InfoSecmgr
Sep 29, 01:09 AM
Very neat, I must say. I wonder what color drapes he chose...
steadysignal
Apr 10, 06:59 PM
I refuse to buy anything from Best Buy because of their ethics and practices.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
Glideslope
Apr 15, 04:49 PM
Good.
How is the new office Eric? What goes around comes around. The walls are starting to lean.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM. :apple:
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
Do more research on Tim. Steve picks the target. Tim delivers the system.:apple:
How is the new office Eric? What goes around comes around. The walls are starting to lean.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM. :apple:
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
Do more research on Tim. Steve picks the target. Tim delivers the system.:apple:
ulbador
Apr 25, 03:01 PM
What is "timer" set as and where does it come from?
I think from there you can see where your problem is.
I think from there you can see where your problem is.
more...
*LTD*
Mar 10, 07:52 AM
The Click Wheel interface was/is an abomination and exactly the opposite of a "good" interface. It's a horrible mess. The only usable iPod is the iPod Touch.
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
The click wheel interface was, in fact, a key element in the astounding (and that's putting it mildly) success of the iPod.
I thought everyone knew this already. :confused:
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight. They're now building on that. They've got the competition completely flummoxed. They're pushing the industry forward with their apparent non-innovations.
puckhead193
Jan 9, 10:36 PM
i think final cut server will get released finally. link (http://www.apple.com/finalcutserver/)
more...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 25, 05:57 PM
That lady has "issues", just looking at her demeanour. :eek:
'atsa no lady, 'atsa my wife!
'atsa no lady, 'atsa my wife!
spencers
Apr 10, 02:40 PM
http://img.runningwarehouse.com/big/SFT5M1-2.jpg
Nice, Fastwitch? Thought about trying those at some point.
Samsung PN50C8000 x3.
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Sweet!
Nice, Fastwitch? Thought about trying those at some point.
Samsung PN50C8000 x3.
Continuing to build my ultimate theater room - just need to paint the in wall speakers that were installed.
Sweet!
more...
suzerain
Oct 2, 05:35 PM
I can't believe that people are disgruntled that we are forced to use iTunes with iPod.
iTunes is brilliant.
It's not as if we are forced to use something really crummy like WMP with the worlds favourite MP3 player.
& Microsoft.
Hmm...personally, I don't have a problem with the 'iTunes' part, I have a problem with the 'forced' part. Any company (yes, even Apple) is capable of making a big mistake, at some point...
iTunes is brilliant.
It's not as if we are forced to use something really crummy like WMP with the worlds favourite MP3 player.
& Microsoft.
Hmm...personally, I don't have a problem with the 'iTunes' part, I have a problem with the 'forced' part. Any company (yes, even Apple) is capable of making a big mistake, at some point...
miles01110
Apr 14, 03:43 PM
It's the same cumulative dose, however over a vastly different timeframe.
No, it is not. Educate yourself on the facts, then rejoin the conversation.
No, it is not. Educate yourself on the facts, then rejoin the conversation.
more...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
balamw
Apr 27, 05:32 PM
One favor, I'm not answering more quiz questions, I get your point.. I still need to learn more fundamentals.. I get it, just please contribute with the thread to find solutions or not.. (there are many Professional Forums).
You clearly have not read the two articles I linked back in post #20 http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12467980&postcount=20.
You don't "get it".
The "quiz questions" are necessary because we don't know what it is you know or think you know. We can't read your mind. This is how information is exchanged and we can come to the appropriate level or explanation to be able to help you. It can also help you find the answer yourself by talking through it.
Helping you help yourself is the best way we know how to contribute to the thread.
We've all been there, even the hard-core pros. Sometimes you just can't see the answer that is right in front of your eyes until you try explaining it so someone else.
Please answer this question which I posed earlier in the thread. What books, sites, videos, etc... have you been using to get you to this point and what additional resources are you looking to delve into next.
Given the things it is clear you don't understand, picking the right resources to use to learn the fundamentals you are missing is quite important.
EDIT: Finally, just a comment, PhoneyDeveloper pointed out that you had a parallel thread on the Apple Discussion forums. JMHO, but that's poor netiquette and is a waste of both your time and ours. At least link the two conversations, so folks don't end up repeating what someone else said on the other forum. Even just to say "someone over at the Apple Discussion Fourms (link) suggested ..."
B
You clearly have not read the two articles I linked back in post #20 http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12467980&postcount=20.
You don't "get it".
The "quiz questions" are necessary because we don't know what it is you know or think you know. We can't read your mind. This is how information is exchanged and we can come to the appropriate level or explanation to be able to help you. It can also help you find the answer yourself by talking through it.
Helping you help yourself is the best way we know how to contribute to the thread.
We've all been there, even the hard-core pros. Sometimes you just can't see the answer that is right in front of your eyes until you try explaining it so someone else.
Please answer this question which I posed earlier in the thread. What books, sites, videos, etc... have you been using to get you to this point and what additional resources are you looking to delve into next.
Given the things it is clear you don't understand, picking the right resources to use to learn the fundamentals you are missing is quite important.
EDIT: Finally, just a comment, PhoneyDeveloper pointed out that you had a parallel thread on the Apple Discussion forums. JMHO, but that's poor netiquette and is a waste of both your time and ours. At least link the two conversations, so folks don't end up repeating what someone else said on the other forum. Even just to say "someone over at the Apple Discussion Fourms (link) suggested ..."
B
more...
Anonymous Freak
Oct 10, 07:04 PM
I'm sorry, but with the release of the "true video" iPod "imminent" for months now, I'm just not going to pay any attention whatsoever until I have one in my hands.
Just like the iPhone, PowerBook G5 (and more recently, Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, although that release hasn't been "imminent" often enough yet,) etc.
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
Just because it's getting a lot of talk, and Engadget claims their sources are good, is no reason to upgrade it to page 1 status. (Heck, the iWalk got a lot of talk back in the day, and SpyMac claimed their sources were good. That didn't make it true.)
Just like the iPhone, PowerBook G5 (and more recently, Core 2 Duo MacBook Pro, although that release hasn't been "imminent" often enough yet,) etc.
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
Just because it's getting a lot of talk, and Engadget claims their sources are good, is no reason to upgrade it to page 1 status. (Heck, the iWalk got a lot of talk back in the day, and SpyMac claimed their sources were good. That didn't make it true.)
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 08:49 PM
You can point out an error and give solution
The goal of the forum is not to give out solutions, sorry. If that is what you are looking for, you're looking for it in the wrong places. We're here to help you figure out how to find the solution yourself (either by pointing out appropriate documentation or by giving hints).
or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one told you to quit and pointing out the documentation often times is better than someone trying to explain it. The documentation will be correct, and why type out an explanation to something Apple already documentation (ie, explained) in the proper terms ?
Now if there's something in the documentation you need help clarifying, please feel free to ask questions about the documentation.
The goal of the forum is not to give out solutions, sorry. If that is what you are looking for, you're looking for it in the wrong places. We're here to help you figure out how to find the solution yourself (either by pointing out appropriate documentation or by giving hints).
or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one told you to quit and pointing out the documentation often times is better than someone trying to explain it. The documentation will be correct, and why type out an explanation to something Apple already documentation (ie, explained) in the proper terms ?
Now if there's something in the documentation you need help clarifying, please feel free to ask questions about the documentation.
more...
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:39 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid....
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
Platform
Jan 9, 03:12 PM
Where is it...:o
C'mon Apple...put it up on your servers :cool:
C'mon Apple...put it up on your servers :cool:
more...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 17, 11:25 AM
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
And once an app that gets by with security risk is found, it is removed. Compare this to getting an app off of site X. Does site X remove the app because it was found to be a security risk? And should an appear turn out to be stealing information, which is easier to trace to the source, one that went through the app store registration process with apple or on on site X residing somewhere in Russia?
You're narrowly defining the methods of security that Apple's app store can provide.
Telp
Jan 10, 05:29 PM
Agreed that it was stupid, and may hurt credibility, but i still love reading gizmodo, and would not wish to see them banned from MW or the next CES. People do stupid things, if they do it again, ban them, but i say let them off the hook for this one.
Ugg
Apr 17, 12:08 PM
More to the point, where do you draw the line? Should every school curiculum include the struggles of Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Muslims, Hispanics, Christians, Women, etc... gonna be kinda tough to fit all that in. Or does your plan draw the line somewhere? I mean are gay people more important than Native Americans? In terms of history, whom do you believe got screwed over more and whose struggles should be taught in school?
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
I don't think you understand the thrust of this law. It's not about creating a separate class on gay rights, it's about incorporating gay people into existing history lessons. You mention Oppenheimer. Unless, I'm mistaken, the fact that he was a jew is mentioned in most history books. The same with Einstein. The Chinese Exclusion Act of 1882 was a pretty big deal, as were the US internment camps for Japanese-Americans during WWII. The Act and the camps are pretty self-explanatory. They were directed at a specific ethnic group of people. Gay accomplishments and persecution has mostly been swept under the rug.
Harvey Milk wasn't shot because he was gay, he was shot because he defeated a very disturbed man in an election. But, the fact that he was gay is pretty important.
The story of America is a story of minorities.
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
So the Pink Triangles of the Holocaust are irrelevant?
His life and what he did was not irrelevant. I'm sure a movie or book could be done on his life's story. Teaching kids to look more at a person because of their sexual orientation, rather than their contributions, is irrelevant.
Wow, I don't know what to say. People of distinction aren't simply born that way, one's upbringing and the time in which they came of age play an enormous role. Any number of American industrialists were driven by adverse events during their formative years. Those events are almost always touched on. Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 12:16 PM
Very inexactly. The system is borked.
Before you assume that, try xUKHCx's suggestion. In testing on dormant threads, where others aren't voting constantly, it works accurately every time. This thread has 67 posts but 341 views... you don't know how many of those viewing are clicking to vote on various posts.
I do agree that you should be able to remove your vote, rendering a net change of zero, but otherwise, it appears to be accurate.
The Arabs invented 0 some time ago.
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
Before you assume that, try xUKHCx's suggestion. In testing on dormant threads, where others aren't voting constantly, it works accurately every time. This thread has 67 posts but 341 views... you don't know how many of those viewing are clicking to vote on various posts.
I do agree that you should be able to remove your vote, rendering a net change of zero, but otherwise, it appears to be accurate.
The Arabs invented 0 some time ago.
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
Macxor
Apr 29, 04:06 PM
me too
+1
+1
maflynn
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
I have to say that Networking has definitely improved from XP to Win 7, but when I switched over to OS X, one of the first things I noticed was how much *easier* and *simple* networking was on the Mac side.
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
apfhex
Jan 7, 07:00 PM
We're incorporating near-real time photos in this year's MacRumors coverage... so it shuold be pretty enjoyable.... barring any unforseen circumstances. :)
Sounds AWESOME. I usually follow MR plus one or two other popular news or blog sites. I think I recall last year Engadget or one of them has some photos online before the end of the keynote, which was nice.
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening.
Still, when the keynote stream first goes online it can be very difficult to watch, probably even if you live in SF. I usually don't end up getting to see the whole thing until later in the afternoon.
Is it possible to download the entire keynote file (.avi) to my hard disk instead of viewing it streamed? Is it possible at all with Safari, or do I need Firefox and some extension/plugin?
No (and it's not an AVI, it's a H.264 encoded MOV). You're going to have to wait for someone to capture the stream and post it somewhere as a downloadable file.
Sounds AWESOME. I usually follow MR plus one or two other popular news or blog sites. I think I recall last year Engadget or one of them has some photos online before the end of the keynote, which was nice.
Well, there are some benefits to being in California where the event is happening.
Still, when the keynote stream first goes online it can be very difficult to watch, probably even if you live in SF. I usually don't end up getting to see the whole thing until later in the afternoon.
Is it possible to download the entire keynote file (.avi) to my hard disk instead of viewing it streamed? Is it possible at all with Safari, or do I need Firefox and some extension/plugin?
No (and it's not an AVI, it's a H.264 encoded MOV). You're going to have to wait for someone to capture the stream and post it somewhere as a downloadable file.
caspersoong
Apr 15, 07:55 PM
Google should have seen this coming long ago.
0 comments:
Post a Comment