jholzner
Oct 7, 02:15 PM
Cause it's not. I played with the iPhone SDK for a test app and had to relearn a few things. For example, the + or - in front of a method, which means instance or class method (or vice-versa). I could find the right information (or Google keywords) to get it without a few bouts of swearing.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
Then my company got a contract to port an iPhone app to Android. And by port I mean rewrite since we can't share anything from obj-c to Java.
Coming from a C/C++ background, the learning curve was really quick. Plus Google did a relatively good job with its SDK and emulator which work pretty well on both Mac and Windows.
What you really meant was easier for you so you don't have to do as much. Judging by the number of apps in the app store it doesn't appear that most developers are worrying to much about it.
NebulaClash
Apr 28, 11:58 AM
Right, schools should teach you how to think. Besides, what a kid learns at age 7 will be somewhat obsolete by the time she enters the work force at 24, seventeen years later. For all we know, she could be given a Linux box at that time, or a Chrome PC, or a Mac, or something not even invented yet instead of a Windows box.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
A lot can change in almost 20 years.
ABernardoJr
Apr 20, 09:37 PM
Is that a prerequisite? I have Apple battery charger.
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
lol It is not a prerequisite, but it might become a bit problematic when assumptions like these are made:
I don't. I just don't have OS/X. I just assumed that OS/X might not have it since some OS/X users here were confused about Windows hiding system files. :)
I'm not saying the assumption was true or false but assumptions on things that can be clarified by having the product certainly make it seem that it might help lol
dnedved
Sep 12, 05:04 PM
As an IT consultant, I recommend for anyone who's thinking of using an Airport Express for audio or a Mac Mini for a living room computer (or now this new iTV that will come out next year) to just spend the money on getting a wired connection. Ultimately, wireless will not be at the quality it needs to be to handle this throughput CONSISTENTLY. I still get skips on my Airpot Express when streaming from iTunes.
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
As an IT consultant you should know about caching. The bandwidth is there, a little bit of caching and the inconsistency caused by an occasional glitch in the throughput won't even be noticed. OS X doesn't do extensive read-ahead caching over network file systems. It's arguable whether a general-purpose OS even should (You and I probably both want it to but how often do you hear other users asking for it?) But with the workload that this device will be doing it's a no-brainer that doing 64-128MB of read-ahead would be a good idea. You can bet that Apple is smart enough to think of that. Hell, if they get the downloads working over the internet connection, the delivery around the LAN is much easier -- wired or wireless. 802.11g is a MUCH fatter pipe than anybody here's internet connection I'm willing to bet.
I agree with you about the current situation. It's just a simple tweak on the client though. Right now I even have occasional glitches streaming video off my NAS over GigE but it's just the lack of caching, it's certainly not a bandwidth issue with GigE!!!
matticus008
Mar 20, 02:53 PM
The first part of you statement is not a very intelligent one. If you believe a law to be immoral or against the freedom of the people then it is your duty especially in this country to stand up against it, not cower away and create a separate place to dwell. If everyone took your stance then when major changes need to happen to our laws people would have gathered together to leave the country instead of trying to work and fix the problem and raise awareness of the problem.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
Yes, they would. Most countries are started because the old one was unjust or inadequate in some regard. Working to change the law is not the same as breaking the law. You have every right to write to your Congressmen, lobby whomever you'd like, and voice your protest against the law. You do not have the right to break it.
Bound? Yes. But that does not mean I abdicate my responsibility to T-H-I-N-K for myself. You seem to be happy letting those who pass laws think for you. I care about my own life and sanity a bit too much to let others tell me how to live. Thank you very much.
You can think for yourself all you like, but the law is still the law. If you choose to break it, then you choose to break it, but that does NOT make the law irrelevant. You are breaking the law. That is my only point.
Glad you belive this junk. I don't. but then, I think for myself. You do make me laugh with the whole "protect the weak" nonsense. Let me guess, the RIAA are protecting the weak again those strong 13 year-olds who want to listen to free music. Riiiiight.
PS: Your basic social theory has led to a world order ruled by the strong over the weak
If you'd read more carefully, you would see that I didn't say that we aren't living in a society dominated by the strong. You would see that I was pointing out that no laws at all would make the situation even worse. The RIAA is not the government or the law. They might have successfully lobbied for it, but the law is well within their rights as the owners of the music. Take a step back and look at the rest of the law. Are murderers caught and taken away? When people steal something from you, are they not caught and not prosecuted? Do people regularly go around, shooting and stealing, with no one to stop them? The answer might be "sometimes," but with your "think for yourself attitude" the answer would be "all the time." People would do whatever they had the power to do, because there would be no consequences and no one to protect the weak at all. The main point of that part of my answer was to point out your argument failure: the fallacy of argument from ignorance (that your own evidence can be used AGAINST you, rendering it invalid).
By that logic, women would still not be able to vote. Look at other societies that do not allow people to protest "unjust" laws. Compare where they stand to where we stand. I am simply trying to take us further still down the road of freedom for all humans. Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans is a Bad Thing�. DRM, by definition, falls into this category.
That, sir, is a load of crap. The law allowed only men above 21 to vote. Women were not covered in that. Therefore, the rights of women were constricted. This is not the case. You have "fair use" laws, and DRM laws to protect fair use. The DRM laws do not narrow your scope of access to those "fair use" laws--and if you have a problem with fair use, bring it up with someone who will do something about it. You also don't live in a society where you are not allowed to protest. Sit ins and marches during the Civil Rights movement were entirely legal forms of protest for the most part. "Anything that acts to restrict the natural association of humans" is NOT a bad thing. Again, the reason we have society is because we have rule of law. Restrictions on actions protect the freedoms of others who cannot secure those freedoms on their own. DRM has nothing to do with "the natural association of humans," either, so I don't know where you're going here.
Again, I am bound by these laws but I do not need to AGREE with them. Do you agree with them? [That is a direct question btw.]
All actions (free or not free) require sacrifices. So what is your point?
It doesn't matter whether you agree with them or not. You don't have the right to break them. I do believe in the law, I believe DRM protects artists in theory, and I do not believe that people have any excuse for breaking the law in this case. It is not a social injustice, it is not a repressive law, and it is not your natural right to do whatever you want with something that does not belong to you (the music of others). I believe that DRM is flawed because not every stereo, car, computer, music player, cell phone, PDA, internet appliance, and jukebox in existence is compatible with one another, making it difficult to listen to your music in all of those environments. But the competition is the best form of "free association" available: you're given a choice how to get your music. Not all of it works with all of your devices, but that part is up to you. If I buy a book written in Russian, it's my fault that I can't read Russian and assuming I can't translate it (which is very time consuming), I have to buy it again in English. That's the way it is, and it doesn't infringe on anyone's freedoms.
Option C (Something Different): Think for yourself and live life according to your own laws
I will take C cuz it allows for both A & B while reserving my ability to think for myself.
Neither options A nor B restrict your ability to think for yourself. What option C does is make you liable to punishment and prosecution. Live life how you feel is best, but understand that if and when you choose to break a law (we all do it, and speeding is a perfect example), you might benefit from it, but you also have to prepared to pay the fines when you get caught. Do I really care about people stealing music? No, I'm not the RIAA. Do I think it's ridiculous that people can rationalize it to the point where they think they're entitled to it, or that it's acceptable to break the law for their own convenience, or worst of all, that they're not really even breaking a law? Abso-freaking-lutely.
ct2k7
Apr 24, 03:25 PM
I explained what Sharia law is.
In your first paragraph you support my view that Islam is a threat to democracy, so many thanks.
No I didn't... I provided an explanation as supplementary evidence to the rebuttal made by myself. You didn't explain what Sharia Law is at all.
no, they were of iraqi origin. this happened in the US, the father has been sentenced to jail.
it's not cultural if it transcends so much space, it's inherent in the teachings of the religion. allah is a bloodthirsty god
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
In your first paragraph you support my view that Islam is a threat to democracy, so many thanks.
No I didn't... I provided an explanation as supplementary evidence to the rebuttal made by myself. You didn't explain what Sharia Law is at all.
no, they were of iraqi origin. this happened in the US, the father has been sentenced to jail.
it's not cultural if it transcends so much space, it's inherent in the teachings of the religion. allah is a bloodthirsty god
I'll now ask you to provide examples of where it is stated that a father must kill their child for disobeying them.
Cultural is extending to the entire region, which it is. There is no source in Islam telling fathers to perform honour killings on the basis.
radio893fm
Aug 30, 12:49 AM
Thank God Apple users just amount 3% -or something like that- in the computer industry (forget about the ipod)...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
If everybody thought like most people in this board, the world would be a more scarier (if possible) place to live in...
NewGenAdam
Mar 11, 04:57 PM
"2239: Japanese nuclear safety officials have said the problems at the Fukushima-Daiichi nuclear power plant represent "no immediate health hazard" to people living nearby. Some 45,000 people living within a 10km (6-mile) radius of the plant were told to evacuate as radiation levels rose to 1,000 times above normal in one reactor."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
The BBC sticks to the official line; and that's a value in its news. But when the Japanese authorities have been criticised of underplaying the severity of nuclear incidents I think there's also value in finding sources from further afield which might be a little more speculative
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-12307698
The BBC sticks to the official line; and that's a value in its news. But when the Japanese authorities have been criticised of underplaying the severity of nuclear incidents I think there's also value in finding sources from further afield which might be a little more speculative
miketcool
Sep 12, 03:39 PM
This was released to make the other movie companies fold and agree to sign and give Apple their content. Why else would they allow everyone this info this early in the game? It is to make the movie industry drool and sell their stuff through iTunes.
Chupa Chupa
Oct 7, 11:22 AM
I'm not 100% sure of Garter's rationalization but it seems to be that there will be 40 different android models available (presumably on different networks). That is really the key. The equation is something like: the sum of all Android phones on multiple networks = the sum of all iPhones on ATT. However, if Apple spreads the iPhone love to Verizon when ATT rolls out LTE it changes the equation dramatically, and reduces Android to the iPhone-haters market. I have to believe Apple sees the trend and will not wait too long to let Android mature before it makes a move to squash it. Apple's just bidding its time watching the ant walk into the trap before it ambushes.
bigmc6000
Aug 29, 01:15 PM
Greenpeace is not exactly 'agenda-less'. But that seems sort of paranoid to say that they're clearly trying to kill technology, capitalism and innovation. If they wanted to target Apple, or get a lot of publicity, they surely could have done something more dramatic than put them fourth from the bottom of a list.
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
And honestly, what do we know about Apple's environmental standards (materials used, manufacturing processes, disposal methods, etc.)? I really doubt that most of you (myself included) are industrial engineers, environmental standards auditors or something. Like some previous replies said - some people can't stand the idea that Apple is not great at something, and will lash out at those who criticize it. I mean, I like Apple's stuff, but it's just a company. Keep an open mind...
I happen to have taken way too many IE classes (that's industrial engineering not MS's IE - yuck) and I'd have to tell you the things that Greenpeace is complaining about are dwarfed in comparison to the large issue of CRT's and the contents within. Ever look at the default Dell system? They ALL have CRT's. Most of the time you can get a free upgrade to flat panel or some cheap upgrade or something but they still come with CRT's. In my opinion the stuff greenpeace is complaining about "withholds its full list of regulated substances and provides no timelines for eliminating toxic polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and no commitment to phasing out all uses of brominated flame retardants (BFRs)." are much lower on the list than the absurd volume of lead being shipped by Dell CRT's. Something else to note - the most likely reason greenpeace is pissed of is becaue of this "withholds its full list of regulated substances." Does that really have anything to do with how environmentally friendly they really are? No - does that make greenpeace mad that they aren't being "respected" by Apple? Yes. Enough to make them 4th worst? Absolutely...
mac1984user
Apr 15, 10:03 AM
For those saying this is an anti-bullying video, I think you're kind of missing the point. No one believes bullying is magically going to go away. This video was more focused on reaching out to the victims of bullying and encouraging them to access social networks that can help them cope and it attempted to put this time in a young person's life in perspective. It encouraged them to continue on and realise things 'get better'. No one is trying to end bullying, however nice that would be.
Stampyhead
Aug 29, 12:42 PM
When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
Funny, I thought all people had "the right" to believe anything they liked. When did you gain the right to be so imperious and condescending towards others just because their opinion doesn't agree with their own?
Anyway, I'm sure Apple and a whole load of other companies could do better in regards to environmental issues, but it always seemed to me that Apple was doing a pretty good job. I remember the iPod recycling program in their stores where you could bring in your old iPod and get 10% off a new one. I have also noticed that lately Apple has greatly reduced the amount of packaging on their products. Of course they still need to use styrofoam to keep the computers for getting damaged when they are shipped, but in some cases their packaging is almost half the size it used to be.
So although I'm sure they could do better, I think credit should be given where it is due.
iJohnHenry
Apr 23, 06:10 PM
What is a "devout atheist"? :confused:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
They genuflect without warning, something like an epileptic. :rolleyes:
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:19 AM
2. Many programs want you to manage files from within programs. Itunes does not want you organizing music folders. It wants you to organize in itunes. iphoto is the same. You just have to let go of folder management...except for documents. Its a hard habit to break. Let the programs do the organization.
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
You can easily elect to manage your music files yourself, rather than have iTunes do it. That's the method I prefer, as my organization is better than theirs. All you have to do is uncheck the following boxes in iTunes Preferences:
280577
armandocerna
Apr 6, 12:07 PM
One thing that got me was that you cannot make apps fill the screen without dragging and resizing. You can only resize from the bottom right corner. No real other annoyances for me that I can think of.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
Try holding down SHIFT and clicking the green plus button it should full screen any app.
supmango
Mar 18, 10:48 AM
+11
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
The whole "it's MY data, I can do what I want with it!" argument is countered by your perfect analogy with a buffet. I tip my hat to you on that one. If you're at an all-you-can-eat buffet, it doesn't mean you can share your food with your entire family.
I've always believed that unlimited data, on a smartphone, enables you to connect to the internet as much as you want on the device you're contracted to. It's not like home internet where you can share the connection, nor have I ever imagined it would be.
I think that people just like to get "angry at the man" when they don't get things the way they want. ATT is trying to improve their network, good for them.
If AT&T let you keep your "unlimited" data plan AND add tethering, his analogy would work. As it stands right now, AT&T forces you to downgrade to a capped data plan and add tethering to it which essentially doubles your data cap to 2gb.
The analogy is more accurately like a traditional restaurant where you order an entre that is not "all you can eat". But in this case, they don't allow you to share it with another person, even though you could never possibly eat all of it by yourself (use your existing data allotment). However, they are more than happy to let you buy another entre. Oh, and you can't take home your leftovers either (rollover). That does a little better job of highlighting exactly how AT&T is being greedy in this scenario.
Bottom line, what people are doing is sticking with unlimited data and tethering (using some other means), and then downloading gigabits of data which does affect network performance for other users. That is how AT&T sees it. If you are careful about what you do while "illegally" tethering, and how often you do it, I seriously doubt they will figure it out. They really aren't that put together on this, as anyone who has spoken to "customer service" can attest.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:13 PM
I am a video editor. All the content I shoot these days is High Def. My client's video is high def. The personal movies I take of my kids are high def. I edit them in either Final Cut Pro HD or iMovie HD. I use a dLink 550 now to stream high def to my 27 LCD monitor.
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
So? This still doesn't mean that any HiDef content will show up on iTunes anytime soon or the the iTV will even support it out of the gate. I think it's a big mistake to assume things... Hope and dream all you want, but don't assume...
BlueRay disks are soon to be high def. The iTV will handle High Def via ethernet at least.
High Def Broadcasts exist right now in SLC.
Not sure where you are at with all this but I view a lot of high def content.
So? This still doesn't mean that any HiDef content will show up on iTunes anytime soon or the the iTV will even support it out of the gate. I think it's a big mistake to assume things... Hope and dream all you want, but don't assume...
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 11:39 PM
Many atheists deny that God exists. Maybe they're right, but their denial implies that theism is either true or else false. If those atheists say that theism is nonsense, what do they mean by "nonsense?" If they mean that theism is neither true nor false, then they imply their denial is neither true nor false, since theism is the belief that at least one God exists, and "There is no God" is the denial of theism. By the law of the excluded middle, every proposition is either true or false, but not both.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
AtomBoy
Oct 8, 10:46 PM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Abercrombieboy
[B]Who really gives a damn?
[B]Who really gives a damn?
ldburroughs
Mar 18, 12:29 PM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
iTunes SP2??? I kid, I kid.
iTunes SP2??? I kid, I kid.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 15, 11:11 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
Sure we can. Don't want to get too far off topic here, plenty of other threads here have addressed this. In short, any scripture written by god would simply be 100% factual. We've proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the bible, quoted so often here, is filled with errors, about scientific facts (like how old the Earth is) and also about morality (how to treat your slaves...). Although you did put a rolleyes smiley in your post. Its hard to argue with that.
Sure we can. Don't want to get too far off topic here, plenty of other threads here have addressed this. In short, any scripture written by god would simply be 100% factual. We've proven, beyond any shadow of a doubt, that the bible, quoted so often here, is filled with errors, about scientific facts (like how old the Earth is) and also about morality (how to treat your slaves...). Although you did put a rolleyes smiley in your post. Its hard to argue with that.
strabes
Apr 20, 07:09 PM
Please explain to me how I am experiencing a "degraded" experience on my current Android phone? I can do everything your iPhone can, plus tether at no additional cost and download any song I want for free.
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
The experience is degraded because Android lacks the Apple-integrated experience that we care about. Saying Android can do anything iPhone can do is like saying that both an Hyundai Accent and a Ferrari will get you from A to B. Yes, both can do this, but it's the experience that matters. The point isn't the fact that both have apps and both can browse the internet. Most people don't care about overclocking their phones or installing custom ROMs or "software freedom," whatever that means.
I'm a former two-year Android user. The transition to iPhone 4 was great.
PCUser
Oct 8, 09:54 AM
What? No Dynamic Link Libraries in the MacOS X? You've got to be kidding me. That's a very bad choice on Apple's part. Especially since UNIX has their own type of DLL's. The whole point of a DLL is to make it so that programs don't need to load the same exact libraries into memory and waste space... the standard C library alone is about 2 megs. And the speed benefit from static libraries versus dynamic in *nix is nill. I know, I've compiled the same library both ways just to test that fact. (For those that don't know, static libraries are compiled into an app, and dynamic libraries are stored only once in memory.)
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
The point you had said before was that the reason x86 sucked was that it was 25 year old technology. Your exact wording was:
Don't assume anything about the quality of a 25 year old architecture. X86 blows crap, and always will.
