Lord Blackadder
Mar 21, 03:25 PM
It's hard to argue against sysiphus's summary. The depressing corollary to that is, I don't see any realistically electable candidates on the horizon who can improve on Obama. Presidents have become more alike over time. Perhaps that is because the US is so out of step with the rest of the world that all presidents find themselves involved in similar international adventures.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the next phase of the the situation, as he has promised to "tone down" US military involvement in Libya. Unlike Iraq, there is an opposition movement in-country and there is no invasion. So while I'm disappointed that we are involved in yet another conflict in the middle east, this one stands a better chance of aiding a legitimate opposition movement in removing a dictator rather than creating another tragic, expensive mess.
It will be interesting to see how Obama handles the next phase of the the situation, as he has promised to "tone down" US military involvement in Libya. Unlike Iraq, there is an opposition movement in-country and there is no invasion. So while I'm disappointed that we are involved in yet another conflict in the middle east, this one stands a better chance of aiding a legitimate opposition movement in removing a dictator rather than creating another tragic, expensive mess.
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 01:16 PM
+1
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
If you watch and listen to Rim's co-leaders, you see the resemblance to Charlie Sheen. I'm all for company's fluffing their feathers and believing in the products they market and sell, but these guys come off as being sooo Charlie Sheen. Their grasp of reality is lacking to the point of making them sound ridiculous. I'm surprised investors don't punish them more for this - but of course many Wall Streeters still use BB's, so it makes sense.
Change is tough for lots of people and companies - which keeps Rim going and will at the same time be the death of them.
'lets make a tablet for our business users, to get serious workloads done. we can call it the playbook'.
i didn't know charlie sheen was in charge of their team?
If you watch and listen to Rim's co-leaders, you see the resemblance to Charlie Sheen. I'm all for company's fluffing their feathers and believing in the products they market and sell, but these guys come off as being sooo Charlie Sheen. Their grasp of reality is lacking to the point of making them sound ridiculous. I'm surprised investors don't punish them more for this - but of course many Wall Streeters still use BB's, so it makes sense.
Change is tough for lots of people and companies - which keeps Rim going and will at the same time be the death of them.
takao
Dec 2, 04:09 PM
is it just me or does the quality of the 'Standard' cars also vary quite a bit ? i've got some which look really great (nissan fairlady '78, alfa romeo '63) and some which look barely 'acceptable' (a 90ties 'skyline')
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
-my biggest gripe so far: b-spec modus 'reward cars' seem to be always better than the a-spec ones ...really ? that is their way of telling us to play b-spec more ?
-also just like in gt4 the rewards in some races seem to be either:
a.) a car worse than the one you had to buy to win the race (lupo race
b.) a car which after the race has really little use since ... well the only race you can use it on is the race you just finished
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Peterkro
Mar 24, 02:08 PM
The vast majority of conservatives are WASP-ish,
WTS: iPod touch 3rd generation
IPOD Touch 3rd generation 8gb
IPOD Touch 3rd generation 8gb
Used iPod Touch 8GB 3rd
Apple iPod Touch 3rd
iPod touch 1st Generation
Apple iPod touch 3G
The 3rd generation iPod
Apple ipod touch 3rd
Apple iPod touch,iPod touch
This third generation of iPod
iPod Touch 3rd generation
Apple iPod Touch (third
iPod Touch third generation
catchbar
Aug 6, 03:23 PM
thats amazing!!!
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
dougny
Nov 29, 08:58 AM
Do you work for Universal, or the RIAA?
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
GLS
Mar 22, 04:22 PM
You know, on second thought....there never will be an iPad "killer".
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
Show me a single tablet, from any manufacturer...that will out-sell the iPad.
You can't.
Which of the announced competitors will sell over 15 million in a year? To be the iPad killer...something will have to sell at least 15 million...and that was before iPad2 was released.
Even if you take into account something that has not been announced yet...you can't find an iPad killer. There are too many competitors to the throne...how can the public differentiate between the competitors, some of which are the same thing hardware and software wise....and pick one that will be the "killer".
There has not been an iPhone killer released ever....there has not been an iPod killer released ever...and there will not be an iPad killer released...ever.
And yes, the Android fanboi cult will chime in and tout the latest and greatest...which will be superseded in two weeks by something else from HTC or Motorola or whoever...if any of these are the killer..why are their sales so much lower than a comparative iDevice?
And don't toss me total number of Android sales or activations....show me a single model from any manufacturer that has sold greater than any comparable Apple portable device (iPad, iPhone, iPod)....there isn't one.
(awaiting the "sales don't matter" comments...and "specs are where its at" dribble.....)
kdarling
Mar 22, 07:38 PM
It runs Android. Pretty sure that's what he meant. So, Google, Android developers, Android marketplace.
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:00 PM
... sorry, but in what ways do I benefit by having apple track my whereabouts to the day and meter? why isn't there an opt-in (apart from the general 'eat **** or die' TOU) or at least an opt-out for this? why is it so easy to access the data?
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
And any cellular provider is tracking and storing your whereabouts equally.
The difference is that MSP might storing this for billing purposes or even because it is mandated by law (for use by law enforcement). If Apple has no need for these data (which they do not have if they are not transmitted to them), they should not store them.
afrowq
Apr 8, 11:03 PM
Coming from a full-time, multimedia/journalism/photography/etc professional I have to totally and completely
AGREE!
I've seen a huge decline in Apple's interest in the professional market, and I don't even mean high end pro, we're talking SMB and SOHO type stuff here. The last revision of FCP was just not worth it unless you were buying new or buying to ensure you didn't have any left over bugs.
Avid Media Composer and Premier have gained massive leads on FCP in terms of workflow and speed. Once the younger college students start seeing how fast they can delivery a product with Adobe or Avid, they'll start wondering why the small houses switched to FCP in the first place, and start wanting to learn what the industry is working with . . . Avid, After Effects, ProTools, etc. And the iMovie Pro will be left to indie filmmakers and consumers with deep pockets
** disclaimer ** I have nothing against the indie segment . . . I am in it and love it. But Apple makes it harder with every update to justify staying with a company that has too much on it's plate, and not enough staff to keep up with the rest of the market.
Apple will always claim that "no one's buying it" rather than, "we didn't make it marketable and desirable" when they go to axe some hardware or software title.
Careful, some trolls will insist that your opinion is only relevant to your narrow world view and that you need itemized spreadsheets to prove that you know what you're talking about.
AGREE!
I've seen a huge decline in Apple's interest in the professional market, and I don't even mean high end pro, we're talking SMB and SOHO type stuff here. The last revision of FCP was just not worth it unless you were buying new or buying to ensure you didn't have any left over bugs.
Avid Media Composer and Premier have gained massive leads on FCP in terms of workflow and speed. Once the younger college students start seeing how fast they can delivery a product with Adobe or Avid, they'll start wondering why the small houses switched to FCP in the first place, and start wanting to learn what the industry is working with . . . Avid, After Effects, ProTools, etc. And the iMovie Pro will be left to indie filmmakers and consumers with deep pockets
** disclaimer ** I have nothing against the indie segment . . . I am in it and love it. But Apple makes it harder with every update to justify staying with a company that has too much on it's plate, and not enough staff to keep up with the rest of the market.
Apple will always claim that "no one's buying it" rather than, "we didn't make it marketable and desirable" when they go to axe some hardware or software title.
Careful, some trolls will insist that your opinion is only relevant to your narrow world view and that you need itemized spreadsheets to prove that you know what you're talking about.
netdog
Aug 11, 02:45 PM
I would not consider the entire United States to be just a small pocket on the planet.
In terms of the global mobile market, it is.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
America should have gotten on board with everyone else when networks apportioned and specified that the infrastructure must be GSM. Instead, though bandwidth is not really an open market, but is strictly regulate, they left it up to the providers to implement what they wanted. Now the USA is paying the price as the GSM network is way behind, and Qualcomm's CDMA has been rendered somewhat obsolete given that the rest of the world (other than Taiwan?) has rejected it.
In terms of the global mobile market, it is.
The network coverage in America is just awful too. Until I moved to England, I thought that mobile communications were generally problematic. Now I realize that American cellular service just sucks. Even in NYC.
America should have gotten on board with everyone else when networks apportioned and specified that the infrastructure must be GSM. Instead, though bandwidth is not really an open market, but is strictly regulate, they left it up to the providers to implement what they wanted. Now the USA is paying the price as the GSM network is way behind, and Qualcomm's CDMA has been rendered somewhat obsolete given that the rest of the world (other than Taiwan?) has rejected it.
puuukeey
Nov 28, 10:39 PM
https://home.comcast.net/~puuukeey/evil2.gif
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
mBox
Apr 7, 08:08 AM
...Everything depends on your work and needs right....In terms of full disclosure I own FCP 4 suite and CS 5 master suite and own all the major Apple products (hardware and software). I also run Windows 7 in bootcamp...
Pretty close to my workflow but add a few power-house BOXX/Dells for Maya and Renderman
Short format work is all about After Effects. Motion is 5 years behind and offers an incomplete feature set in comparison. After Effects marries up well with the tools from big 3d players, like Maxon and C4D. Its a great pipeline.
Tru dat!!
Apple is also doing everything to push me away from it's platform, with it's anti-Flash crusade, and it's complete inability to support Any (I mean ANY of the top 5-7) professional GPUs.
Its too bad you feel that way. Were more in tune towards Apple now since Adobe went 64bit and the promise of Apples core pro apps following soon (off to NAB soon). To add I had to work on a Flash project (wear way too many hats here) and can see why Flash is avoided. I have few friends that are pro Flash/ColdFusion/old code and they too can see the problems with dealing with Flash. The good thing is that current project is targeted for PC touch screen system.
For the serious Pro Apple is living on borrowed time and the Steve Jobs reality-distortion field is weakening. Redmond is calling. Increasingly serious content professionals are listening. I never imagined these words coming from my mouth. But it's the truth.And again its too bad you feel that way. The good thing is, even if you do stray away from Apple tech, your never going get away from the inundated drone of iToys :p
All kidding aside, its up to you where you money/resources go for supporting hardware/software. Ive been back and forth from Mac > SGI > Linux > Windows > Mac/Windows for the last 17 years and still to date, Apple is by far the strongest in my field :)
Pretty close to my workflow but add a few power-house BOXX/Dells for Maya and Renderman
Short format work is all about After Effects. Motion is 5 years behind and offers an incomplete feature set in comparison. After Effects marries up well with the tools from big 3d players, like Maxon and C4D. Its a great pipeline.
Tru dat!!
Apple is also doing everything to push me away from it's platform, with it's anti-Flash crusade, and it's complete inability to support Any (I mean ANY of the top 5-7) professional GPUs.
Its too bad you feel that way. Were more in tune towards Apple now since Adobe went 64bit and the promise of Apples core pro apps following soon (off to NAB soon). To add I had to work on a Flash project (wear way too many hats here) and can see why Flash is avoided. I have few friends that are pro Flash/ColdFusion/old code and they too can see the problems with dealing with Flash. The good thing is that current project is targeted for PC touch screen system.
For the serious Pro Apple is living on borrowed time and the Steve Jobs reality-distortion field is weakening. Redmond is calling. Increasingly serious content professionals are listening. I never imagined these words coming from my mouth. But it's the truth.And again its too bad you feel that way. The good thing is, even if you do stray away from Apple tech, your never going get away from the inundated drone of iToys :p
All kidding aside, its up to you where you money/resources go for supporting hardware/software. Ive been back and forth from Mac > SGI > Linux > Windows > Mac/Windows for the last 17 years and still to date, Apple is by far the strongest in my field :)
Multimedia
Jul 29, 12:24 AM
I recall someone here recently reiterating the point that Merom should not use less power than Yonah, but accomplish 20% more work. That was my understanding.
Now the claim is being made that a Core 2 Duo Notebook can get longer battery life than a "previous model" notebook, up to 5 hours.
Video: Long-lasting Intel Core 2 Duo notebooks (http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6100051.html?part=rss&tag=6100051&subj=news)Love this news. Just what I was expecting and one of the main reasons to have waited for Core 2 Duo mobile Macs. :)
Now the claim is being made that a Core 2 Duo Notebook can get longer battery life than a "previous model" notebook, up to 5 hours.
Video: Long-lasting Intel Core 2 Duo notebooks (http://news.com.com/1606-2_3-6100051.html?part=rss&tag=6100051&subj=news)Love this news. Just what I was expecting and one of the main reasons to have waited for Core 2 Duo mobile Macs. :)
Macaroony
Mar 1, 05:06 PM
CaoCao, where do you think civilization came from? A religious tribe in the desert? Most political and social structures come from the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations. All the Catholic Church contributed to society was bigotry and discrimination. Now tell me who's retrograde. :confused:
Now about your argument about a gay man being able to marry a woman -well of course he can do so but he'd much rather prefer to marry a man, which in many states and countries is still illegal, hence he'd want to get the right to do so.
Seriously, do I have to spell it out for you?
Marriage is a contract and has nothing to do with the blessed love between two people. It's a legally binding agreement between two people and the state that allow for merging assets and facilitation of taxes, insurance, etc. Back in the day, marriage was only used to merge two families for financial, social and stately gain. Most of the time, the marriage was arranged and the two people involved hardly knew or even loved each other through most of their marriage.
We can get all legal about the laws of marriage, but then again it is simply a law and - if most countries support the separation of church and state - not to be bound to religious doctrine.
This is where civil rights come in, a topic that seems to fly by your head due to your clinging to said religious doctrine. If it weren't for civil rights, women wouldn't be able to vote, if it weren't for civil rights, black people would still be slaves, and if it weren't for civil rights, gays would be killed without anyone batting an eye.
This is is what equality is all about.
Now about your argument about a gay man being able to marry a woman -well of course he can do so but he'd much rather prefer to marry a man, which in many states and countries is still illegal, hence he'd want to get the right to do so.
Seriously, do I have to spell it out for you?
Marriage is a contract and has nothing to do with the blessed love between two people. It's a legally binding agreement between two people and the state that allow for merging assets and facilitation of taxes, insurance, etc. Back in the day, marriage was only used to merge two families for financial, social and stately gain. Most of the time, the marriage was arranged and the two people involved hardly knew or even loved each other through most of their marriage.
We can get all legal about the laws of marriage, but then again it is simply a law and - if most countries support the separation of church and state - not to be bound to religious doctrine.
This is where civil rights come in, a topic that seems to fly by your head due to your clinging to said religious doctrine. If it weren't for civil rights, women wouldn't be able to vote, if it weren't for civil rights, black people would still be slaves, and if it weren't for civil rights, gays would be killed without anyone batting an eye.
This is is what equality is all about.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 11, 01:50 PM
I could also ask why the rest of the world doesn't get with the program and move to better technology with CDMA2000 like the US and parts of Asia have?
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
As I said before GSM has 81% of the market. UMTS (W-CDMA) enable hand-over back and forth UMTS and GSM. CDMA2000 can not do hand-over between GSM and CDMA2000. (See Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W-CDMA): "The CDMA family of standards (including cdmaOne and CDMA2000) are not compatible with the W-CDMA family of standards that are based on ITU standards.")
Hence all networks that has GSM will transfer to UMTS since this decrases their initial investment as they transfer from 2/2.5G to 3G. Changing network standad is expensive, but the GSM/EDGE marketshare has been growing in US and will most likely continue to grow. At the same time CDMA is non-existant in europe.
The conclusion is simple - CDMA2000 is in the long run as dead as betamax.
Silentwave
Aug 27, 07:46 PM
20" iMac prices have reduced....at least in the UK
I don't recall any major price changes over here, but even so the particular case in point here is the 17" 1.83 iMac so if that hasn't changed over there then that would further support my thinking.
I don't recall any major price changes over here, but even so the particular case in point here is the 17" 1.83 iMac so if that hasn't changed over there then that would further support my thinking.
treblah
Sep 19, 07:37 AM
These kinds of arguments are always lame.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
It's early but what the hay.
My post was not an argument. More of a joking preemption of the usual misspelling and disinformation that is usually spread during any Merom thread. So calm the ***** down.
1. Because Intel calls Conroe and Merom Core 2 Duo, it makes sense to call them by their codenames. Of course Steve isn't going to call it a Merom, and unless they have a new case design, I seriously doubt Steve will call it anything and just let a Tuesday morning PR do the talking.
2. I honestly have no clue as to what you are trying to convey here.
3. Wow, just wow. I'm going to break this down into subsections. a) What exactly do you think 'top to bottom' 64-bit means when Steve calls Leopard that? b) So in your opinion a Universal binary is a 'half-assed Frankenstein hybrid'? And Apple would be better off selling a x86 and a x64 version of Leopard? c) Pretty sure we've had this discussion before, correct me if I'm wrong, but please tell me again why having a "64-bit" processor in a enclosure that doesn't support >4GB of RAM is a big deal. I'll wait. Hint: Because 64 is higher than 32 and that means it's better is not the right answer.
Also, thanks for the laugh.
1. People have lifes, not everyone is as much as a geek as you to know exactly how many transistors are in the next Intel processor. That is a code name by the way, Steve is not going to step up and go "Merom Macbook Pros!" on stage. He will look like a Moron.
2. So? Who is Apple to tell me how much of an improvement I should expect from something? When's the last time you seen Ford advertise "05 Ford Falcon! Fuel efficiency lags behind competing models by under 10%, same old reliable Ford Falcon with 2 year old design, still at same old price of $19,999"
If there is even so much as 0.001% of improvement you are gonna see Steve step up onto the keynote like a lappy dog and brag it to sound like it is greater than the 2nd coming of Jesus. That's sales 101 for you.
3. Meroms support 64 bit code. 64 bit code like Leopard (although we don't know for sure), or code like Vista x64 (that is 100% for sure). Sure, you might not mind running things in half arsed modes like some Frankinstein hybrid 32/64 bit system like Tiger is, but some people might actually *gasp* appreciate the ability to judge 64 bit code. Get off your high horse already, if you disagree just keep it to yourself. Not like your arrogant rants contributed anything either.
It's early but what the hay.
My post was not an argument. More of a joking preemption of the usual misspelling and disinformation that is usually spread during any Merom thread. So calm the ***** down.
1. Because Intel calls Conroe and Merom Core 2 Duo, it makes sense to call them by their codenames. Of course Steve isn't going to call it a Merom, and unless they have a new case design, I seriously doubt Steve will call it anything and just let a Tuesday morning PR do the talking.
2. I honestly have no clue as to what you are trying to convey here.
3. Wow, just wow. I'm going to break this down into subsections. a) What exactly do you think 'top to bottom' 64-bit means when Steve calls Leopard that? b) So in your opinion a Universal binary is a 'half-assed Frankenstein hybrid'? And Apple would be better off selling a x86 and a x64 version of Leopard? c) Pretty sure we've had this discussion before, correct me if I'm wrong, but please tell me again why having a "64-bit" processor in a enclosure that doesn't support >4GB of RAM is a big deal. I'll wait. Hint: Because 64 is higher than 32 and that means it's better is not the right answer.
Also, thanks for the laugh.
leekohler
Mar 7, 07:50 AM
I won't rejoin this discussion. But since neko girl may be waiting for my reply, I'll only suggest a source (http://www.tfp.org/images/books/Defending_A_Higher_Law.pdf).
Stopped right after this, Bill:
Justice Scalia further observed in his dissent that the
Supreme Court had taken “sides in the culture war.”7
This Cultural War divides America.
On one side, there is a large sector of the American public
which has long grieved over the abandonment of God’s moral
laws. These are Americans who subscribe to the general
unwritten rule held since our founding that God must be
revered, not offended, and that the source of our greatness is
this reverence, and obedience to a Christian moral code based
on the Ten Commandments and natural law.
For this Ten Commandments America, it is only too obvious
that if America turns its back on God and His law, God will
turn His back on America.
On the other side, there is a liberal America that subscribes
to the philosophical principle of absolute liberty. This leads to
the establishment of an atheistic and anarchic “morality,”
which shows increasing intolerance for what still remains of Christian civilization and the natural order in our culture and
society. Among these precious remnants are the sacred institutions
of marriage and the family.
This is not a theocracy, Bill. How many times do we have to say that? I love how you guys always say we're trying to destroy the family. It's truly amazing and sad, because nothing could be further from the truth.
And if you weren't going to rejoin the discussion, why did you?
Stopped right after this, Bill:
Justice Scalia further observed in his dissent that the
Supreme Court had taken “sides in the culture war.”7
This Cultural War divides America.
On one side, there is a large sector of the American public
which has long grieved over the abandonment of God’s moral
laws. These are Americans who subscribe to the general
unwritten rule held since our founding that God must be
revered, not offended, and that the source of our greatness is
this reverence, and obedience to a Christian moral code based
on the Ten Commandments and natural law.
For this Ten Commandments America, it is only too obvious
that if America turns its back on God and His law, God will
turn His back on America.
On the other side, there is a liberal America that subscribes
to the philosophical principle of absolute liberty. This leads to
the establishment of an atheistic and anarchic “morality,”
which shows increasing intolerance for what still remains of Christian civilization and the natural order in our culture and
society. Among these precious remnants are the sacred institutions
of marriage and the family.
This is not a theocracy, Bill. How many times do we have to say that? I love how you guys always say we're trying to destroy the family. It's truly amazing and sad, because nothing could be further from the truth.
And if you weren't going to rejoin the discussion, why did you?
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 07:22 AM
IC-10 license test is killing me. I can only manage 2nd. I can get into 3rd pretty quick (at the hairpin before the long straight) and then I can't get 2nd until the same turn, and then there is just not enough race left to get past 1st. I can get kind of close to him, but nowhere near close enough to cut him off at the last turn.
I settled for 2nd on that test. Gold isnt worth the aggravation.
I settled for 2nd on that test. Gold isnt worth the aggravation.
ProwlingTiger
Mar 31, 07:48 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
Well said.
I'm wondering what exactly will be "open" about Android now that Andy Rubin has to approve everything.
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
Well said.
I'm wondering what exactly will be "open" about Android now that Andy Rubin has to approve everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment