to keep that in their backyard? I'd say launch it into space, but then have visions of a rocket malfunction requiring explosive detonation.
Granted in the history of nuke power, there has only been one worse case scenarios, but that one was a doozy. Sure they say it can never happen but when a coal fired plant blows up it does not contaminate 4000 square miles. This makes nuclear power both wonderful and terrifying at the same time, because we all know accidents must happen. The question is how long and how big will the worst of those accidents be? Personally I'd look for other green not yellow solutions.
http://www.scienceprogress.org/wp-content/uploads/2007/12/radioactive_symbol_250.jpg
I've read in Russia, there are areas with posted signs that say something to the effect of "Roll Up Your Windows and Drive as Fast as You can for the Next 50 miles"... Read about Chernobyl here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster_effects).
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/2/23/Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg/400px-Chernobyl_radiation_map_1996.svg.png
Rt&Dzine
Mar 27, 07:44 PM
According to you and your internet sources, sexuality can be readily changed by the individual right? So why don't you try changing yours? You don't actually have to have sex with anyone, just will yourself to be attracted to someone of the same sex.
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
Nicolosi says that if a father and son have a normal relationship, that child will not be gay. But according to Nicolosi sexuality can be changed, so then he could become gay. So it's contradictory.
http://www.exgaywatch.com/wp/2007/04/dr-nicolosi-getting-in-touch-with-his-inner-spoiled-child/
r1ch4rd
Apr 22, 10:10 PM
I'm in the U.S, and I do receive a lot of pressure! I get on average 4-5 messages a week from believers on Facebook warning me of hellfire. :-/ and I'm not even too strident in my disbelief.
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
I'm not sure how to express this eloquently, but I am sure you know what I mean... if you don't believe something it's not a part of your life. I don't believe in God, I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. I just don't label myself as a believer, rather than labeling myself as a disbeliever. It sounds like there is an opinion amongst some individuals that you can be converted, but in reality it's just not even an issue. I just don't get it!
On the plus side, at least you know you won't really end up in hell ;)
Normally I just take it as a joke, but lately its been getting to me. I think that my hellfire threats are above average even for American atheists.
I'm not sure how to express this eloquently, but I am sure you know what I mean... if you don't believe something it's not a part of your life. I don't believe in God, I also don't believe in the tooth fairy. I just don't label myself as a believer, rather than labeling myself as a disbeliever. It sounds like there is an opinion amongst some individuals that you can be converted, but in reality it's just not even an issue. I just don't get it!
On the plus side, at least you know you won't really end up in hell ;)
Peace
Sep 12, 05:54 PM
To help quell confusion this device WILL be 802.11n
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
There will be no problem streaming DVD quality or even 720P
Steve Jobless
Sep 12, 04:26 PM
any pictures?
mozumder
Apr 13, 12:45 AM
This really does look like an Aperture for Video!
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
I'm curious to see what the full media cataloging is going to be like. I think that part really changes the workflow most.
The people complaining about Color going away are going to be happy with the integrated color correction and color grading, especially if it's on the level of Aperture. You can pretty much do any possible color correction and grading with Aperture. Sure, plug-ins exist for Aperture, but the built in color correction is actually fine for everything once you know how to work it, and works at a pro level where most plugins cause it to look amateurish.
I really see the new update as a perfect complement to dSLR-based video workflows. A dSLR with FCP X and its built-in color grading and correction basically means the end of all other production workflows.
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
balamw
Sep 21, 02:53 PM
iTV isn't being released until the Leopard timeframe, and Leopard has major unannounced features which we won't hear about until Macworld '07. Could it be some Mac media centre functionality as some have suggested?
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
We're expecting a bunch of new stuff from Apple in early 07, any of which could be critical for iTV's success. The most obvious of these is QT8, we already know it will support H.264 captions, but what else will it do? Leopard will bring Front Row to all Macs and iLife 07 will be expected around the same time. However the fact that iTV has been announced as supporting both Mac and PC makes me assume that either it will not depend on features in Leopard, or iTunes on Windows will gain some functionality to support sharing of photos.
All sounds very intriguing.
B
myamid
Sep 12, 06:24 PM
The Eye Home does not have Component and HDMI inputs.
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Wireless isn't built in.
It's not an Apple product that will work better with Front Row than Eye Home will.
Not completely accurate... EyeHome has component out - with a pretty decent 1080i Software Upconvert over Component to an HDTV set...
Photics
Apr 9, 09:53 PM
Here is an easy way to explain it. You can heat a slice of bread in a toaster and a microwave oven. Are you going to say microwaves compeat with toasters now. When they do not heat bread the same way.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
That's a tough analogy, as it's true... microwaves and toasters can coexist. (Although, I don't have a microwave. It does strange things to pizza.) Yet, I don't think it's the same in the gaming world. Are iOS games really so different from other video games?
The only thing really lacking is a decent controller. There are so many ways to resolve this.
Example... put a motion sensing camera on the Apple TV. That $100-$150 box could be used for FaceTime and video games. I think that would be very popular.
Another Example... the remote control for the Apple TV could be expanded into a controller.
Yet Another Example... one iOS device can be used to control another. This technology is already in play.
I can't see how Apple making a Bluetooth controller, which, say looked a bit like a PS3/360 controller, and selling it as an optional accessory could be in any way a negative thing.
The negativity that I see is if it's an unsupported accessory. What if customers don't go out and buy it? What if developers don't modify their games to support it? There are lots of failed game accessories out there. While I doubt Apple will release the next Nintendo Power Glove, a goofy looking controller � like the PlayStation move � could be harmful to iOS gaming.
Eniregnat
Mar 18, 05:30 PM
This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn�t going to release it before it was necessary.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
Edge100
Apr 15, 12:38 PM
I've never understood this. Do you really think there are Catholics in Africa who are saying "I really want to have pre-marital sex/sleep with this prostitute/rape this woman, but oh darn, the Pope says condoms are a sin"? Do you not see why that's a little strange?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
This brand of obfuscation, while par for the course, is growing tiresome. The Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms, even to couples where one partner is HIV sero-positive, and the other is HIV sero-negative.
What's worse is that the Catholic church has actively discouraged the distribution of condoms to non-married people, with the notion that because the invisible creator of the universe has a distaste for latex, an agonizing death from HIV/AIDS is an appropriate punishment for pre-marital sex.
The Catholic church doesn't care about people; it cares about sex. A group that cared about people would say "You should consider not having sex with multiple partners. However, human nature being what it is, if you do have sex with multiple partners, use a condom so that you don't end up dying from a horrible disease."
THAT would be a reasonable message.
If someone in the church actually lied about the efficacy of condoms, then shame on them, but I don't see what the point would be.
Not just "someone" in the church; we're talking about the Pope here.
I'm sure abstinence-only education doesn't "work" if you define "working" as guaranteeing no one will have sex before marriage then I'm sure you're right. But teaching kids that sex is serious and not a game might have positive effects you're not considering.
I absolutely agree with the last statement. Sex is serious, but not because an invisible god says so; because it is, in reality, serious.
Teach abstinence; but also teach that if you choose not to be abstinent, you should protect yourself. To do the former without the latter is inexcusably stupid.
You misunderstood, but maybe I could have worded it better. A person being raped makes an effort to resist, assuming they are conscious and able to resist. A person willfully having sex isn't going to resist. That passage eliminates the possibility of a person having willful sex and then claiming that they were raped in order to avoid the consequences.
One is actually rape, the other isn't.
No, rape is rape.
But even if I grant you this point, the Bible still instructs us to kill adulterers. Do you support that?
Dr.Gargoyle
Jul 11, 10:42 PM
Sounds like these new Mac Pros are going to be expensive.
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
robbieduncan
Mar 13, 03:50 PM
None of the studies I have read proposing this, have suggested the sort of ecological impact you are implying. This is pure, unadulterated, BS.
Indeed. Some existing solar arrays are built on grazing land that is still productive grazing once the array is in place.
Indeed. Some existing solar arrays are built on grazing land that is still productive grazing once the array is in place.
dgree03
Apr 28, 09:09 AM
Kudos for looking for something (seriously) -- I'd argue that it's a bit limited in scope, though:
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
True it is limited to to americas, but I would argue(without any real evidence) that americans in general have more disposable income to afford laptops(which are generally more expensive than desktops.) So i would guess the market for desktop is EVEN BIGGER outside the US.
Limited to adult is true.
Yes/no answer is true also, but the same can be said about households with 4 desktops and 1 laptop ;).
-Limited to America
-Limited to adults
-Calculating by household, with strictly boolean "yes or no" (not counting multiples)
For example, in my house, we have 4 laptops and 1 desktop machine, but for this survey, it would only be counted as "yes" for both. Actually, it wouldn't be counted at all, since we're in England ;-)
True it is limited to to americas, but I would argue(without any real evidence) that americans in general have more disposable income to afford laptops(which are generally more expensive than desktops.) So i would guess the market for desktop is EVEN BIGGER outside the US.
Limited to adult is true.
Yes/no answer is true also, but the same can be said about households with 4 desktops and 1 laptop ;).
djgamble
Oct 7, 09:52 PM
Good luck to them then...
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
I predict Google will be bankrupt by 2012 when the VC's realize they're not achieving anything.
DrDomVonDoom
May 3, 01:37 AM
I think a few points of mine should be made.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
A.) I am sure at least 50-75% of Mac users today, used to be PC users, and of that 50-75% I believe is a more 'aware' group of users, not exactly what the media and PC fanboys try to paint Mac users as. ( dumb, needing simplicity, old etc)
B.) I firmly believe that as a technologically aware group of people, we understand viruses, malware, how they are put on computers and we can see the difference between spam, popups, malware and the lot.
c.) keeping both point A. and B. in mind, the reason Mac's are less likely to be infected comes down to the users. We know what to look for after years of using PC's by force or by choice, and Mac users know what not to download, what sites not to visit etc. This has mostly to do with the quality of users, not the software. All software, all os's can be compromised, but its the user that allows such things to happen, and it doesn't happen all too often to Mac users. Something can be said about that.
What the PC crowd would like the world to think is the only people who use Macs are uneducated, or old people who don't understand computers. I call BS, I know almost nobody who uses a Mac, a few but all of the older computer users I know, use PC's why? Because they Don't understand technology and they see a 200-400 dollar computer solution just what they need. I am sure to a older less technologically adept person, either pc or mac would seem overwhelming.
That ALL being said. My main point is, infections of computers are %100 user responsible. Why do Mac users get less infections? My belief is that the users may be of higher quality, ONLY because of the computers niche-like nature and most Mac users are dedicated, technologically knowledgable.
appleguy123
Apr 24, 09:47 AM
Aduntu is the only person I know of who believes these things, and I'll wonder about them for hours. I'll write more later, I hope.
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
It is completely antithetical to what I was thought as a Christian as well.
@Aduntu, are you a free will baptist?
mulo
Apr 22, 08:00 PM
Why are most of the posters here Atheists?
proof?
proof?
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.
aswitcher
Jul 13, 07:36 AM
I can see the iMac getting a makeover. The switch to intel was a rush job in my mind, and I think they are working on a modified shell to better cope with components and heat for a faster intel line for the next few years.
r0k
Apr 11, 09:41 AM
Not that this really matters much, but just for the record:
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I was one of the first to own the original iPhone and have an iPhone 4 now. I bought an iPhone 4 for my wife and an iPod Touch for my son. I got my mom an iPad and I'm about to buy one for myself. So I'm certainly not anti-Apple. I'm just not sure I see a clear advantage FOR ME to get a Mac computer over a Windows machine.
But, who knows... maybe some day.
We started with Windows and Linux. Windows was buggy, crashy and the opposite of trouble free while Linux "just works." I had a Palm smartphone and it worked equally well with Windows, Linux. Because I liked Linux, I decided to try OS X. I found that my Palm smartphone worked as well with OS X as it had worked with Linux. One thing I remembered through this process is that Windows phones would only work natively with Windows and I had already decided to put that OS in my rear view mirror.
Then I got a Blackberry phone and had all kinds of sync problems. To be honest, I blame those sync problems on Apple and iSync but I knew that if I went to an iThing my sync problems would go away. Sure enough, I carried an iPod Touch and a Blackberry for about a year and my iPod Touch was always in sync but it was a knock down drag out fight to keep my BB in sync. I was relying on MobileMe to keep things in sync and the only down side is that it is a paid service versus google which is free.
When it came time to replace my aging BB, I considered Android but settled on iPhone so I could bring all my apps and data over from my iPod Touch. Bottom line: I could have chosen to live with a multi platform environment but living in an all Apple environment has provided a flawless end to end user experience for me.
If you like your iPhone and have a desire for an Apple computer, I can tell you the two play very well together. In fact, I can testify from experience that Apple is better at making any two Apple devices play well together than is Microsoft. Heck I remember the days when I was hosting lan parties that WinME, Win2K and WinXP couldn't see one another on a network because of incompatibilities in MS implementation of networking across the 3 OS. And these were similar devices.
When I picked up my iPad, and later my iPhone 4, I had all my contacts and calendar on the devices before walking out of the Apple store. I was not only impressed. I was delighted and I remain delighted in the way my iThings work. I think you can get Mobile Me free on windows (buy purchasing a $99 annual subscription) but as I've never tried it, I don't know how well it works. I don't dislike Outlook but I do resent the fact that unlike Contact.app and Mail.app it is not included with the OS.
BTW, while I've taken an "all Apple" approach, I don't think that's necessary but I do think it is better because of Apple's dedication to a quality end to end user experience.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Absolutely 100% false.
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
According to the American Automobile Manufacturer's Association, there were 169,994,128 vehicles in the world in 1970. As of 2001 there were 450 million.
Fine, then...per car, modern vehicles are now only 38 times cleaner than they were forty years ago. )
It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW
charlituna
Apr 28, 09:11 AM
Surprise. The major enterprise players take the top three spots.
Indeed. Although I would argue that the ipad doesn't belong in this group but rather with other mobile devices like smart phones. Where it probably puts Apple at the top or at least second place.
Indeed. Although I would argue that the ipad doesn't belong in this group but rather with other mobile devices like smart phones. Where it probably puts Apple at the top or at least second place.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий