Liquorpuki
Mar 16, 01:18 PM
1/ Oil is relevant to electricity generation as we move forwards with more use of hybrids/electric vehicles. Using nuclear and renewables we have a chance to offset oil burning vehicles with non-fossil fuel power. Powering those electric vehicles off coal generated electricity limits their effectiveness.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
2/ Natural gas is big in the US. It's a direct byproduct of the oil industry and pollutes too.
My point is that if you're talking about energy independence and importing, you're talking about oil. If you're talking about greening the portfolio (nuclear vs coal vs wind, etc), you're not talking about oil because hardly anybody burns oil anymore for electricity generation. Oil is used for fleet and equipment, but rarely burned to spin turbines anymore and has a very marginal role in the portfolio. Two different topics.
Hybrids/EV's are a way to ween off oil dependence. Fivepoint is arguing that we should facilitate oil dependence by drilling more. I can't tell whether you agree with him or not. Also, EV's/Hybrids don't generate electricity, they consume it. And I don't get why you're using coal and oil interchangeably. Coal is used in power plants to generate electricity. Oil is used in vehicles for what can now be considered a substitute for electricity. Different roles.
Natural Gas is a way to ween off both coal and oil dependence. One of the places you can find it is in oil beds, which is why the oil industry is involved. You can also find it on its own. But it has a much lower carbon footprint than coal and oil so it's a viable alternative for both electricity generation and vehicles.
SandynJosh
Apr 8, 11:01 PM
Ummm.... everyone that's into gaming HATES Activision.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
DakotaGuy
May 7, 09:23 PM
I don't understand why someone would stay with AT&T if they are having so many dropped calls. With Verizon offering phones like the Droid Incredible and Motorola Droid it is possible to switch to a more reliable carrier and still have an "iPhone like" experience. I don't see the iPhone coming to Verizon anytime soon. If you really want an iPhone then just get a Touch and get a Verizon Android phone to go with it.
Of course it is your money, but I would be upset if I was paying my phone bill every month and not getting reliable service.
Of course it is your money, but I would be upset if I was paying my phone bill every month and not getting reliable service.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 23, 09:40 PM
How many people became theistic because of atheism? Or have their religious views strengthened as a result of atheism?
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
How many people became atheist because of religion? Or have their atheistic views strengthened as a result of religion?
This was my point in that statement.
And of course atheists will be less trusted. Atheism rejects non-societal Morals (unless you want to pull the "absolute morals exist and god(s) do not" version of atheism). Morality is completely defined by society at that point or at a more direct sense, by us.
Someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of Morals to abide by. Granted, a lot - if not most - of politicians are the "I'm a once a month Christian so people will vote for me" type but some (like GWB for better or worse) appear to take their faith with them to the office. This is a far more reliable set of beliefs, whether or not you agree with them, than someone who has arbitrary or personally decided morals.
I'm not sure I understand the point in the first part of your post so I'll have to skip that for now. Maybe you can phrase it a different way to help me out. Anyway, the whole "moral" issue has been raised and argued before. In my mind, there are many reasons why, logically, atheists are, by far, more moral then religious people. I'll just throw one out at you: your statement of someone who is a practicing theist has a "standard" of morals to abide by isn't something I can agree with for many reasons. One, why does one have to have a religious book to have a standard of morals. Atheists can know right and wrong and make laws based on common sense morals. We don't need some made up god to tell us what is right and wrong. Secondly, have you read some of the "morals" in the holy books. If so, and you still follow these rules, you have very low standards for what good morals should be. One needs to look no further then the section on how to treat your slaves in the bible to see this fact!
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 01:27 AM
Well, I am not 100% sure about the non-existence of any given deity, but when it comes to the cobbled-together fairy tale that Christians subscribe to, my certainty-of-BS level goes through the roof. (Jews and Muslims can readily be included as well.)
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
There a different kinds of certainty: logical certainty and psychological certainty, say. Necessarily, 1 = 1 because 1 != 1 is a self-contradiction. A sound deductive argument proves conclusively that it's conclusion is true. If you affirm the premises of a sound deductive argument while you deny its conclusion, you contradict yourself.
You can be certain, though not absolutely certain, that some scientific theory is true because all your evidence has confirmed it so far. But as I told everyone here, inductive arguments are always inconclusive when they support their conclusions. Although the conclusion may be true, there could always, notice, I say could always be a counter-example to it. A conclusion may be statistically probable enough that you would be unreasonable to doubt it. But probability, at least epistemic probability, is about how strongly an argument's premises support its conclusion if they do support it. Whether you're talking about epistemic probability, statistical probability, or both, some highly probable theories are still false. Given the available evidence, some true theories can be highly improbable. But objectively, a theory's statistical probability is either zero or else it's one. Regardless of degrees of confirmation an argument's conclusion is either true or false. It either conforms to reality or it doesn't conform to reality.
There's merely psychological certainty, too. Imagine that my honorary brother Brian dies. Yes, he's a real person. You show me the death certificate. You show me his tombstone. I see o coroner's report Brian's picture on it. But I delude myself into believing that he's still living. I'm sure he's alive when he is, in fact, dead.
Sydde, I'm sure you don't have merely psychological certainty, the kind of certainty I've described with my hypothetical example about Brian. I don't even know what kind of certainty you have about theistic beliefs you allude to. Yet, if you've misinterpreted some theistic belief, you may only think you're certain that the belief is false.
EricNau
Mar 14, 11:50 PM
Another helpful article (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42075628) (MSNBC):
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
Amid dire reports of melting fuel rods and sickened workers at Japan�s beleaguered Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear reactor, the public health risk from radiation exposure remains very low in that country � or abroad, experts say.
�In general, right now, the citizens of Japan have far more other things to worry about than nuclear power,� said Richard L. Morin, a professor of radiologic physics at the Mayo Clinic and chair of the safety committee of the American College of Radiology.
�There�s not a significant risk to anybody in the United States, including Hawaii,� he added.
Though talk of a nuclear �meltdown� raises specters of acute radiation sickness and long-term cancers, such as those seen after the 1986 Chernobyl accident in which the reactor blew up, the radiation levels detected outside the Japan plant remain within legal limits, Japanese officials told reporters.
American experts monitoring the situation agreed, saying that reported radiation exposure remains far lower than normal exposure from background radiation in the environment, from medical procedures such as CT scans, or even from transatlantic air flights.
�I haven�t seen anything so far that seems to indicate that people are being exposed to levels of radiation that are acutely dangerous,� said G. Donald Frey, a professor of radiology at the Medical University of South Carolina.
[. . .] A one-time CT scan can expose a person to between 5 and 10 millisieverts. An X-ray of the spine might expose a patient to an estimated 1.5 millisieverts. A long, cross-country air flight might expose someone to about .03 millisieverts. A person who smokes a pack of cigarettes a day is exposed to 53 millisieverts each year, according to the National Institutes of Health.
So far, Japanese officials have reported possible top exposures at the plant of .5 millisieverts per hour, a level that has dropped to perhaps .04 millisieverts per hour, Frey said. While that level is concerning to plant workers, residents who heeded a 12-mile evacuation zone would not be affected, said Dr. James H. Thrall, chief radiologist at Massachusetts General Hospital in Boston.
�That would only expose nuclear plant workers,� he said. �If you�re even 100 feet away, or 1,000 feet away, the exposure drops dramatically.�
Even if the workers at the nuclear plant in Japan were exposed continuously to .5 millisieverts per hour, it would take about 40 hours before them to reach the yearly limit for exposure. Now that the level has fallen, so has the risk, Thrall said. [. . .]
In the meantime, the U.S. experts cautioned observers, especially those in the U.S., to keep the situation in perspective.
�There�s very little likelihood of any concern,� said Thrall. �Instead, I would advise people to look both ways before crossing the street.�
As I suggested earlier, the fear-mongering regarding this issue doesn't appear to be warranted. Unless the situation changes drastically, there's no need for dire claims and accusations.
Even allowing for the possibility of a complete core meltdown (an unlikely event given the current situation, though not impossible), the structures were designed to contain such an event. The release of dangerous levels of radiation is extremely improbable, even given a situation significantly worse than that currently faced by Japan. Link (http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2011/03/14/6268351-clearing-up-nuclear-questions)
Fiveos22
Jul 11, 10:53 PM
mmm, AppleInsider vs. Thinksecret
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
Is this a deathmatch? I think both sites should put something on the line, a little wager, to make this face-off more interesting. Perhaps each should wager their URL... that would be cool.
CoryTV
Apr 12, 10:15 PM
They should have just called this iMovie pro, because that's what it is. So, Apple Color is left to die the death of Shake, huh? Wow, crazy. I bet Avid is pretty thrilled with this. It's almost like they said "Let's leave the big installs to Avid"
milo
Jul 13, 09:51 AM
because the price difference is not that much and it saves apple more on design/engineering/testing/support ect. it makes great financial sense to consolidate your product line into one platform.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
Based on the numbers I've seen the difference IS very substantial. Not only is the CPU more expensive, the mobo and memory are both quite a bit more.
In this case, design/engineering/testing/support costs relatively little, since they could even use a slightly modified stock intel mobo if they want, no reason to do anything custom (at least on the low end).
Doesn't make business sense to hold out the Macbook with just Yonah when all the other companies will be filling their 13.3/14 laptops with 64bit Meroms as soon as possible.
Will they? Isn't the yonah cheaper? And since they'll want to have some budget machines won't they continue to use it on the low end?
As for Conroes being too hot for an iMac, that strikes me as ridiculous. From what I've read, conroes use 40% less power than Pentium D's and are very efficient in terms of power to performance.
That comparison tells us nothing. How does conroe's power and heat compare to yonah? We'll only see it in the iMac if it's not much hotter.
How much hotter would a MacBook Pro be with a single Woodcrest?
Likely insanely hotter. And battery life would be about a half hour. Not to mention the price. No freaking way.
Second, you still not mentioned what apps would substitute the Adobe trio mentioned above.
Sounds like YOU don't get it. The point isn't that graphics guys have a substitute for photoshop. The point is that there are tons of mac users who aren't graphics guys. For guys running Logic, FCS or any of the other universal apps, the intel towers will be great. Not every mac user runs photoshop.
Thank You my Good Man. This is the Biggest Leap since 486 to P6 or 6800 to PowerPC and the Mac Snobs are not even appreciative about it , while the Intelligent folk at the tech forums who actually understand hardware are elated.
Don't be an ass. There are some mac folk who just don't get it and think that conroe is inferior to woodcrest. But there are plenty of us who do get it and would love to see conroe in the cheapest mac pro. I agree with your assessment of the chips, but your petty name calling borders on trolling. Lay off already.
we are not saying conroe is crap it just is not suitable for a mac pro.
Why not?? Right now we have dual and quad core configs of G5, why would a similar lineup on intel be "not suitable"? Other than the multi chip configs, woodcrest doesn't have much of an advantage over conroe. I'd love to see conroe in the base tower (or mini tower), the alternative is a dual core woodcrest config that is matched or beaten by a dual core conroe PC that's VASTLY cheaper.
blevins321
Mar 18, 10:55 AM
Here's a screenshot of a section that says they can add necessary services to your contract. From my online customer service summary (the thing you actually 'signed').
Chundles
Apr 8, 10:22 PM
Great news. Bring on more Infinity Blade-esque games! :D
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Hmmm, swipe, swipe, swipe, next. Swipe, swipe, swipe, next.
Nah, gimme the Infinity Blade graphics but in a game that needs more than just flicking left or right.
Eraserhead
Mar 27, 05:27 PM
What rights do you mean: civil ones, merely legal ones, human ones, moral ones, or any combination of these?
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
I would presume he means human and legal rights. I think it is fair to say that its a human right to love whom you wish and that any two consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contract about their future together (AKA marriage).
whooleytoo
Sep 21, 02:47 PM
I think there's (at least!) two separate debates going on here -
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
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?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
- what is the best home entertainment network design/topology?
- how well does the iTV serve the topology Apple has chosen?
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
Also, it is a bit tedious if you have to get up from your sofa to your Mac, start downloading the film/show, then return to the couch and wait for the film/show to start playing. Wouldn't it be far better if you could purchase the film via the iTV, without having to go to your Mac/PC? (If this is possible, feel free to ignore this paragraph. ;) )
Personally, I'd prefer to have a home entertainment storage server, essentially something akin to the iTV but with a large hard disk (or RAID) attached, which stores all my iTunes and other media. Anything I buy on my MacBook - songs, TV shows, movies - are backed up to the server when I plug it into my home network (could the Leopard backup APIs achieve this?) and thus always available regardless of where my Mac is. And, I'd watch far more moves if they were just a menu click away, rather than rooting around the house for a DVD case.
As for the second question, if you accept Apple's argument that the Mac/PC will be the entertainment centre for the home, the iTV is probably the simplest device you could come up with. It's basically an Airport Express with "AirFlicks".
One thing puzzles me though - the iTV is not a complicated piece of kit, hardly any more so than the mini or any other Mac. So, why did Apple pre-announce earlier this month for release early next year, and not release a finished product?
Did they think of it too late to finish it in time for the iTunes Movie store announcement? Unlikely - people have been calling for video streaming for some time; and Apple would have been working behind the scenes on the iTunes movie store for some months. The fact that they appear to have finalised the configuration, aesthetics and price would indicate it's more or less done. More likely - iTV is waiting on some other key piece of technology before it can be released. And the obvious answer would be - Leopard.
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?
p.s. as for a name, how about the "Apple Jack"? Rhymes with Apple Mac, and implies "jacking" all your content into your TV? Whaddya think?
Eeek! sorry. This post was far longer than I expected!
Piggie
Apr 28, 09:17 AM
It's no surprise that Apple will never make much headway as they stubbornly refuse to make a range of computers to suit a range of customers.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
In the UK, yesterday I visited 3 of the largest high street superstores we have, which sell a range of electrical goods (TV's SatNav's HiFi, and White goods) and computers.
In all three stores, there must have been at least 3 long tables packed with a vast number of PC laptops with price ranges from �199 upwards to high end models, and of course some desktops also.
In all designs, colours, styles, large and small, etc etc etc.
And in all 3 shops there was one small table with a couple of Apple Laptops and an iMac.
That's it, all at the very top of the price range. Probably around the most expensive computers in the whole store.
And we wonder why Apple is not making major headway in "Typical Customer" sales.
It does not exactly need Einstein to see what the problem is.
NathanMuir
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
From the article:
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
Thank You Promotion
Thank you for reading this
April 8th: Thankyou
Thank
"But states can and must regulate behaviours, including various sexual behaviours," he said.
If I said this against blacks (I am of the opinion that one cannot choose their orientation any more than they can choose their race), would I not be 'persecuting' them according to that definition? What if I further said that being black was an abomination, or that being a 'practicing black' was a sin?
We'd be in a world of **** if what people said could be considered physical acts of persecution.
I suppose when someone says 'persecute' I think of actual acts of persecution. Not words that are protected, in the US at least, by the First Amendment.
Now, if the Church was crucifying these people again, well, that would be a different situation entirely.
I also agree that one cannot choose their sexuality. I've constantly and consistently voiced this opinion on this board.
1. I'm not gay. Just putting that out there. :D
Makes no difference to me.
2. I guess it is hypocritical in a sense: They hate gays for being gay and I hate bigots for being bigoted. Whether or not that puts me on the same level as them is up to you, I guess.
IMO, it does. A hypocritical statement is a hypocritical statement.
Here's another way to word what I think dscuber9000 was trying to say ...
When your beliefs about human nature are based in bigotry, then you will no longer be able to enforce laws based on those beliefs or publicly express your bigoted views without the risk of condemnation.
You are free to keep them in your thoughts and in conversation with like-minded people. However, if aired publicly, you will probably be reminded of the fact that you are a bigot and wrong.
I agree mostly.
I disagree that they are wrong, in their minds of course.
Are they wrong in your mind? Obviously. Are they wrong in my mind? Yes, because I don't agree with their views. Are they wrong in their minds? No, I don't think so if their views are sincerely held.
beret9987
Nov 12, 03:09 PM
Add me to the unhappy list. Granted me I'm in California, a place where AT&T data services are notorious for not working that well. I'm currently on Sprint and quite happy. Shame the iPhone is only limited to one network in the US though.
Thanatoast
Sep 20, 03:16 PM
Why in the world are so many people complaining about the lack of a DVR and DVD?
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
In the case of the DVR, what the heck are you people watching? The last time I saw cable (Dish Network) there were over two hundred channels, and not one thing I wanted to see. I'd much rather pay for a season pass for the one or two shows worth watching than around $60 for cable + Tivo every month.
Yes, I know, that puts me outside the norm. But I can use the time to read a book, cook a good meal, or go running/work out. All better uses of time than sitting in front of entertainment programing that is 1/3 ads and 2/3 not worth watching.
As for the DVD player issue, Apple wants you to buy your movies from them. They neither need nor want a DVD player on this device. If you already own a movie on DVD, rip it for goodness' sake. Large collections of DVD's look impressive, but really all they do is take up space.
My conclusion: drop the cable + Tivo - save money, time and brain cells. Only watch the content you're willing to pay for rather than letting Hollywood/Madison Ave shove whatever they wish down your throat while you slowly vegetate.
/soapbox
Surely
Apr 15, 09:52 AM
And it would never be pick up by the media. Like I said the media does not pay any attention to it and with out the media doing anything those groups can never get traction.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
LGBT group yes are targeted the others it is hit or miss if the person is targeted. LGBT is going to be pick on pretty much no matter what. Fat kid may or may not be pick on. I have learned that humans are nothing more than things like chickens. That is if you put a chicken in a group with an injured leg the others will peck it to death. At first the injury might not of been a big deal but over time the extra damage adds up and kill it and the more it gets pecked at the worse it gets. All because it is different.
I don't agree. If those groups got organized, their message would eventually get picked up my the media. It's not like LGBT groups were started last weekend and, bam, the media picked up on it. It took decades for them to get to this point of media attention.
And I agree with Heilage: the message from the video doesn't only apply to LGBT folk.
mr. who?
Apr 13, 07:48 AM
What are the chances that Logic X will be released around the same time?
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Would be awseome, but I doubt it.
Virtualball
Apr 15, 10:06 AM
A lot of you guys are just ridiculous. This initiative is for LGBT support, this has nothing to do with whatever other subset of bullying you support. There are no ends to support groups for people who are overweight or a different race, but you don't see anyone slamming at the doors of the NAACP asking why lesbians aren't allowed in. As noted, being gay isn't the same thing as being fat. While both are terrible for teenage self-esteem, there's a key difference. When people come out, they run the risk of losing friends or even families. I've heard so many sad stories of kids being kicked out of their home for being homosexuals whereas overweight kids deal with people at school calling them fat. I'm not belittling their problems, I'm just saying that gays have it much worse than a lot of people think.
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
On another note, that was a very touching and nice video. +1 for the It Gets Better campaign!
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 10:28 AM
Agreed. But you know what, some people deserve not one ounce of respect. The minute one crosses that line with me, and takes the liberty to label me as a self-hater, guess what, you've successfully lit a fire under my *** and I'm gonna talk back at you in a fitting way. Point blank.
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Just one more reason to not belong to a pressure group like "LGBTAQ". Different opinions are not tolerated. There's no competition of ideas or checks and balances in a situation like that.
Case in point. You sound like someone who might be even tangentially sympathetic to the ex-gay movement. Don't want to put any words in your mouth but I have a feeling you at least tolerate its existence and feel they have a right to their own opinion. Well, the LGBT folks can't tolerate anyone having an idea like that - they'll even organize and boycott and pressure Apple until they remove some lame, lonely little app from the App Store.
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
You can go ahead and read thru all my posts in MacRumors and you'll see that I'm not a negative whiner, or one quick to disrespect others. But I have zero tolerance for people that are quick to label or judge me for my views.
Just one more reason to not belong to a pressure group like "LGBTAQ". Different opinions are not tolerated. There's no competition of ideas or checks and balances in a situation like that.
Case in point. You sound like someone who might be even tangentially sympathetic to the ex-gay movement. Don't want to put any words in your mouth but I have a feeling you at least tolerate its existence and feel they have a right to their own opinion. Well, the LGBT folks can't tolerate anyone having an idea like that - they'll even organize and boycott and pressure Apple until they remove some lame, lonely little app from the App Store.
Meanwhile - need to find a glory hole or a cruising area nearby? There's an App for That!
AppleScruff1
May 2, 08:24 PM
Wow, you guys are desperate. Can your mom tell when you're this upset? Do you sulk around the house, refusing to cook the dinner she made for you?
Desperate for what? Some people have to use Windows, OSX isn't an option, what's so hard to understand about that? No need for your childish comments either.
Desperate for what? Some people have to use Windows, OSX isn't an option, what's so hard to understand about that? No need for your childish comments either.
alent1234
Apr 21, 10:41 AM
1. What "punch"? If we're going to use arbitrary words, iPhones beat Android to the "desert". FACT
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC's earnings are growing faster than apple's earnings. came out last week and i think they tripled over last year
HTC basically releases the exact same phone every few months except with different screen sizes and they alternate radio/CPU/GPU upgrades. the phone names are different but the internals are the same just like with different iphone versions
2. Phone carriers selling Android devices and offering incentives helps the needs of those who do not afford to buy an iPhone but need a smartphone. I fixed it for you.
3. No, they aren't. Please link some sources stating so?
4. Sure, I'll give you that if you want to say it's a ripoff. This is a whole other issue.
5. Sure. It's bound to.
6. That tends to be the way of the Open Source area.
7. I'd hope so. Any competitors selling iPhones should probably be sued, since you know, that'd be a blatant rip off.
8. Sure.
9. Yes, yes and yes.
10. They're really just as bad as Apple's fanboys. I've noticed that the only difference in comments from the huge Apple fanboys and anti Apple fanboys are generally the words "Best" and "Worst" get flip flopped.
HTC's earnings are growing faster than apple's earnings. came out last week and i think they tripled over last year
HTC basically releases the exact same phone every few months except with different screen sizes and they alternate radio/CPU/GPU upgrades. the phone names are different but the internals are the same just like with different iphone versions
Doraemon
Aug 29, 02:19 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
So am I.
So am I.