Rodimus Prime
Oct 7, 06:06 PM
Valid points, except you're looking at a micro-niche of power-users, while the iPhone's massive growth comes from a much broader market than that. Android will (and does) take some power-user market share, and I look forward to seeing where it goes.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
The big thing though is DEVELOPER share. Apps. Android will run--in different flavors--on a number of different phones, offering choice in screen size, features, hard vs. virtual keys, etc. That sounds great--but will the same APP run on all those flavors? No. The app market will be fragmented among incompatible models. There's no good way out of that--it's one advantage Apple's model will hang on to.
I was thinking about it and come to think about it the different flavors of phones still comes down to the OS being the same. Just look at OSX and Windows, people test it on the OS but do not test it on all the hardware configurations. Hell if you just go with Macs you have an insane number which is small compared to windows.
You test it on the OS and call it good you might test it on 2-3 types of hardware if you are being very careful but most of the time if it works on one it is going to work on them all.. Android will be the same.
shawnce
Jul 12, 03:16 PM
I believe the max TDP of G5 processor is something like 80 W.
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
The below lists power consumed by the part, they are not TDP numbers (only part of the power consumed by a chip leaves the chip as heat, heat is what you have to dissipate and is what TDP attempts define).
PPC 970fx power optimized part (@ 2GHz)
40W average, 45-50 W max, 23 W throttle back (half frequency)
PPC 970fx standard part (@ 2GHz)
48W average, 55-60 W max, 29 W throttle back (half frequency)
To me this puts the PPC 970fx below the TDP of a Conroe... I would say the TDP for the PPC 970fx (@2Ghz) is around 40 W (if not lower).
pyramid6
Sep 12, 03:57 PM
You want me to pay the same amount for the content another $300 for a new VCR, and it is almost as good as what I have? Plus I'm going to have to wait 2+ hours for it to download, plus nothing extra. Granted I probably will buy it. What is it with this Cult called Mac?
MacCoaster
Oct 12, 05:34 PM
JustAGuy: Okay, I modified that for 5000 and compiled on my Athlon-Tbird. Runs in about one second on average.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
In fact, put back the 20000 values in both and compile it using:
gcc -mcpu=7450 -O2 -pipe -fsigned-char -maltivec -mabi=altivec -mpowerpc-gfxopt -funroll-loops -o benchmarker benchmarker.c
Or hell, use this C code:
#include <stdio.h>
int main()
{
double x1, x2, x3;
int result, startTime, finishTime;
startTime = time(NULL);
for (x1 = 1; x1 <= 20000; x1++)
{
for (x2 = 1; x2 <= 20000; x2++)
{
x3 = sqrt(x1*x2);
}
}
finishTime = time(NULL);
result = finishTime - startTime;
printf("This computer processed the double precision test in %d seconds.\n", result);
return 0;
}
And also, ddtlm, PLEASE tell us how you compiled your asm files and such so we can duplicate the results.
THX1139
Jul 13, 02:40 AM
if you don't need all the power you can get the mac pro is not for you, apple does not do a consumer tower and most likely never will, they simply must have a quad settup and if they have two configs of them (a 3GHz and a 2.66) they may as well keep the low end option on the same platform, this has been said again and again and again, conroe is not bad it just does not make sense for apple to use it in the mac pro, conroe goes in the imac.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
I wasn't saying that I don't need power, I just don't want to pay premium for quad processing with expensive overrated chips. And just because I don't want a Quad doesn't mean should be stuck with an iMac. I would be content with a Conroe running around 3GHZ in the currently shipping configurations. By your post, I get that you think the Conroe is for prosumer/home computers and the only "professional" level chip is Woodcrest. Apple has been shipping a mid-range G5 dual2.3 for quite awhile now. What's wrong with them shipping something similar with Conroe? Oh, wait... that would be wrong, because by your account, Conroe is NOT a professional chip. I disagree.
Warbrain
Sep 26, 07:43 AM
I'll be holding my Mac Pro purchase off for a while...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Why? You'll be waiting for a bit of a long time...
Aduntu
Apr 22, 10:50 PM
Yes, you did. You lumped up three distinct theories about three different aspects of cosmic, geological, and biological history, all because they were an affront to your beliefs (or to your incredulity, whichever fits better).
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
"Exploding" only applies to the Big Bang Theory (and barely at that). Planetary formation and cell formation are radically different and quite complex, as is the Big Bang Theory. Trying to lump them all into one "explosion" from which your current reality directly came to be only shows your scientific illiteracy, not an inherent weakness in any one of these well-tested ideas.
Listen Bill Nye, I wasn't making a conclusive observation on the history of the earth, universe, or life forms. I was posing a question that most people (for the sake of simplicity, not illiteracy) relate to with a single word, "bang." If I need an expert opinion for my next astronomy class, I'll give you ring.
stompy
Apr 14, 03:36 PM
, are you sure? free, (almost) trouble free,
Agreed. All the little things add up quickly.
I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
Yep. People often confuse bias with knowledge. I'm guilty as well.
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
My company just replaced a co-worker dead desktop with this:
http://i.dell.com/das/dih.ashx/232x232/das/xa_____/global-site-design%20WEB/a9c356c6-fafb-1634-c73b-34d50ab45516/1/OriginalJPG?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Workstations/Fixed_Workstations/Precision/Precision_T3500/right_facing/us-11-22-shipsfast-500x500-t3500.jpg
Well, it's utilitarian. Some would argue that they want a computer, not a sculpture. Ok, but there are reasons behind every object designed. This object says "cheap. cheap. cheap."
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
On a checklist, those things don't seem like much, but I agree: when you put it on your desk, it all matters (some things, obviously, more than others).
Agreed. All the little things add up quickly.
I like to do is to come in here and be reminded of some of the misconceptions I had when I first started switching over 5 years ago.
Yep. People often confuse bias with knowledge. I'm guilty as well.
We all know how Macs look nowadays (iMac, Mini, Macbooks, etc) and with the possible exception of the Mac Pro, none of them look much like the 1990s era Mac Quadra 800. Meanwhile, if you want to see something that looks like this today, it's readily available from Dell, HP, and half a dozen other "mini tower" PC makers. Wow.
My company just replaced a co-worker dead desktop with this:
http://i.dell.com/das/dih.ashx/232x232/das/xa_____/global-site-design%20WEB/a9c356c6-fafb-1634-c73b-34d50ab45516/1/OriginalJPG?id=Dell/Product_Images/Dell_Client_Products/Workstations/Fixed_Workstations/Precision/Precision_T3500/right_facing/us-11-22-shipsfast-500x500-t3500.jpg
Well, it's utilitarian. Some would argue that they want a computer, not a sculpture. Ok, but there are reasons behind every object designed. This object says "cheap. cheap. cheap."
That ancient form factor is one thing I don't miss after switching. It's like somebody on the PC side hit the "pause" button when they got their 1994 mini tower PC design completed and all these years later still I see more mini towers than any other PC form factor but I see very few Macs with this ancient form factor.
At the end of your post, you mention needs and tastes and I must admit that industrial design figures prominently in my tastes since switching to Apple gear. Even if the OS were equal (which they are not), I want stuff that doesn't take up more room than necessary, isn't noisier or hotter than necessary and looks good.
On a checklist, those things don't seem like much, but I agree: when you put it on your desk, it all matters (some things, obviously, more than others).
Silentwave
Jul 13, 08:35 AM
and to the whole merom/conroe debate......ok so Merom is more power efficient. Wonderful. As said a few posts ago, the iMac has the potential for real cooling. I don't care if there is little to no noticeable difference due to the faster FSB, it is there. I don't care if its not faster-per-mhz, because here the MHz DOES come into play- Conroe will be faster because Conroe IS faster- Merom tops out at 2.33GHz and Conroe has 2.4, 2.67, and though the TDP is higher, 2.93 and by the end of the year 3.2.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
So theres no need to say all that stuff- fact of the matter is you could put a faster chip in for the same price.
tkermit
Apr 15, 09:13 AM
Good to see :)
lipinski77
Sep 20, 01:36 PM
The iTV makes the elgato eyetv hybrid even more appealing. :)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
http://www.elgato.com/index.php?file=products_eyetvhybridna
Use it to record your shows and then stream it to the iTV.
-bye bye comcast DVR.
what about calling it the iStream (ha)
spacemanspifff
Apr 6, 08:11 AM
Once you start using it, you'll find that the Mac OS is a much more intuitive system, but you may have to unlearn the ways of the windows. With the Mac, the desktop paradigm is fully realised - so if you want to move something from one place to another, you do it just as you would in the real world, by picking it up and dropping it where you want it. Don't worry about opening the destination first, as the finder will automatically open windows for you.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
If you want keyboard shortcuts on the Mac, go into System Preferences and select keyboard, then you can add/change as many as you like. To change the defaults - just double click on the existing one.
You can use smart folders on the Mac which basically perform a live search and update their contents automatically - this allows you to make a folder which contains any combination of files/folders/apps for any amount of time.
Also, as pointed out by others here, Shift select is the same as Windows and if you do Cmd select, you can select the first two files, miss out the next one then select three more etc.
Hope this helps, my advice is make the jump, you will not regret it.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 05:29 PM
you say it only applies to muslims yet the victims in blasphemy cases in pakistan, for example, are mostly christians.
[quote]
If you've been reading, when applied correctly, it only applies to Muslims
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
Fundamentalists who have taken an extreme point of view. Are you saying that Islam is not allowed any extremists? All religions have then. But not Muslims are extremists.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
I could see this coming. We don't all live in the US. Reported rates go down, but it also works psychologically.
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
[quote]
If you've been reading, when applied correctly, it only applies to Muslims
The "war" against islam that you speak of is being encouraged by imams, and at saudi funded madrassas in the UK and beyond.
Fundamentalists who have taken an extreme point of view. Are you saying that Islam is not allowed any extremists? All religions have then. But not Muslims are extremists.
in the US more hate crimes were perpetrated against jews in 2010 than any other group. hate crimes against muslims had gone down in 2010. so, i guess the islamophobia is really poisonous and rampant...
interestingly, as the muslim population increases so too do reported cases of anti-semitic hate crimes.
I could see this coming. We don't all live in the US. Reported rates go down, but it also works psychologically.
If I even dare comment on the last thing, the thread topic will change.
rasmasyean
Apr 22, 09:48 PM
No no, you're misreading me. The atheists I've spoken to, here in the UK and various European countries, tend to not back up their atheism with reasons of any sort. They just are.
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
I'm pretty sure one of the main reasons for this is because they want to be "polite" and not get into a heated argument against religion. It's hardly an argument an atheist can win because they feel that the belief in itself is irrational, therefore you often cannot use any reason at all to convince someone extremely faithful that their religion is "flawed". Why bother ruining a relation with someone over something that doesn't matter to the moment. Unless someone really knows you real well, they aren't likely to say that your bible is full of BS because of XYZ.
It's like this one time I had this hard-core martial artist friend and co-worker who is a Chi-Gung Master among other things. He said he'll assist the healing of my paintball bruise on my arm and uses his fingers pointing to it to "direct the flow of chi" or something to make my bruise heal faster. Well, yes, it was healing the next day, and the next day and he was like, "Your bruise is getting better"...and I was like "Yeah, thanks!". But what I didn't mention was that all the bruises on my torso were healing the same. Why bother bust his bubble especially since this dude spent his whole life in Kung Fu. Does it really matter if he's "wrong"? And he won't even believe he's wrong all his life. He would likely think to himself that I'm immune to "Chi Energy" so that one bruise wasn't responding "faster"...or worse, that I'm "Evil" and this "Light Side Force Power" or some crap doesn't work on me. Because he did also mention that "Iron Palm Practitioners" have some sort of "negative Chi" or something. It's not my place to argue stuff like this. So who cares. :rolleyes:
KnightWRX
May 2, 11:36 AM
Huge difference in my experience. The Windows UAC will pop up for seemingly mundane things like opening some files or opening applications for the first time, where as the OS X popup only happens during install of an app - in OS X, there is an actual logical reason apparent to the user. It is still up to the user to ensure the software they are installing is from a trusted source, but the reason for the password is readily apparent.
It pops up when I open Steam. "Steam would now like to auto-update itself, enter your password". Same for all my "auto-updating" apps that are installed system wide.
This conditions the user as much.
Though looking for information on this MacDefender, I'm genuinely curious how the installer "pop-ups". I haven't found anything interesting. Since Archive utility doesn't honor absolute paths in a Zip, how does the little bugger get launched ?
I don't see any preferences in Archive Utility to allow automatic execution depending on what gets extracted. Some posts on the net seem to the suggest that Archive Utility will auto-execute a .pkg that is found in an archive. If that is true, that is a serious concern. I guess I'll just have to actually find this zip file and download it to inspect it.
It pops up when I open Steam. "Steam would now like to auto-update itself, enter your password". Same for all my "auto-updating" apps that are installed system wide.
This conditions the user as much.
Though looking for information on this MacDefender, I'm genuinely curious how the installer "pop-ups". I haven't found anything interesting. Since Archive utility doesn't honor absolute paths in a Zip, how does the little bugger get launched ?
I don't see any preferences in Archive Utility to allow automatic execution depending on what gets extracted. Some posts on the net seem to the suggest that Archive Utility will auto-execute a .pkg that is found in an archive. If that is true, that is a serious concern. I guess I'll just have to actually find this zip file and download it to inspect it.
stcanard
Mar 18, 12:13 PM
But it can be fixed by possibly: Encrypting (or Changing the way it is encrypted) the AAC file on the transfer from itms to the player.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
or force the player to send the authorize code to apple to wrap on <i> their</i> servers before send it back to the player.
If they do the server fix it'll take more than a day.
And it will take Jon a day to figure out how the iTunes client generates that key and spoof it. Again by definition DRM has to be insecure, because the client must have all the information necessary to break it.
In interviews Steve Jobs has gone on record saying that unbreakable DRM is impossible. What you're seeing from Apple is a "good enough" strategy. After all, they don't really care, it's only there to appease the RIAA.
Does anybody have more of an idea on how the DRM wrapping is done and how the undrmed file is transfered?
There's a good overview of what's happening at Ars.
Basically the issue (and I hadn't thought about this) is that the song has to be individually encrypted for each client; that's how its made playable on your system not other people's. Because they're using Akamai to cache and distribute the files they can't distribute pre-encrypted ones! (The analogy is it would be like libraries carrying a copy of the book for everyone who might borrow it). Apple can't link everything back to their servers as you'd bottleneck it.
Instead its your copy of iTunes that's actually adding the DRM (and that's probably why the new Motorola phone won't let you buy directly from the store, it can't add the DRM).
It's an interesting problem. I would bet you will find this hole in WMA stores for the same reason. Of course Jon prefers to target the source that will get him headlines.
Apple will make another "good enough" fix to block it for another 6 months. But they really don't care. Although externally they "care", I bet internally it doesn't particularly bother them because ITMS is so big that the record companies can't afford to pull out of it.
InsanelyApple
Mar 18, 09:53 AM
Hey mates! I live in the UK and according to what I've read, what american mobile companies are charging you is a rip-off! I pay �35 per month (tax included, about $55 USD) and I get: 2000 any network-any time minutes, 5000 same network minutes, 5000 any network messages, UNLIMITED internet, that's right, no capping, no "fair usage policies", UNLIMITED! AAAAND I can tether with up to 5 devices, (macbook and iPad in my case and even my mates iPod touch from time to time when we are out). No extra fees, no hidden tricks. And my iPhone is unlocked, so I can sell it when my contract finishes and any person can use in any country or any network. COMPLAIN PEOPLE!:apple:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
We do but the government is run by corporations. Nobody cares about the lower 98% of the people in this nation. The government only cares about the top 2% of money earners. America isn't great, and I wish I lived in Europe. Heck, I bet even China is better than this place.:rolleyes:
Sounds Good
Apr 5, 06:08 PM
...you sound computer savvy!
I am with Windows! :) But on a Mac I'm a bumbling idiot. No joke.
I am with Windows! :) But on a Mac I'm a bumbling idiot. No joke.
chrono1081
May 2, 08:52 PM
Mac OS X fanboys really need to stop clinging to the mentality that "viruses" don't exist for OS X and that "malware" is a Windows-only problem. Who cares if viruses don't exist for OS X? News flash: viruses aren't all that common on Windows anymore. They just aren't. Phishing, Spear Phishing, trojans, and social engineering are much more cost- and time-effective ways to breach a computer's security.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
So no matter what you call "MACDefender," it's a problem. One that's not likely to be caught by a user who has been fed the Koolaid that malware is a Windows problem and that they don't need to be aware.
Can you for once write something truthful? Why are you even here. Windows viruses are more rampant than ever before, trust me I remove them for a living and it eats up a good chunk of my work week.
As for your constant "fanboy" comments I think calling people "fanboys" should get you the ban hammer. No one wants to hear it anymore. They just don't. Oh, and for the "koolaid" cliche? Real original :rolleyes: Haven't heard that a million times.
You obviously know nothing about Windows or Mac if you honestly believe the FUD you constantly put on this forum.
firestarter
Mar 13, 02:49 PM
NO nuclear.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
Problem is that you (or I) don't get to choose who uses nuclear.
- We can't stop Russia using unsafe reactors, or having poor security around them.
- We can't stop nuclear programs in India, Pakistan, Iran etc.
- We can't stop countries like Japan building power stations on fault lines.
All we can decide is whether we build them ourselves. We have a very real fuel crisis that manifests itself in war and terrorism, and will only get worse.
We can build our own nuclear power stations based on modern designs, in well guarded facilities away from seismic activity. If we choose not to, we face the worst of both worlds... we have all the downside of 'bad nuclear power' elsewhere coupled with the worsening ramifications of an oil crisis.
babyj
Sep 21, 12:37 PM
Except the big difference between Microsoft's Media Center and Apple's, is that Microsoft's new Vista version will be able to record encrypted digital and HD television via a CableCARD, and Apple has no plans for that at the moment. And it's not the type of functionality that will just show up, Microsoft has been working on getting a CableCARD device certified for years.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
I'm not sure about tv programmes in hd, but bluray/hddvd discs will be protected and you will only be able to watch them if everything in the chain supports the protection - the disc, the drive, the processor, the video card and the tv. Otherwise it falls back to a lower quality output and you're back to square one.
It might be the best quality, but hd is a long way off from becoming mainstream. Its good that Microsoft are supporting it in Vista but I really don't think it will be a show stopper for most people. For most people the Apple media centre functionality will be more than acceptable, when it isn't I'm sure that Apple will come out with something new and improved that is.
iCole
Apr 6, 12:54 PM
Get Springy. It's literally *the* WinRAR alternative for OS X.
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
It's nice and Finder-esque. Allows you to view the folder structure inside and extract only the particular files you want. What I really love is the ability to extract only the first part of a multi-archive package, and keep the 'broken' files (great if you're downloading a movie and want to check the quality).
Tnx. Ill check it out :)
Sent from my GT-I9000 using Tapatalk
fxtech
Apr 28, 08:16 AM
Next year you will see iPhones and iPods counted too. I mean you need to do all you can to make it look good to shareholders.
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Why not? After all, isn't an iPod Touch just a small iPad?
Gelfin
Mar 27, 10:43 PM
But what if changed thoughts and changed behaviors would make people even happier than than they would be without the changes?
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
That's a reasonable outcome too, and so long as the patient comes out at peace with himself, no credible psychologist would attempt to force someone to be gay either.
The available evidence about the viability of "conversion" might lead to some skepticism, and an expectation that the patient will "relapse" and return to therapy (something Nicolosi knows quite well), but the therapist ultimately has a responsibility to respect what the patient represents.
Not even Nicolosi tells his clients that they need to change their sexual orientation.
Really? Because this is nothing like anything Nicolosi has ever said publicly. His entire theory is that anyone who is gay is psychologically broken, and that making someone psychologically healthy automatically makes him straight. How could anyone infer it is not his position that his clients need to change their sexual orientation?
He says that NARTH is for people who want to change it.
Or whose parents demand they change it as a condition of parental love.
Besides, what is the threshold for "wanting" to change it? Being gay in this society is a colossal nuisance in many ways. Most of the most secure and confident gay men I've ever met would admit having at some point wished they were straight, just like many minorities sometimes find themselves wishing they were white, or some women occasionally wish they were male. It would be a lot easier, and in the case of homosexuality, often very much easier indeed. It's the only such situation in the modern day where children are actually denied the love of their parents and community and thrown into the streets. Cultural attitudes towards homosexuality make denial almost a given when one starts to realize one's own orientation is not the norm.
If these thoughts are so disruptive that the sufferer's life is impacted, then the sufferer needs therapy, not to make him into what he isn't, but to help him come to terms with himself in whatever way works best for him.
In a video I posted to this discussion, he says that therapy doesn't work well for clients who tell him they want to change because the Bible teaches that they shouldn't have homosexual sex.
And you get from this that he doesn't think people need to change? He's telling people why they are likely to be failures, warning them of attitudes that will make them failures, and preconditioning them to begin the long process of telling counselors what they want to hear.
What that quote says is, "being religious and wanting your religious beliefs to be compatible with your sexual identity is not sufficient. There will never be a compromise between your sexuality and your religion, and the religion cannot be wrong, so you must be, and you will fail if you don't accept that and truly loathe yourself as much as we expect you to. And if you don't, we're here to help."
Bottom line, NARTH calls only one specific outcome a success, and it is for gay people to become no longer gay, irrespective of psychological consequences, because that isn't what's important to them. Eliminating homosexuality is. Although they understand and accept that not all gay people will be receptive to their "treatment," they also believe that all gay people need to be converted. This is psychological quackery.
