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.
AP_piano295
Apr 22, 11:15 PM
"I contend that we are both atheists. I just believe in one fewer god than you do. When you understand why you dismiss all other possible gods, you will understand why I dismiss yours."
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
I'm an agnostic myself. To me it seems the only logical step forward. Atheism requires belief in something that cannot be proven via science, ie. that we can't (at least not right now) prove there is or isn't a god. For one to be a theist or an atheist, you must believe there is or isn't a god. Believe being the key word.
I normally will only believe in things that can be proven. Therefore I'm an agnostic. I don't deny the existence of god, although I do very much doubt it to the point where I could border on atheism (whilst it can't be proven, it does seem logical to me).
I disagree.
For a start atheism (ass I see it) is not a belief system, I don't even like to use the term atheist because it grants religion(s) a much higher status than I think it deserves. The term atheism gives the impression that I have purposefully decided NOT to believe in god or religion
I have not chosen not to believe in god or god(s). I just have no reason to believe that they exist because I have seen nothing which suggests their existence.
I don't claim to understand how the universe/matter/energy/life came to be, but the ancient Greeks didn't understand lighting. The fact that they didn't understand lighting made Zeus no more real and electricity no less real. The fact that I do not understand abiogenesis (the formation of living matter from non living matter) does not mean that it is beyond understanding.
The fact that there is much currently beyond the scope of human understanding in no way suggests the existence of god.
In much the same way that one's inability to see through a closed door doesn't suggest that the room beyond is filled with leprechauns.
A lack of information does not arbitrarily suggest the nature of the lacking knowledge. Any speculation which isn't based upon available information is simply meaningless speculation, nothing more.
LagunaSol
Apr 21, 01:34 PM
Your profile name/avatar/signature shows how unbias you are...shame on these crazy Android users who can't see the merit of a different OS :rolleyes:
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Of course I'm biased. I'm on an Apple user community forum.
What I would not do is join an Android user forum with a user name like iOS Rules and an avatar of a dead Android robot and spend my days telling all the Android users how much more awesome my platform of choice is and how dumb they are for choosing something else. Not only would that be rude, but it would also likely get me booted from the forum for trolling (something that sadly is not enforced around here).
I have no problem with Android. What I do have a problem with is the deafening amount of noise being made all over the Web by the more vocal segment of the Android population. As far as grassroots astroturfing goes, I've never seen anything like it. It blew the top off the annoyance thermometer about 6 months ago.
Dan--
Mar 18, 07:32 AM
On a limited plan, the carriers have NO business saying how the data should be used. You pay for the data, and they do NOTHING to provide the service of tethering. But I agree that on an unlimited plan, tethering is a little like someone said, going to an all-you-can-eat-buffet, paying for one, and then sharing. Of course, you're not likely to be tethering all the time that you're paying for the service, so not exactly the same.
What the carriers should do is make tethering completely, 100% free for anyone on a capped plan, and replace the current "unlimited" plan with 2 plans - one that costs the same, but has a cap of say 2GB over the next lower plan, and another that's a true unlimited plan that adds and includes the cost of tethering.
This kind of cr*p makes me mad.
Dan
What the carriers should do is make tethering completely, 100% free for anyone on a capped plan, and replace the current "unlimited" plan with 2 plans - one that costs the same, but has a cap of say 2GB over the next lower plan, and another that's a true unlimited plan that adds and includes the cost of tethering.
This kind of cr*p makes me mad.
Dan
dejo
Oct 7, 11:55 AM
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
Curious. Why do you think Objective-C is not user-friendly and intuitive?
SimD
Apr 12, 10:50 PM
I know what grading is. Prove to me that this App has no grading capability.
But you can't prove that it does...
Color really needs to stay stand alone I feel. If Apple were to merge both, I feel it would be immensely bloated.
Plus, at least in our case, our primary editing machines don't really have Color setup. Only our colour correction studios.
But you can't prove that it does...
Color really needs to stay stand alone I feel. If Apple were to merge both, I feel it would be immensely bloated.
Plus, at least in our case, our primary editing machines don't really have Color setup. Only our colour correction studios.
Sydde
Mar 14, 01:13 PM
in japan though it's a little bit different. thats why there also isn't much open panic: simply for the fact that the majority of japanese don't want to be seen 'losing it'
I suspect you are somewhat mistaken on that point. Mostly, what happened happened, not much they can do about that now. Some eyewitnesses I hear on the radio were saying they felt eerily calm during the shaking, now they are mostly fatalistic, I would think. Panic just amounts to a waste of energy.
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic
That remains to be seen. Right now, they are still struggling to keep this disaster from happening. The situation is hardly what I would call stable.
I suspect you are somewhat mistaken on that point. Mostly, what happened happened, not much they can do about that now. Some eyewitnesses I hear on the radio were saying they felt eerily calm during the shaking, now they are mostly fatalistic, I would think. Panic just amounts to a waste of energy.
off topic side note: for other nuclear plant designs this events could have been massivle more dramatic
That remains to be seen. Right now, they are still struggling to keep this disaster from happening. The situation is hardly what I would call stable.
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 12, 04:00 PM
I think it was a big mistake not to add a HD/TV-tuner/optical reader... THAT could be a killer. Right now we have an upgraded Airport extreme.
zacman
Oct 7, 01:41 PM
Apple already seems to have lost some parts of the European market with the 3GS because they didn't add the features that are frequently used there (like HSUPA, (r)SAP, etc.). For example GFK numbers showed that the Android based HTC Hero outsold the 3GS in Germany.
Chaos123x
Apr 12, 11:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wonder if a boxed version with the other apps will be offered? Or maybe Apple will support the old Final Cut for awhile till FC X is ready for prime time. I mean where's Final Cut 8 and 9? Maybe there will be a transition phase???
Wonder if a boxed version with the other apps will be offered? Or maybe Apple will support the old Final Cut for awhile till FC X is ready for prime time. I mean where's Final Cut 8 and 9? Maybe there will be a transition phase???
Denarius
Mar 15, 09:56 PM
I still regard nuclear fission as the best option among fossil fuel technologies to get us over the hump until alternative energy sources can cover 100% of demand and/or nuclear fusion is ready for commercial use. I still would prefer us to phase out coal, oil, gas and trash burning plants before we shut down our nuclear reactors as they have better carbon footprints and the mining of their fuel is overall less damaging than coal strip mining. Do we need to quickly move away from Gen I and II technology and get to at least III+ technology for all of our reactors, absolutely, but exiting nuclear fission technology at least in the short to midterm seems like a poor choice to me.
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
Cheers,
Ahmed
Agreed, nuclear Fusion's the best hope in the long term although I'm sure many will believe that's evil as well because of the word 'nuclear' being there.
Little bit of trivia, did you know that hospital CAT scanners were originally called NMR scanners (nuclear magnetic resonance), but they changed the name because it scared people? Why hasn't anybody coined the word 'nuclearphobe' yet :rolleyes:
whatever
Oct 25, 10:44 PM
I just got my mac pro a month and a half ago.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
Don't worry about it.
There is no reason for Apple to change the MacPro line at this point. Maybe in January, but even then I doubt it.
Intel is just trying to bury AMD, which they are (AMD closed at $20.83 (just think a few months ago they were trading over $40.00) and Intel closed at $21.72 (a few months ago they were trading at $16.00)).
Apple said it last week, Pros are waiting for CS3 before they upgrade, so expect to hear the announcement of upgraded Mac Pros once Adobe finishes up their applications.
Besides wasn't there a thread a few weeks back which stated that the 8 Core machines run slower than the Quads?
Don't worry about it. I know that my new MacPro has already paid for itself.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 03:11 PM
It is a huge difference in getting to know how we can alter the genetical code and actually do it in a grand scale. THAT if anything will be our end.
We've been modifying the genetic code of organisms (plants/animals) for centuries by selective breeding. GM is a more refined way of doing these same things, but more rapidly, as well as permitting the introduction of new genetic traits not possible through standard cross-breeding strategies.
It has the potential to end a great deal of suffering in the world from starvation. Not to mention potentially huge environmental savings from reduced use of pesticides, less irrigation, and transport.
However, this immense power needs to be deployed carefully and responsibly.
We've been modifying the genetic code of organisms (plants/animals) for centuries by selective breeding. GM is a more refined way of doing these same things, but more rapidly, as well as permitting the introduction of new genetic traits not possible through standard cross-breeding strategies.
It has the potential to end a great deal of suffering in the world from starvation. Not to mention potentially huge environmental savings from reduced use of pesticides, less irrigation, and transport.
However, this immense power needs to be deployed carefully and responsibly.
WilliamG
May 30, 09:59 PM
I drop so many calls on AT&T 3G that it's a joke. I drop basically no calls on AT&T EDGE. Seattle, here.
superleccy
Sep 20, 05:55 AM
I know of at least one company (http://www.itv.com/) in the UK who won't be too happy if they keep that name.
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
<UK>Indeed. EyeTV and ITV was confusing enough, but now we have iTV too. And I don't think I'll be watching Coronation street on iTV if Apple are going to charge �1.99 an episode. Think again Steve.</UK>
<Everyone Else>ITV is the name of the UK's biggest terrestrial commercial TV network</Everyone Else>
Love
Apr 22, 10:02 PM
They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
Really? That actually sounds like a Christian thing to do, morelike. Just say "because God made it that way" to anything they don't understand.
iJohnHenry
Mar 15, 07:49 AM
true but still it's way more than is acceptable for nuclear station personal.. or otherwise they wouldn't have evacuated wouldn't they ? ;)
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
These people are being sacrificed, as were the workers/fireman/army at Chernobyl.
If you knew the full extent, from the get go, would you have hung around to 'man the pumps'??
ct2k7
Apr 24, 06:23 PM
If it was the Word of God� itself that came from Mohammed's lips, then surely it would sound less like the word of a warlike, bigoted misogynist. Jesus' words are remarkably peaceful and inclusive by comparison. Paul of course, and other "spokesmen" for the organisation, added all kinds of glosses and amendments which were not part of Jesus' original message as transmitted to us.
The text cannot be right on as many scientific reasoning. I've to add that if it was so painful, and the Bible so peaceful, why do some Christians claims that the Quran had copied the Bible? Surely, the Bible would then also be as "warlike"?
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
The text cannot be right on as many scientific reasoning. I've to add that if it was so painful, and the Bible so peaceful, why do some Christians claims that the Quran had copied the Bible? Surely, the Bible would then also be as "warlike"?
It doesn't sound warlike to me, it sounds more like a set of stories, or a message. Something played on a tape.
AtomBoy
Oct 7, 07:49 PM
This is my first post but I think I can comment on this thread because my wife and I use both a Mac and a PC in our business.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
People get hung up on bench tests but, for me, the real 'speed' difference between a Mac and a PC is uptime.
When my wife's hogging the Mac and I'm stuck on the PC she will be sailing through her work while I'm having to to reboot every couple of hours or so. While the PC is stalling and crashing, the Mac just keeps on working. Benchmarks, more often than not, deal in seconds whereas crashes and reboots are wasting minutes at a time.
On the whole, I use resource-intensive programs, for image/video/audio editing. If I used mainly office programs or if I was a gamer, I'd probably stick to a PC for reasons of cost.
As it is, I'm simply waiting for G5 developements next year to do away with the last PC I'll ever own.
Plymouthbreezer
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
For $299, sounds like a great deal. However, folks who have just dropped $999 on FCS are going to be angry! Wonder if there will be any sort of refund issued...
I guess I'll stick with FCS for now, since Color is great, and I know the interface. DVD Studio Pro is also quite useful, and I'm unsure how this update will affect those products.
I guess I'll stick with FCS for now, since Color is great, and I know the interface. DVD Studio Pro is also quite useful, and I'm unsure how this update will affect those products.
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.
MisterMe
May 2, 08:56 AM
WOW! Malware that requires the user to do a Google search, then download, and install. For all of this, it asks for your credit card number.
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
How can we ever defend our computers against such a diabolical threat?!
beaster
Sep 12, 04:16 PM
But at what quality??? Q1 2007 is as late as end of March. HD-DVD came out in April and BluRay in -- what -- May? So almost a year later Apple introduces a device that will play *near* (i.e. lower than) DVD-quality when the market is finally warming up to HD quality disks.
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
Regular DVD is 480i. Say that near-dvd quality is 420i. It will look like crap on that "big screen plasma" Jobs talked about.
He's marketing it to someone who will plug it into a $5K+ TV. At that price point, give us HD playback, both optical and streaming/downloaded, legally. I'd be happy to pay double or triple for a box that does it smoothly.
Agreed. If it can't do HD, I'll pass.
-Sean
relimw
Sep 25, 11:39 PM
Ooo, maybe the reason for that long delay into October is because they're waiting for enough Clovertowns to become available.... That'd be a nice surprise.