akhomerun
Oct 9, 04:54 PM
gee, the retail stores would speak out against something that would hurt their sales, wouldn't they?
apple is providing an alternative just like retail stores provided alternatives to going out to a theater when VHS was released. im certainly not saying it's better, i would never download an itunes movie, because i'd rather have a physical dvd. but now i have the choice.
apple is providing an alternative just like retail stores provided alternatives to going out to a theater when VHS was released. im certainly not saying it's better, i would never download an itunes movie, because i'd rather have a physical dvd. but now i have the choice.
iMacThere4Iam
Apr 14, 01:56 PM
Not so sure about this guy. Based on the picture, he seems to have that "deer staring at headlights" look that all M$ employees display, especially Ballmer.
First thing he's going to have to get used to is that once he comes up with an idea (and let's all hope it's an original one, considering the fact he's moving from Redmond), it won't be just barely good enough to foist on an unsuspecting public for decades.
Innovate, man, innovate! Start with a different shirt.
First thing he's going to have to get used to is that once he comes up with an idea (and let's all hope it's an original one, considering the fact he's moving from Redmond), it won't be just barely good enough to foist on an unsuspecting public for decades.
Innovate, man, innovate! Start with a different shirt.
NewGenAdam
Apr 12, 02:46 PM
So, how do you define "racism in practice"?
Is taking the seat next to a white over an asian racist?
How about going to a black cashier instead of a white one?
Hah. I like this question because it's hard. I fear my idealism can't stand up to it...
In principle I believe that nobody should act differently towards another because of their race. That would be racist discrimination, in theory. It would be racist to choose to sit next to an asian person instead of a white person (irrespective of your motives: either as a white-hater or as a rice-chaser).
But this would be impossible to criminalise. It would be highly impractical and frankly, whilst I disapprove of such actions, I cannot imagine a legal framework effectively punishing them. It would be utterly totalitarian.
But at the other extreme, I'm sure we all agree it is entirely unacceptable to deny somebody a job, say, because of their ethnicity. This would be ultimately harming them for it; and when we harm others by practising our opinions against them, we breach a fundamental tenet of Western society.
The difficulty, as always, comes in deciding on the threshold of what we tolerate, as a society. To answer that question I suppose we need to ask a few others. What constitutes harm to another? How practically can we judge when harm has been done? How easily can we punish offenders?
I don't suppose that's really an answer. Sorry.
I don't like the idea of living in a world where good outcomes are enforced.
My wife's car was hit in her work's parking garage not too long ago... and the woman who hit her put a note on the car. I felt really good about this, considering how many times I've been hit-and-run in the past. Until I noticed the big security camera pointed right at the space.
I didn't feel good anymore. I don't know if the woman left the note because she's a good person who did the right thing, or if she did it because she thought she might have been caught on camera.
I want to see racist people being racist and good people not being racist. I want to know where the line is. I don't want an overbearing nanny government forcing everyone to play nice.
I entirely agree that genuine kindness and tolerance is far superior to its artificial counterpart. When something is fake, it's about as rewarding as making the bully apologise by everyone ganging up on him and twisting his arm. It may seem nice but its insincerity undermines its value. I guess you'd like Kant, whose categorical imperative roughly says that the moral worth of an action lies in its intent.
But whilst utopia would be kind people acting with tolerance out of the goodness of their hearts, we don't really see this. In fact, people often harm others. This isn't great. Neither is it great to force people into acting in the interests of other people. But frankly I believe it is better to protect the vulnerable from harm than to allow the abusers their freedom. Even if that means a 'nanny state'. I'm not saying we should decapitate one who insults another. I merely believe in the principle of enforcing people not to harm others by their actions. Neither with intent nor carelessness.
That's my idealism. Don't ask me to qualify 'harm' or propose appropriate laws against it because that would be tough...
Is taking the seat next to a white over an asian racist?
How about going to a black cashier instead of a white one?
Hah. I like this question because it's hard. I fear my idealism can't stand up to it...
In principle I believe that nobody should act differently towards another because of their race. That would be racist discrimination, in theory. It would be racist to choose to sit next to an asian person instead of a white person (irrespective of your motives: either as a white-hater or as a rice-chaser).
But this would be impossible to criminalise. It would be highly impractical and frankly, whilst I disapprove of such actions, I cannot imagine a legal framework effectively punishing them. It would be utterly totalitarian.
But at the other extreme, I'm sure we all agree it is entirely unacceptable to deny somebody a job, say, because of their ethnicity. This would be ultimately harming them for it; and when we harm others by practising our opinions against them, we breach a fundamental tenet of Western society.
The difficulty, as always, comes in deciding on the threshold of what we tolerate, as a society. To answer that question I suppose we need to ask a few others. What constitutes harm to another? How practically can we judge when harm has been done? How easily can we punish offenders?
I don't suppose that's really an answer. Sorry.
I don't like the idea of living in a world where good outcomes are enforced.
My wife's car was hit in her work's parking garage not too long ago... and the woman who hit her put a note on the car. I felt really good about this, considering how many times I've been hit-and-run in the past. Until I noticed the big security camera pointed right at the space.
I didn't feel good anymore. I don't know if the woman left the note because she's a good person who did the right thing, or if she did it because she thought she might have been caught on camera.
I want to see racist people being racist and good people not being racist. I want to know where the line is. I don't want an overbearing nanny government forcing everyone to play nice.
I entirely agree that genuine kindness and tolerance is far superior to its artificial counterpart. When something is fake, it's about as rewarding as making the bully apologise by everyone ganging up on him and twisting his arm. It may seem nice but its insincerity undermines its value. I guess you'd like Kant, whose categorical imperative roughly says that the moral worth of an action lies in its intent.
But whilst utopia would be kind people acting with tolerance out of the goodness of their hearts, we don't really see this. In fact, people often harm others. This isn't great. Neither is it great to force people into acting in the interests of other people. But frankly I believe it is better to protect the vulnerable from harm than to allow the abusers their freedom. Even if that means a 'nanny state'. I'm not saying we should decapitate one who insults another. I merely believe in the principle of enforcing people not to harm others by their actions. Neither with intent nor carelessness.
That's my idealism. Don't ask me to qualify 'harm' or propose appropriate laws against it because that would be tough...
tech4all
Oct 26, 02:31 PM
While I have no interest in this app, it is disappointing that they left PowerPC in the dust. Hopefully this isn't a new trend other companies will follow.
Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places.
While that may be true, there are still plenty of PowerPC customers out there. Probably more than Mac x86, right? Then again, as it was said by someone here, this was probably just meant to be a Windows only app, so they might have just made a Mac x86 version so that there could be some Mac support.
Apple is quickly moving its focus towards Intel Macs, and no longer sells Power PC systems in many places.
While that may be true, there are still plenty of PowerPC customers out there. Probably more than Mac x86, right? Then again, as it was said by someone here, this was probably just meant to be a Windows only app, so they might have just made a Mac x86 version so that there could be some Mac support.
more...
ChrisA
Oct 26, 03:10 PM
You're absolutely right but as a dev I'd say Adobe is throwing away a large chunk of the Mac market as many users will still have PowerPC machines even when this app comes out. Maybe, Adobe is not after the Mac market at all here. They're really interested in the Windows market but the port to x86 mac was pretty easy.
If you make a Universal Binary the program not only has to run on the PPC but has to hve usable performance. So they would have to taylor the program's feature set so that the PPC was not over taxed.
If you design a program with a target minimum system requirement of "at least a dual core Intel processor and 1GB RAM" you can add a lot of nice features that you could not have if the program had to run on a G4 or G5.
One relivent bit of info is that user's tend to buy most of their software near the time when they buy a new computer. People with older machines simply don't buy much new software. So while there are thousands of PPC Macs in the world not many of those Mac owners will be potential costomers while almost everyone who buys a new computer is a software buyer.
If you make a Universal Binary the program not only has to run on the PPC but has to hve usable performance. So they would have to taylor the program's feature set so that the PPC was not over taxed.
If you design a program with a target minimum system requirement of "at least a dual core Intel processor and 1GB RAM" you can add a lot of nice features that you could not have if the program had to run on a G4 or G5.
One relivent bit of info is that user's tend to buy most of their software near the time when they buy a new computer. People with older machines simply don't buy much new software. So while there are thousands of PPC Macs in the world not many of those Mac owners will be potential costomers while almost everyone who buys a new computer is a software buyer.
djdole
Nov 6, 02:44 PM
From 1 party to anyone and everyone, your neighbor, elevator, cash register. Anyone with ability to scan rfid know you. That is like shouting out who, what you are all the time 24/7. That is just information pollution.
This is NOTHING NEW.
Many of your credit cards already do this. Passports and enhanced licenses (as the post points out, if you bothered to read it) already do this.
Why get your panties in a bunch just because Apple may be considering doing the same?
Besides, your use of the term 'information pollution' is quite inaccurate and inappropriate.
Nothing is being polluted. When you walk by an area your information isn't still there an hour later.
Additionally, the VAST MAJORITY of RFID devices are PASSIVE, meaning they don't actively transmit ANY information but must be activated by a nearby reader to even be capable of being read.
Think of it like as if you were just walking down the street. You know your name, but you're not telling anyone. The only way anyone can get that info is if they ask you your name (granted in this scenario you MUST tell them if asked) but you're not just repeating it aloud ALL THE TIME.
Do you also consider it information pollution when every time ANYONE (including yourself) speak? O_o
All tin-foil hats and irrational fears of 'big brother' are unnecessary, and a waste of your valuable time. ;-)
This is NOTHING NEW.
Many of your credit cards already do this. Passports and enhanced licenses (as the post points out, if you bothered to read it) already do this.
Why get your panties in a bunch just because Apple may be considering doing the same?
Besides, your use of the term 'information pollution' is quite inaccurate and inappropriate.
Nothing is being polluted. When you walk by an area your information isn't still there an hour later.
Additionally, the VAST MAJORITY of RFID devices are PASSIVE, meaning they don't actively transmit ANY information but must be activated by a nearby reader to even be capable of being read.
Think of it like as if you were just walking down the street. You know your name, but you're not telling anyone. The only way anyone can get that info is if they ask you your name (granted in this scenario you MUST tell them if asked) but you're not just repeating it aloud ALL THE TIME.
Do you also consider it information pollution when every time ANYONE (including yourself) speak? O_o
All tin-foil hats and irrational fears of 'big brother' are unnecessary, and a waste of your valuable time. ;-)
more...
yg17
Apr 25, 09:15 AM
It should work if you do it this way...
Clever ;)
Although I'm personally not a fan of using URL shorteners on forums where there's no character limit, I like seeing what website I'm about to go to, especially since I browse MR while at work. I don't want to click on a bit.ly link that takes me to supersexynakedbabeswithbigtits.com ;)
Clever ;)
Although I'm personally not a fan of using URL shorteners on forums where there's no character limit, I like seeing what website I'm about to go to, especially since I browse MR while at work. I don't want to click on a bit.ly link that takes me to supersexynakedbabeswithbigtits.com ;)
Richard Flynn
Sep 20, 06:45 AM
OK, following on from my previous message... My 'issue' got 'escalated' and I spoke to someone higher up the AppleCare pecking order (a Frenchman). He said that there might be a problem with this firmware update and my machine's specs [my speculation - the brand of SuperDrive (Sony DW-D150A)? my processor (dual 3GHz)?]. He 'felt sure that I wouldn't be the only person worldwide having this problem' (didn't tell him about this thread or a similar one on Apple's own forums), and will get back to me within 48 hours having spoken to Apple Engineering to see if his theory holds true. Time will tell!
more...
TehReaper
Mar 11, 08:11 AM
Still the only ones in north park! I should of gotten more sleep lol woke up at 5:40 am >.<!
r1ch4rd
Mar 27, 08:56 AM
I think it was Japan that taxed cars based on the engine displacement - I believe that would be worth considering here. For anyone who "needs" a big engine - and 98% of you who claim you do - actually do not. But for those who insist - should have a commercial-type registration. (like we currently do with large work vehicles) That said - we were lax, stupid or I don't know what - but allowed 4 ton vehicles to be called passenger cars, and now every 90 pound soccer mom drives a Superduty pickup because it makes them feel safe... :rolleyes:
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
Here in the UK the amount of tax is based upon the CO2 emissions from a car, so larger engines generally incur a higher penalty. However, if you are insistent on buying a large expensive 4x4 for example, I don't think the amount of tax is really going to put you off.
I pay �125 per year for a 2.0 litre TDI
more...
TwoSocEmBoppers
Feb 24, 10:03 PM
Nothing faux about me either, sir.
Oooh... looks like we have the faux small-government types coming in! If you're worried about wasting of money, keep in mind that your government spends way more money on propaganda launched at you and empire-building than it does on the federal trade commission.
Why should they even spend money on empire-building or the FTC?
In addition, you might read up on this and see that this is really douchebag behavior we're talking about where a publisher has a "free" game for kids and then charges $100 multiple times for "smurfberries". That's pretty slimy behavior. The intention is to get a child who doesn't understand it's not play money to have their parents download the app and put in their password, then use the 15-minute window to rob the parents. The parents are thinking this is some harmless game until they get the bill.
The main problem I have with this statement is that it absolves parents of responsibility. If a parent is going to give a child a several hundred dollar iDevice and do not spend a small amount of time understanding how apps work, then shame on them. Ignorance is no reason for a government investigation and possible future regulation in this area. Furthermore, if this truly was an extremely large problem, the free market would sort it out. If parent are outraged from this type of behavior they would not allow their children to purchase these apps and the company would change their tactics. It's simple really. However, it goes back again to proper parenting.
I would call this bad parenting if it didn't involve trickery. Do you really expect a child to understand the difference between play money and real money?
Not trickery. As a parent, spend a small amount of time and do a Google search on how in-app purchases work. Be proactive.
I know, personal responsibility begins at 2, unless you're a CEO.
Maybe 3 :D
EDIT: maybe the moral of the story is kids shouldn't have iDevices or be allowed to use their parents'.
Winner! Winner! Winner!
Oooh... looks like we have the faux small-government types coming in! If you're worried about wasting of money, keep in mind that your government spends way more money on propaganda launched at you and empire-building than it does on the federal trade commission.
Why should they even spend money on empire-building or the FTC?
In addition, you might read up on this and see that this is really douchebag behavior we're talking about where a publisher has a "free" game for kids and then charges $100 multiple times for "smurfberries". That's pretty slimy behavior. The intention is to get a child who doesn't understand it's not play money to have their parents download the app and put in their password, then use the 15-minute window to rob the parents. The parents are thinking this is some harmless game until they get the bill.
The main problem I have with this statement is that it absolves parents of responsibility. If a parent is going to give a child a several hundred dollar iDevice and do not spend a small amount of time understanding how apps work, then shame on them. Ignorance is no reason for a government investigation and possible future regulation in this area. Furthermore, if this truly was an extremely large problem, the free market would sort it out. If parent are outraged from this type of behavior they would not allow their children to purchase these apps and the company would change their tactics. It's simple really. However, it goes back again to proper parenting.
I would call this bad parenting if it didn't involve trickery. Do you really expect a child to understand the difference between play money and real money?
Not trickery. As a parent, spend a small amount of time and do a Google search on how in-app purchases work. Be proactive.
I know, personal responsibility begins at 2, unless you're a CEO.
Maybe 3 :D
EDIT: maybe the moral of the story is kids shouldn't have iDevices or be allowed to use their parents'.
Winner! Winner! Winner!
RalfTheDog
Apr 14, 09:56 PM
Rats, sinking ships and all that. </troll>
more...
iJohnHenry
Apr 8, 06:04 AM
We need a body count clock, to record the incidence of deaths of pregnant girls, caused by botched 'back-room' abortions. :mad:
miles01110
Mar 23, 03:58 PM
The military and the Army has had a "dialogue" with Apple for years... pretty much every project involving a piece of field equipment has gone to another manufacturer because of durability concerns.
more...
SilentLoner
Apr 19, 06:19 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Who thinks this is fake. I think it is plus he's asking for a lawsuit etc advertising his business on the advert too. Maybe it's stuff to sell the cases?
Who thinks this is fake. I think it is plus he's asking for a lawsuit etc advertising his business on the advert too. Maybe it's stuff to sell the cases?
Eraserhead
Dec 18, 07:56 AM
Well they are both owned by Sony BMG :p.
That said I did buy RATM, the music industry has produced rubbish for the past 10 years. So much so that at the O2 (http://www.theo2.co.uk/) some of the greatest moments in music in the last 10 years include a song by NSync.
That said I did buy RATM, the music industry has produced rubbish for the past 10 years. So much so that at the O2 (http://www.theo2.co.uk/) some of the greatest moments in music in the last 10 years include a song by NSync.
more...
mechamac
Nov 14, 10:46 AM
This is yet another one of those things that makes you think: damn, the iPod is huge.
WiiDSmoker
Mar 25, 08:36 AM
Before all you Apple fannies disagree with this; just remember Apple is trying to sue everyone else too.
It's all ridiculous.
It's all ridiculous.
Mike Teezie
Nov 28, 11:17 AM
I think I've got it.
Thanks a ton guys.
Thanks a ton guys.
Jolly Giant
Apr 24, 08:24 AM
have you tried adding the NAS to your login items via system preferences > accounts > login items ?
this will ensure the NAS mounts automatically when you boot your Mac.
this will ensure the NAS mounts automatically when you boot your Mac.
studiomusic
Nov 17, 08:45 PM
So a 17 year old can do it but a gigantic company with $50 billion lying there can't. Seems logical to me. :rolleyes:
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
There's quite a difference between supplying 450 kits and selling 4-5 million white phones.
Wake up Steve. Seriously.
There's quite a difference between supplying 450 kits and selling 4-5 million white phones.
eNcrypTioN
Feb 23, 01:29 PM
Here we go kids!! Expect lot's of grandstanding and some real knee jerk legislation cause this IS the year to gear up for the big election. I wish someone would inform people that it's their responsibility to be informed consumers AND parents. My kid racked up $380 in cell downloads in one month. I didn't need my senator to step in. I took away her phone for a month, blocked her ability to purchase ANYTHING on it, and worked out the bill with my provider (AT&T) who practically wiped it all away. This is just going to burden us with more laws and subsequently, more taxes in the form of direct taxation of products, indirect taxes by way of price hikes due to a rise in business tax, or BOTH.
Amazing, a parent that actually does what they are supposed to.
Amazing, a parent that actually does what they are supposed to.
sikkinixx
Mar 28, 07:59 AM
Got yesterday. Traded in 5 games at EB for $125 credit, DSi for $80 and CoD:BlOps for $40, sooooo yeah! I figured why not. They still had a TON of them left at 5pm. Either not popular or they made too many.
No games though! Too poor to afford any so I have just been messing with the AR games and faceraiders. Quite cool. I second MRU on the jaggies... needs a 6950 crammed in it somehow ;) And I second JackAxe, why glossy finish? Frankly, the DSi was the perfect DS hardware. Good buttons, dpad, screens, size, finish and the 3DS is a step down. And damn is it ugly! I couldn't handle the blue, it's about 5 different colours.
I was really curious about the 3D effect and the test nearly made my eyes explode. It was weird and actually hurt. Luckily I don't find actual use like that. The jarring thing is the menu. Since the upper screens (the "title screens") of the Apps is in 3D moving all around while the touch screen obviously isn't. So looking between the two causes my brain to yell at me. My girlfriend immediately turned off the 3D and told me she is never going to use it.... so yeah.
For free I am happy. I'll be happier once Zelda/Mario/Starfox comes out. And my girlfriend will crap herself when Animal Crossing makes it out.
No games though! Too poor to afford any so I have just been messing with the AR games and faceraiders. Quite cool. I second MRU on the jaggies... needs a 6950 crammed in it somehow ;) And I second JackAxe, why glossy finish? Frankly, the DSi was the perfect DS hardware. Good buttons, dpad, screens, size, finish and the 3DS is a step down. And damn is it ugly! I couldn't handle the blue, it's about 5 different colours.
I was really curious about the 3D effect and the test nearly made my eyes explode. It was weird and actually hurt. Luckily I don't find actual use like that. The jarring thing is the menu. Since the upper screens (the "title screens") of the Apps is in 3D moving all around while the touch screen obviously isn't. So looking between the two causes my brain to yell at me. My girlfriend immediately turned off the 3D and told me she is never going to use it.... so yeah.
For free I am happy. I'll be happier once Zelda/Mario/Starfox comes out. And my girlfriend will crap herself when Animal Crossing makes it out.
Alex The Nifty
Nov 3, 01:10 PM
You could also either link to or copy the information from www.apple-history.com. It has the specs for (as far as I know) all old Apple products, but is seldom updated, so if we put everything here, then we would have a more up-to-date, all-in-one database.