FreeState
Mar 27, 10:09 PM
Dr. Spitzer is an intelligent, nonreligious psychiatrist who believes that some can change their sexual orientations.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
Spitzer says it's very rare and FOF are misquoting him and missusing his study.
http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2007/02/15/227
Dr. Robert Spitzer Speaks Out Against Abuses of His Study
When Dr. Robert Spitzer�s study of 200 gay men and women who reported a change in their sexual orientation appeared in the Archives of Sexual Behavior in anti-gay lobbyist seized on it as proof that homosexuality was, at its core, a choice that could be changed. But as Dr. Spitzer has said repeatedly, any appears to be exceptionally rare. Just last Monday The New York Times quotated him as saying:
�Although I suspect change occurs, I suspect it�s very rare,� he said. �Is it 1 percent, 2 percent? I don�t think it�s 10 percent.�
Dr. Spitzer consistently warned that his study should not be used as a part of political efforts to denying gays and lesbians, a warning which Focus on the Family, NARTH and Exodus have ignored with abandon. Now Truth Wins Out has released a video in which Dr. Spitzer registers his disappointment in no uncertain terms:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZwE6_dLweYo
� of course, they (Focus on the Family) were delighted with that study. What they fail to mention � and it�s not, I guess, a big surprise � is that in the discussion I noted that it was so hard for me to find 200 subjects to participate in the study that I have to conclude that, although change is possible and does occur, it�s probably quite rare. And of course, they don�t want to mention that.�
(Out of) Focus on the Family
This video comes out at a time when we noticed PFOX (Parents and Friends of Ex-gays and Gays) revamping their website and pulling one of Dr. Spitzer�s statements out of context, this time in an embedded video that rudely plays automatically as soon as the page is loaded. Maybe this is the Focus on the Family video that Dr. Spitzer mentions and is so unhappy with.
G58
Nov 7, 03:39 PM
Or because it's an interesting debate that engages many minds in varying aspects of the possibilities.
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Or maybe you're just incapable of recognising the fact that Mac users, on average, are smarter than PC users.
And by smarter, I mean we're more enquiring. We also tend not to write using lower case letters at the beginning of sentences, and use poor grammar. Why does that matter?, you might ask. Well, for a start, it's incorrect. But it's also ignorant and rude and immature.
So, when we debate, for five minutes or for a few days, maybe the smart thing to do is pay attention. The experience may just fill in the obvious gaps in your education.
the reason this topic has gotten so long is due to the fact that most apple fans have no idea what they're talking about..
they love apple and they will defend it to the death, even when their argument has no logic..
this has nothing to do with which product is better..
it's the simple fact that android will be available on a greater number of handsets compared to apple..
you guys need to look at the Microsoft vs Apple situation..
regardless of what you prefer or believe is a better product,
the one that makes software and licenses it out dominates the market share
you really must have a thick skull not to understand that..
Silentwave
Jul 11, 11:05 PM
I doubt that Apple are able to charge the "normal" Mac premium after the intel transition, since it is much simpler to compare Macs with another PCs. Almost like Apple for Apple. ;)
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
if you add in a 20" LCD to each, the PM is cheaper by about 150.
I don't know how much more FB-DIMM will cost from apple, or how much they'll charge for sata3gbps HDs or how much more the woodcrests will cost versus the G5s. But we may see a price jump in the top end. Still we will see a nice jump in performance as well.
Of course if we adjust the above scenario away from the 3ghz Xeon 5160, to 2 of the more affordable Xeon 5150, 2.67GHz dual cores, ( 1333mt/s FSB, 4MB L2 just like the 3ghz) , the prices change a lot. $800 cut right there on the processors. The Dell is now cheaper by $350, no monitors.
FB-DIMM ram is pretty expensive. Apple cannot afford to put a huge premium on it though like they do now. Granted, it always has ECC so that is nice.
All i hope is that they have dual 3ghz woodcrests and are good enough that when I get one with clovertown MP or tigerton next year, i can get up to 64GB RAM, and at least 3 SAS or SATA 3g drives (its not called sata II).
they'll be priced about in line with comparable systems. but that ain't cheap. I priced a dell precision workstation with dual xeon 5160 (3ghz woodcrest), 4GB 533 mhz DDR2 FB-DIMM RAM (apple may just use 667, only $50 more for the 4 gigs) , 2x500GB SATA 3gbps HD, 512mb Quadro FX 4500, no monitor, speakers etc. and it came out to just shy of $7800.
I then went on the apple store site, built a PM G5 quad with 4GB ECC 533mhz DDR2 SDRAM (4x1gb) which is not as expensive as FBDIMM memory, 2x500GB Sata HDDs (but i think sata 1.5gbps not 3.0), quadro FX 4500, and so on and it came out to a tad over $7000, just shy of $7300 when you add applecare in, since the dell workstation has an included 3 year plan.
if you add in a 20" LCD to each, the PM is cheaper by about 150.
I don't know how much more FB-DIMM will cost from apple, or how much they'll charge for sata3gbps HDs or how much more the woodcrests will cost versus the G5s. But we may see a price jump in the top end. Still we will see a nice jump in performance as well.
Of course if we adjust the above scenario away from the 3ghz Xeon 5160, to 2 of the more affordable Xeon 5150, 2.67GHz dual cores, ( 1333mt/s FSB, 4MB L2 just like the 3ghz) , the prices change a lot. $800 cut right there on the processors. The Dell is now cheaper by $350, no monitors.
FB-DIMM ram is pretty expensive. Apple cannot afford to put a huge premium on it though like they do now. Granted, it always has ECC so that is nice.
All i hope is that they have dual 3ghz woodcrests and are good enough that when I get one with clovertown MP or tigerton next year, i can get up to 64GB RAM, and at least 3 SAS or SATA 3g drives (its not called sata II).
i_am_a_cow
Mar 20, 02:00 PM
Thankyou Jerry!
BRLawyer
May 2, 02:08 PM
They have done nothing to discourage it? Well, they introduced an annoying pop-up asking for confirmation that makes the developers customers frustrated. Any suggestion what other meaningful action they can take?
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Also, I can't think of any application I have installed on my Windows PC that behaves like this.
When I first started using a Mac seriously, which was when Vista was out and got criticized for UAC, I was really surprised to discover that OS X has the exact same thing. In Windows 7 you not only have the option to switch it on and off, you can also customize the intrusiveness of it, I find it much more user friendly than in OS X.
I think a lot of people here need to actually try Windows 7 out instead of categorically dismiss it.
To compare Windows' extremely annoying UAC crap with the non-intrusive one-time authorization requests for newly-downloaded files on Mac OS X is ludicrous...not to mention the fact that OS X's user password validity lasts for a while after it is typed.
Conclusion: You've probably never really used OS X.
Chaos123x
Apr 13, 12:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Day one purchase. Been dying to get all of my 8 cores working in FCP for years.
Of course I'm gonna keep my current FCP installed till the bugs are fixed and I learn the new version.
Day one purchase. Been dying to get all of my 8 cores working in FCP for years.
Of course I'm gonna keep my current FCP installed till the bugs are fixed and I learn the new version.
dethmaShine
May 2, 04:15 PM
Its not a myth, we've interviewed hackers after conviction, they have no interest in pursuing Macs due to the numbers. To get a really good and useful bot net you'd need roughly 25% of the entire user base!!!!
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
these guys deal in tens of millions!
Such a load of crap that is.
'we've interviewed hackers after conviction'
:rolleyes:
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:17 AM
Dear MacRumors,
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
Please don't judge Christians based on this one ignorant post.
Agreed.
We should judge Christians on what they profess to believe to be the inspired (or literal) word of god: The Bible.
Good thing that "one ignorant post" didn't use any passages from The Bib....aww, crap!
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 04:29 PM
My point is that Greenpeace would be far better served educating the public how to help. They get even 10% of the world's population to make some radical changes in their lives and the changes to the planet would be amazing.
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
I agree corporations need to set examples and do teh best they can. I don't think its where environmentalists should be pointing fingers.
You , me and everyone else are the biggest polluters.
right. why don't they invent something that doesnt pollute so we can all use it. (yeah right)
Eniregnat
Mar 18, 05:30 PM
This concept will also work with other services that do not recode the song/data before transmission. Every DRM scheme has its flaws. I am willing to bet that Apple already has a fix and wasn�t going to release it before it was necessary.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
This kind of hack is not illegal, and isn�t unethical. It is unethical to distribute music that doesn�t contain the DRM envelope. That�s no different than ripping a CD to some other form and distributing it.
I think is fine for the digital survivalists who fear that the rights that they purchased may be revoked (by changing iTunes and Apples proprietary client soft and firmware).
Hopefully this will not freak the music industry out and further increase cost or further limit access to downloadable music. Perhaps this will further push the price of music down. I think most people would pay .25$ a song and drop their music theft (if they did thieve.)
Edit- the Music Industry will freak.
capvideo
Mar 20, 01:32 PM
It's not just iTunes, but all copyright law. A CD is a license to use the track, not ownership of the song's music or lyrics. An AAC from iTunes is the same. Same with movies and software, etc. In any situation, you are buying a license to use the song, not to take ownership of the song (unless you're buying the *rights* to a song, then you really do own it).
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
I rant much more about this at my blog:
http://www.hoboes.com/Mimsy/?ART=9
Jerry
Bill McEnaney
Apr 23, 03:42 PM
The word translated "day" can mean various lengths of time, not just a 24-hour period.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
I think ancient Jews thought each day began at dawn and ended at sunset. If I'm right, they would have thought summer days were longer than winter ones.
Our Lord died died on Good Friday and rose on Easter, but does anyone know exactly what time he rose? The Bible says he rose on the third day. Say he died at 3:00 PM. on Friday. Then a 24-hour day from his death would end at 3:00 PM on Saturday, and another 24-hour day would end at 3:00 PM on Sunday. That's only two 24-hour days. We say it's daytime when the sun is shining and that it's nighttime when it's dark outdoors. Even we talk as though the word "day" stands sometimes stands for less than 24 hours.
Many of the Bible's atheistic critics oversimplify because the ignore the Bible's literary genres, the meanings of ancient expressions, cultural details, and other details. If you say something, your sentence, the string of words, differs from what it means. That's why you can translate a sentence from one language to another. When you translate a sentence from English to French, the French sentence needs to mean what the English one means, or there's something wrong with the translation.
To know what, say, Genesis 1:1 means, you need to know what its author meant by the words it consists of. If you impose a 21st-century meaning on a sentence that meant something else when the author wrote it, you're misinterpreting what he said.
You and I see three colored objects and three people. You tell me, "Bill, Green is the third one from the left." You're talking about the third person, a man named "Joe Green," when I think you're talking about the third colored object. Green is the color of the third object from the left. The word "Green" is the last name of the man who's third from the left. The proposition "Green is the third one from the left" is true in both cases, but the string of words means one thing when you talk about the man. It means something else when you're talking about the green object. To find out which truth you're telling me, I need you to tell me that you're talking about the colored object.
You wake at 7:00 AM on Friday. The next calendar day begins at midnight, but there's only 17 hours between 7 AM and midnight. Truth is objective, but the meanings of words, phrases, and sentences depend on context. So do the referents of the words, the people, places, or things that words, phrases, and sentences denote.
dethmaShine
Apr 22, 04:59 AM
No, but how is that relevant anyway? An Apple fan was dissing microsoft.
No I was just saying that 'holding it wrong' is a phrase that came out first from Google.
So putting it in that context would be wrong.
:)
No I was just saying that 'holding it wrong' is a phrase that came out first from Google.
So putting it in that context would be wrong.
:)
Dippo
Mar 18, 07:44 PM
Now why do hackers have to go do this? they say they do it cuz the prices that cd's are is "unfair" and "overpriced".
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
Let me repeat for those who aren't listening...
You still have to buy the music!!!
You have every right to rip DRM free music from a CD that you bought, and the same should go for music that you download.
Just because the industry paid the lawmakers enough money to make a law that makes getting around DRM illegal, that doesn't make it wrong!
citi
Apr 15, 01:03 PM
Dont bash his/her religious beliefs. They could be right or wrong...its up to each person to decide, and make true in their lives. Personally, I believe in a powerful God of love and grace. Just my 2cents:)
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
Unfortunately, there is no such thing as "right" and "wrong". Morality is subjective and so is the Bible/Religion.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 13, 01:03 PM
Well it was rumoured for some time and we all waited with baited breath but was Apple seriously going to end the pro app that started them off to stardom? Sadly yes they have. What genius decides to make a pro app accessible to the masses? We who use FCP have to make money from our business, so we need a little bit of smoke and mirrors to make our business needed, otherwise our clients will just get a 16 year old in off the street, download FCP (sorry imovie Pro or whatever they have decided to call it) and there you go we are out of work!
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
karina smirnoff peta.
Dancer Karina Smirnoff in a
Karina Smirnoff land on face
Competing with 16 year olds is a bad position to be in.
I can see the business sense for Apple but they have now taken it all away from us who stayed by them for all these years.. Thanks Apple for the kick in the teeth. I am a ''Pro'' app user and have been for well over a decade and will be sad to move over to a new system but alas nothing lasts for ever.
Evangelion
Jul 13, 05:05 AM
After reading your post, I thought I'd join in. I hear what you are saying about Adobe, but truth is, the majority of Mac desktop professional users are people who rely on Adobe for everyday work.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
Yep, there propably are lots of Macsters who rely on Adobe. And there are LOADS of Macsters who don't use Adobe-software at all!
Now before you go thinking "so what", keep in mind that disregarding the creative industry means you are losing a big chunk of potential buyers.
I fail to see how Apple is "disregarding" those people who run Adobe-software. Those people could buy PPC-PowerMac if they want to. Should Apple delay the release of Intel-PowerMacs just because Adobe is dragging their feet with universalization? What's the benefit there? The fact that the Adobe-users wouldn't have to look at those new uber-PowerMacs with envy and think "damn, I wish I could buy that...."? if Apple releases the new machines in few weeks time, how does it harm anyone? At least the multitude of people who do NOT rely on Adobe will have new gear to buy. The Adobe-users can just stick to PPC-machines. It's not like Steve Jobs will march in to the Adobe-houses (no pun intended), and replace those PPC-PowerMacs with Intel-PowerMacs.
What should Adobe-users do? Instead of complaining to Apple, they should complain to Adobe. How hard is it REALLY to make Mac-Photoshop run on Intel-Mac? they already have Intel-versions of their software running on Windows, it shouldn't be THAT hard.
rhinosrcool
Mar 18, 04:49 AM
stop gouging the customer. first we pay for 'unlimited' data thats capped at 5gb then they limit it to 2gb and force you to pay more to tether.
I totally agree.
I totally agree.
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.
GGJstudios
May 4, 10:33 AM
Did you read about this solution on Apple web site? Not everybody reads MacRumors.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
If you Google "Mac Defender" you'll run across any number of sites that will tell you the same thing: Don't install it and remove it from your system. You don't need to be a MR forums reader to find that out. After all, the information about the threat didn't originate from this site, and neither did the solution.
eawmp1
Apr 22, 08:14 PM
Didn't you know? Aside from owning Apple products it's also quite trendy being an atheist. They think they don't need to back up their points with Reason or facts so it's a kind of intellectual laziness which compels most people.
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
What a lazy, unreasonable opinion.
Tomorrow is Saturday, and Sunday comes afterward;
OP - how can one believe is a compassionate god when there are lyrics like these in the world?
I'm not saying that I'm a devout Christian or anything of the sort, I'm agnostic, but it's based on Reason.
What a lazy, unreasonable opinion.
Tomorrow is Saturday, and Sunday comes afterward;
OP - how can one believe is a compassionate god when there are lyrics like these in the world?
iliketyla
Apr 21, 05:37 PM
So now you are justifying your reason for stealing music. You can afford a Macbook Air but you can't afford a $1 for music. You really put in prespective the brillance and intelligence that is Fandroids.
Yes, it's because I like Android that I choose to torrent my music, brilliant logic there. :rolleyes:
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
I could cite a thousand reasons why I choose to use Android over iOS, but since my opinion isn't in line with yours it wouldn't matter because you're a close minded Apple fanboy. And insinuating that I work at McDonald's was very clever, kudos to you. :)
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I don't have enough posts yet to comment on this bud, see you when I hit 100.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
Yes, anyone who listens to one of the most popular rap artists in the history of music isn't worth your time.
Anyone with differing views for that matter. Imagine if everyone in the world were so close minded.
None of you have proved anything.
Yes, it's because I like Android that I choose to torrent my music, brilliant logic there. :rolleyes:
You are a horribly immoral person.
I don't steal big macs from your place of work. Get a grip on your attitude.
Stay with your inferior Android devices. Nobody cares about the only thing you can cite that is better is that you are better capable of breaking the law and stealing from other people.
I could cite a thousand reasons why I choose to use Android over iOS, but since my opinion isn't in line with yours it wouldn't matter because you're a close minded Apple fanboy. And insinuating that I work at McDonald's was very clever, kudos to you. :)
If you don't mind, what's your stance on Arizona's Immigration Law on illegals?
I don't have enough posts yet to comment on this bud, see you when I hit 100.
No worries gwangung - anyone who admits to listening to Lil Wayne isn't worth your time lol
Yes, anyone who listens to one of the most popular rap artists in the history of music isn't worth your time.
Anyone with differing views for that matter. Imagine if everyone in the world were so close minded.
None of you have proved anything.
pinchez
Apr 13, 07:19 AM
Wow all this fuss over a piece of software, It's not a hardware or even a OS release :confused:
peharri
Sep 20, 09:59 AM
This is good news. When they announced it, I was pretty convinced they weren't talking about a box that required an additional computer, although USB storage or a dedicated server box seemed likely based upon the absense of evidence for an in-built hard disk.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
So it's actually confirmed it can be used standalone. The missing piece is complete. This is iTunes for the rest of us. For those who don't want cable, who want to be able to subscribe to (and fund) specific TV shows and order movies on demand, this is for you. No computer required. Go home, flop on the couch, and watch what you want. Want something more powerful? Well, it'll integrate with your computers and presumably if someone wants to create devices that export iTunes libraries, like some sort of networked DVR, then it'll work with that too.
Wonderful. This deserves to be a success.
