todstiles
Aug 29, 04:57 PM
You people that are quoting and referencing information on wikipedia are really funny. Since when is anything that is written there taken as fact?
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
And you have to take statements from Greenpeace for what they are worth. You are talking about an organization that thrives on attention. Of course they are going to make outlandish statements. It's the only way anyone would ever know they exist.
Let's not put too much stock in this. There are absolutely no facts to back this up. As usual Greenpeace has nothing to show me. Nothing.
macorama
Sep 12, 03:22 PM
the users at macpredict got the nano and shuffle update dates spot on - shouldn't be too hard to pick the iTV Release Date (http://macpredict.com/events/Apples-iTV-Release-Date) in the lead up to christmas.
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
I just hope Apple isn't going totally consumer and forgetting the computers!
MykeHamilton
Apr 28, 08:15 AM
This is because they have continued to put time and money in to iOS and not Mac. They have been lazy and done practically done nothing with desktops and their notebooks. They need to start putting emphasis on to Macs now.
arkitect
Apr 15, 10:55 AM
BEST. POST. EVER.
So you are OK with the whole Ex-Gay thing?
And before you become over-wrought again, I am just reading what you wrote in reply to WestonHarvey1's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397392&postcount=126)… where he says he suspects you might be sympathetic to the ex-gay "cause". A post which you then labelled Best. Post. Ever.
So you are OK with the whole Ex-Gay thing?
And before you become over-wrought again, I am just reading what you wrote in reply to WestonHarvey1's post (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12397392&postcount=126)… where he says he suspects you might be sympathetic to the ex-gay "cause". A post which you then labelled Best. Post. Ever.
LumbermanSVO
Mar 26, 09:45 PM
Situation would never happen, police don't walk the beat here anymore (thought it would be nice). Also police are obligated to stop crimes in action while the government isn't obligated to create new rights because a very small demographic demands it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kris_Kime
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>
BoyBach
Aug 29, 02:48 PM
Notice the words "indirectly" and "thousands" in my post, not "directly" and "millions." You are correct that GM foods will not save Africa, and also correct that African goverments are as corrupt as they come.
I stand by comments regarding this statement.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.
But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.
I stand by comments regarding this statement.
But you're wrong to think that genetically-altered foods won't help, especially if administed by multi-national organizations, and NOT African governemtns.
You may be right about GM produce, as long as they are not the 'terminator' type crops.
But, the problem still remains that the multi-nationals will have to deal with the governments, and so long as some governments are actively seeking to kill masses of their population through civil war and starvation, no amount of aid or science can help unless there is a change of leadership first.
Spectrum
Aug 29, 12:16 PM
Boo hoo. its a business, waht do they realistically expect?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
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?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
How do we know this Greenpeace report is accurate?
...bunch of hewwie
This should be a Page 2 story at best. Let's be clear about what this bit of propaganda is... We know Greenpeace is anti-technology, anti-capitalism. They know Apple is not only a huge success story, but also has a big presence in consumer's minds. Everyone knows Apple and iPods. Clearly Greenpeace, like the iPod labor camp story before it, is USING Apple to forward their own agenda of killing technology and thwarting capitalism and innovation.Eh, I believe little of what Greenpeace ever says. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry but Greenpeace is so corrupt and misguided that it's really difficult to want to follow them. I really have to wonder if they're getting funding from the 'top' environmentally friendly companies. An environmentalist shakedown of sorts.
Yea they're {Greenpeace} really credible...:rolleyes:
Nuc
Who the hell listens to GreenPeace anymore.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
I could not care any less.
These groups don't care at all about the environment. They only want to hinder businesses. These are the same groups that protest plans and lobby politicians to stop building power plants and refineries so the existing ones can be over worked (lower efficiency) and not allow for downtime for maintenance, further lowering efficiency. These groups have an agenda that has nothing to do with the environment. I believe that Apple does just fine, as do many other companies.
No One cares what Greenpeace thinks. They are nothing but the military wing of the Sierra Club. The only thing I can't stand more than Greenpeace is the ELF.
Seriously.
Greenpeace can shove it.
Groups like this {Greenpeace} want to stop business and the growth of the American economy. That's their agenda. Why isn't greenpeace over in China or Indian demanding cleaner emissions from their cars/power plants/industry? Ever been to Shanghai? Good luck seeing over 100 feet from the smog. That's on a good day. Those two countries are killing the environment, but it's all Apple's fault according to GP. Give me a break.
In other news: Greenpeace ranks #1 in psycho environmentalist organizations... film at 11.
I think people are missing the point....Anyway who really gives a crap what a bunch of pot smoking tree hugging hippies think.
I know I don't :cool:
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?
Edit: Added some more bigoted quotes.
Edit: Added a couple more gems.
Edit: One more.
FX120
Mar 13, 02:09 PM
It's hard to be a fan of anything on this planet that is capable of destroying the planet.
What?
What?
hexonxonx
May 6, 05:11 AM
AT&T's plan worked brilliantly.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
They put me through a year where about 40% of my calls got dropped and then fixed it so only about 5% get dropped now.
So even though that's worse than the other carriers I am personally thrilled with that number.
So...good plan, AT&T!
I too rarely have dropped calls. It's gotten much better since September. I can talk anywhere in the house now without the call dropping.
KnightWRX
May 2, 06:55 PM
Bugs are flaws in the overall security model.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
Bugs are flaws in the implementation, not the model, at least for those you are referring to. Unless you have a model flaw to demonstrate (like the SSL protocol of 2009 bug) you're being completely besides the point.
Part of an OSs security model includes the implementation of exploit mitigations. The best exploit mitigation is to have as few bugs as possible. Obviously, in relation to privilege escalation, OS X has far fewer bugs.
Again, this has nothing to do with the "Unix security model", only to less known bugs.
At this point, I doubt you're even interested in having a serious discussion on this issue... I think I'll just stop replying to you.
bokdol
May 2, 01:57 PM
i just cleaned out of the the computers at work. and the person had the installer window still open. they pressed ok but because they had 10 other windows open they really did not realize they authorized it to install.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
it is not that they did not authorize it's that their computer had soo much stuff on they did not realize they authorized it.
macfan881
Nov 5, 09:58 PM
http://www.engadgetmobile.com/2009/11/05/iphone-vs-droid-multitouch-keyboard-showdown-video/1#c22887995
Verizon Fails at multi touch keyboard.
Verizon Fails at multi touch keyboard.
QCassidy352
Jun 13, 06:23 PM
I've had the iPhone since it first came out ( currently have 3GS) and have just started having signal strength problems and dropped calls in the past year.
me too. It's been a lot worse recently. I always said AT&T was fine, but I'm being made to look like a liar. Why are we going in the wrong direction here?
me too. It's been a lot worse recently. I always said AT&T was fine, but I'm being made to look like a liar. Why are we going in the wrong direction here?
guzhogi
May 5, 02:21 PM
Two weeks ago my service was flaking out. Couldn't make calls or get to 3G all day. Wasn't too happy. Wentthe AT&T store to go vent and the hottest clerk, I have ever seen, was working. She was so hot, she should have been over at VS in VS modellling something for me. wink, wink. nudge, nudge. ;) She said they were working on a go-live of 12 new towers. The engineers had screwed up the configs. So the new towers and some of the old towers weren't playing nice with network. I live in mostly Verizon country. AT&T has been making improvements out the whaz. They finalized the deal for Centennial Wireless. Alot of those towers flipped to ATT recently. So for me, my piece of the network got bigger & better. Now mind you this girl was so good looking she could have told me to set my iPhone on fire and I would have given it serious consideration. It seems like AT&T is trying to act like it cares. So back to mis hottie. I asked for her phone number. ANd she told me, 1-800-331-0500. I think she likes me.
Pics of her?
My sister keeps asking when the iPhone is coming to Verizon. She really wants an iPhone, but hates AT&T.
And just so you know, my sister's married. Sorry guys.
Pics of her?
My sister keeps asking when the iPhone is coming to Verizon. She really wants an iPhone, but hates AT&T.
And just so you know, my sister's married. Sorry guys.
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:17 AM
If the media shouldn't project a positive message about being gay, then they shouldn't project a positive message about being straight. No more kissing on TV, film, etc. Ban all public displays of affection and don't say a word about issues that someone might take 'offence' to. Yeah...that sounds like a great world. Ugh...please.
Diavilo1
Sep 12, 03:21 PM
Definately has piqued my interest. I may have missed this but does it have a TV Tuner?
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.
sblasl
Oct 28, 02:25 PM
Has any one installed a Western Digital Raptor X WD1500AHFD 150GB 10,000 RPM 16MB Cache Serial ATA150 Hard Drive in one of the current systems to use as their boot drive?
Evangelion
Jul 13, 08:19 AM
Like I said, my laptop has a hotter CPU in it. I've yet to hear a good argument as to why a Conroe is too hot to put in an iMac when they had G5's in them not so long ago. If a Macbook can handle 35W then the much much bigger and thicker iMac can handle 65W.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Well, MacBook can barely handle that 35W CPU. Everyone is complaining how hot the MBP runs. 65W is a lot hotter, and while iMac is thicker, remember that some of that thickness is taken by the screen. So the actual space for components might not be that much bigger in the end.
Personally, being a consumer and not Steve Jobs, I couldn't care less if it's more work for them to design a new MoBo for Conroe. I put my money where the best performance is, not what's easiest for Apple.
More work = higher price.
Like I said, Conroes are cheaper than Meroms for the performance you can get. It would be sheer stupidity of Apple to put meroms in their desktop because it would cost them just as much to put them in there and they'd be getting lower performance. Which means iMacs would be over-priced and under-performing compared to any other desktop.
iMacs are using mobile processors as we speak. Are they "overpriced" and "underperforming"? According to you, they are.
The current iMac isn't competitive, and you'd be mad not to admit that. 512Mb RAM standard? Underclocked X1600 128Mb?
Sure it's competetive. It's selling very well, and you actually get quite a lot for your money.
It's also less powerful and more expensive (per Mhz) than Conroe. So it's logical for Apple to put a less powerful, more expensive CPU in their computers? Funny deffinition of logic.
you sound like performance is the only thing that matters. There's also the design-effort (substantial with Conroe, minimal with Merom) and power-consumption and heat-output (both which Merom excel at).
If it's possible for apple to put Conroe in the iMac (and it is) then they will, because it makes economic sense to pay the same and get a better product for both Apple and consumers. I think the effort of designing a new MoBo would be more than worth that.
What makes you think that it would be better? "because it's faster!". There are more to "goodness" of the design than performance. Merom will offer more than enough performance, while running cool and quietly.
And when there are cheaper desktops with 2.4 and 2.6Ghz Conroes in them what will consumers buy? It doesn't make sense to pay more and get less, no matter how pretty the packaging is.
You can't really compare iMac to some generic tower-PC from Dell. Those tower-PC's will always be more versatile and cheaper than the iMac is, while being faster. That is a fact.
I intend to buy an iMac when I can get a 2.4Ghz Conroe in it. If they get Merom I simply will not buy one and buy a PC instead
Go right ahead. And if you onloy care for raw performance, you should have switched to PC's long ago.
You aren't really making any sense with your arguments. In fact, you only argument is that "Conroe is faster!". Well whoop-de-doo! Merom is almost as fast, and it's a drop-in replacement for their current CPU, and it runs cooler than Conroe does. I would rather have a good Merom in iMac than underclocked Conroe.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 04:41 PM
Has he published anything in a peer-reviewed scientific journal of high (or even average) standing?
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
That's your favorite question, isn't it, EH? ;) I'll look for a bibliography.
appleguy123
Mar 24, 07:40 PM
That doesn't take away from how utterly hypocritical that train of thought is.
ciTiger
May 2, 09:25 AM
So few virus for MAC than when one appears it is news... :)
emotion
Sep 20, 08:36 AM
It looks like a Mini and and i can do exactly the same with the current Mini. Hook up a Mini to a TV and add it to a home network, let it be cabled or wireless. With the frontrow software you can now listen and watch all the content from the other computers in the network with iTunes streaming.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
The only differences between a Mini and iTV are the connections on the back, better wireless speed and no DVD. Its pure the price and software that makes it a media device and not a computer.
I can do what an iPod does with my Powerbook too. Doesn't mean I want to use that to play music when I'm walking around.
Likewise, I want a computer at close distance hooked up to a computer monitor, it's less than ideal sat under my TV displaying on a relatively low res screen with a keyboard and mouse teetering on my lap. I know Apple think this too.
With the iTV as I see it you get to have that Mini being a real computer somewhere else in your house.
That said, I could be wrong and it could be a really cut down Mac Mini. I guess we'll see.
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar