skunk
Apr 24, 11:04 AM
Do you think they make him change in the closet? :)I shouldn't think Lee remembers what a closet is, it's been so long since he was in one.
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
ChrisA
Sep 26, 09:56 AM
My 2.66GHz MacPro doesn't use all four cores except on rare occassions (e.g. benchmarks, quicktime, handbrake, etc.) and even then it doesn't peg them all. What I'm most interested in is offloading OpenGL to a core, the GUI to another core, etc.
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
Are you trying to say that you spent to much for a computer and should have bought an iMac? What do you do with your computer. Web and email or editing HD video?
aristobrat
Mar 18, 01:18 PM
The amount of data they used by tethering is the issue per the previous articles and statements by At&t in the last 2 years.
It is, however, this thread isn't based on articles and statements made by AT&T over the last two years.
This thread is specifically based on "AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering", not "AT&T limiting iPhone data consumption for iPhones on unlimited data plans".
Maybe I'm reading your point wrong.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
a Con game is still a con game, if i sign and pay for unlimited, it should be unlimited not what ever At&t decides.
I'm just saying that in regards to the unlimited iPhone data plan, you're still getting unlimited iPhone data. Where's the con?
It is, however, this thread isn't based on articles and statements made by AT&T over the last two years.
This thread is specifically based on "AT&T Cracking Down on Unauthorized Tethering", not "AT&T limiting iPhone data consumption for iPhones on unlimited data plans".
Maybe I'm reading your point wrong.
But if you advertise unlimited as At&t does and did, it should be unlimited no matter what (Slimey) lawyer drafts a document meant to swindle people is signed.
a Con game is still a con game, if i sign and pay for unlimited, it should be unlimited not what ever At&t decides.
I'm just saying that in regards to the unlimited iPhone data plan, you're still getting unlimited iPhone data. Where's the con?
yodaxl7
Feb 21, 11:25 PM
iPhone is totally a trend. iPod is simply a dedicated device to play music and maybe video. The mult-touch and app store are two key creations that made the iphone a trend. That's why you see other companies following Apple's foot step. Android is a new niche that was a couple step behind iphone os. Google is a "business making" or "jump starter". So, there is no REAL support for Android os. Google is too open. This os will challenge the market weed out bad companies. However, this can hurt the android survival!! iPhone os will remain the dominant force as long as Apple continue to upgrade well.
mpstrex
Aug 30, 11:36 AM
And don't forget, Groovey, that only a small percentage of Americans are considered more of the hard-line political peeps.
Clive At Five
Sep 21, 01:17 PM
What are you a comedian? Give me a break. I expected this sort of reaction. It's very easy to say that when you're not the one being effected by this.
What are you, an adolescent? Did you not read my reasoning?
And of course it's easier to say it since I'm in the U.S. but I've never bought TV content from the iTS. It doesn't mean that much to me. Thus I'm an unbiased source.
-Clive
What are you, an adolescent? Did you not read my reasoning?
And of course it's easier to say it since I'm in the U.S. but I've never bought TV content from the iTS. It doesn't mean that much to me. Thus I'm an unbiased source.
-Clive
legreve
Apr 6, 04:04 AM
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.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
That is being dealt with in Lion... you'll be able to resize on all edges.
I was in the same situation as you OP until some 4-5 years ago, when I was introduced to mac through work. I was stubborn and went through the whole "pc is equal to mac and cheaper" rubbish :)
But this also colors me in relations to noticing bad things about OSX.
I agree with the window resizing thing. But since that's taken care off... well.
To be honest I think you need to consider the positive sides as well. Things like not having a visible program folder with all sorts of nice files to click on. It's basically just an icon on a mac (though one that you can explore to reveal the contents).
Another thing... I never fully understood why I had to be bothered with the way a pc starts up. First the loading screen with hardware checks and what not. Then the black screen, then the windows loading screen and if one had it enabled, the login screen, and then the whole preparing of the desktop area to start up services and so on.
Compared to OSX, that is just too much and not being a programmer etc. I couldn't care less with all that initial info the boot screens on a pc gives me.
What you wont like about switching is the extremely closed univers of Apple. You sync items to a specific computer instead of having a free roaming device that can sync anywhere. Crist it's easier to copy files from my work iMac to my HTC phone than to my mates iPhone... ??!!
One thing to add with Apple universe is that I think they are working their way towards an even tighter app store. In the future I could easily see something similar to that Sky idea where you don't own the app but a license to access the online contents :S I think that will take longer to catch on in the pc universe.
Regarding browsers... I work with FF all day. But at home I was used to Explorer 8. I really like Explorer better than FF. Can't explain why, I just feel FF is heavier now to use than IE is. Also it seems like either FF or OSX requires more addons to use the same websites and services than IE on my pc does.
Folders... I'm so used to the whole disk drive with subfolders, fx. E: and then a folder for every little thing I've got.
The OSX system while probably the same, feels different. Best explained by:
OSX: 2-3 cabinets with several drawers and in the drawers are subfolders.
Windows: 1 cabinet, 1 drawer, lots of subfolders. (unless one partitions ones drive :) )
But all in all, I'm really really happy that I switched. My new MBP feels stable, OSX looks nice (I even geeked out and changed the looks on my folders etc :P), and it allows me to concentrate on what is important, and that is not tweaking (I'm not 15-18 anymore), it's getting work done and get it done smoothely.
In general its only about adjusting to a new setting.
FoxyKaye
Feb 22, 06:04 PM
And the general consumers don't really care when some sweaty geek foams at the mouth how much he hates Flash. They just want to be able to see all of the web, in its full Flash glory.
For better and for worse.
I happen to be one of those Geeks foaming at the mouth about flash, and in general, I think that the reason why Adobe was so upset by Jobs' recent comments that they're lazy and all their products are bloated and inefficient is because they hit to close to home.
But you're also very right - the general consumer doesn't care about these points. On some level everyone "knows" that the Web "requires" flash, and without it they're not getting the full "experience." It's an easy hit for the competitor's marketing department to play up the full flash experience on devices that support it in comparison to the iPhone and iPad. Jobs can scream all he wants about HTML5 on the horizon, however, this isn't going to be fully realized for some time. Likewise, too many sites rely too heavily on flash content for its absence to not be felt.
I think not supporting flash is a mistake, despite its technical flaws. Maybe this is all just a play by Apple to get Adobe to make some real and necessary improvements to flash in the first place - especially in how it taxes processor cycles and affects battery life on OS X (and presumably the iPhone OS as well). It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some magical "reconciliation" between Apple and Adobe on this point sometime this year as the iPad hits the consumer market.
For better and for worse.
I happen to be one of those Geeks foaming at the mouth about flash, and in general, I think that the reason why Adobe was so upset by Jobs' recent comments that they're lazy and all their products are bloated and inefficient is because they hit to close to home.
But you're also very right - the general consumer doesn't care about these points. On some level everyone "knows" that the Web "requires" flash, and without it they're not getting the full "experience." It's an easy hit for the competitor's marketing department to play up the full flash experience on devices that support it in comparison to the iPhone and iPad. Jobs can scream all he wants about HTML5 on the horizon, however, this isn't going to be fully realized for some time. Likewise, too many sites rely too heavily on flash content for its absence to not be felt.
I think not supporting flash is a mistake, despite its technical flaws. Maybe this is all just a play by Apple to get Adobe to make some real and necessary improvements to flash in the first place - especially in how it taxes processor cycles and affects battery life on OS X (and presumably the iPhone OS as well). It wouldn't surprise me at all to see some magical "reconciliation" between Apple and Adobe on this point sometime this year as the iPad hits the consumer market.
Stridder44
Sep 20, 03:33 AM
Look at your hard drive usage, Music takes up a significant amount of it. Why does it need to be kept on your local machine if iTV provides a network?
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
Thats an interesting point. I dont know though, something makes me cringe about not having my prized music library on my own computer (fear of losing it I guess?)
EmilH
Apr 6, 12:01 PM
I switched about a year ago and don't regret anything. Apple have to screw up big time to make me switch back to windows:)
Mac'nCheese
Apr 22, 09:09 PM
"such a small difference"? Clearly you haven't studied theology
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
I should have clarified this more, I guess. To me, once you follow one of the major religions, you are making such a distinction in your belief system that the ideals that separate the different sects of that religion seem almost ridiculous. Once you decided to become (or just continue down the road your parents put you on...) a follower of Christ, you have made such a distinction between yourself and those who are not (Jews, Muslims, Etc.); does the decision to then believe in the Catholic Church over any other Christian church and the differences between those churches even come close to the differences you have between other people who don't follow Christ? I laugh when I hear a person scoff at someone's belief that the pope is god's chosen leader but yet they still have no problem with believing in Jesus being his son. This is in my eyes...I certainly know that there are tons of differences between the churches, I just find them almost silly....
emac kinda guy
Aug 29, 08:19 PM
Why do these businesses have to interfere with me? We are all now showing bromated fire retardants in our blood. Who was here first and who is interfering with whom?
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?
Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?
P.S. have not read the whole thread yet - I hope I'm not repeating something someone else has said.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 10:33 PM
Would it make a difference if a huge portion of what you've been exposed to, regarding religion/Christianity, was fundamentally incorrect? For example, there's no such place as hellfire; nobody is going to burn forever. Everybody isn't going to heaven; people will live right here on the earth. If you learned that a huge portion of those really crazy doctrines were simply wrong, would it cause you to view Christianity/religion differently?
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
I would first like to know by what standard you could call those doctrines wrong while verifying your own.
slffl
Oct 7, 12:05 PM
To quote the bit on Jimmy Fallon... 'Who Cares?'
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
Obviously market share doesn't mean crap as is evident in the OS market.
balamw
Sep 21, 08:22 AM
the iTV doesn't do HD either. Quoting Bob iger, Disney CEO:
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2066
IMHO Iger's comments are referring to the content at the store, not the capabilities of the iTV. The iTV is so clearly designed to complement an HDTV with its outputs, if they crippled it to have only 480p output they would have failed. Plus, Steve already demonstrated playing an HD Trailer.
We shall see...
B
myamid
Sep 12, 07:16 PM
Yes, but EyeHome does not support ALAC or Purchased AAC for audio, H.264 for video, it does not have a USB port to connect a USB drive with movies or music or to use it as a file server with that drive or hook a USB printer to use it as a print server. Needless to say, it cannot access iTunes store content, either. If iTV can do all of these, then it is definitely gonna be the winner.
All true... I still don't think that it's anything to jump up and down about.
One sad side-effect of the iTV however will probably to kill off any other 3rd party streaming boxes (either out today or in the pipeline). Elgato already has practically burried the EyeHome on their site... :-(
All true... I still don't think that it's anything to jump up and down about.
One sad side-effect of the iTV however will probably to kill off any other 3rd party streaming boxes (either out today or in the pipeline). Elgato already has practically burried the EyeHome on their site... :-(
cmcconkey
Jul 12, 12:15 PM
Smallish mid-tower case
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
Intel Core 2 Duo @ 2.8Ghz or better
1GB RAM
1-PCIe x16 Slot
1-Standard PCI Slot
6-USB 2.0 ports (One in front)
1- Firewire 800 port (in front)
Dual Layer DVD
Onboard 10/100/1000 (I don't care if its wireless, but a wireless opition would be nice but not necessary)
Graphics Card should be x1600XT or better with 256mb RAM
I want it at or less than $1199.00
Now gimmie
Also would have to have a standard Firewire port. Wireless and Bluetooth standard would be just awesome, considering it is quite cheap now. At that price point would be VERY nice. But don't see it happening. :(
Christopher
AppliedVisual
Oct 30, 11:49 PM
I already have a bunch of Adaptec eSATA/USB2 SATA enclosures that say they only work as USB2 on Macs. But I wonder if they won't work on any eSATA PCIe card we can put into the Mac Pro. How expensive are those eSATA PCIe cards anyway?
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
I don't know why it wouldn't work... In fact, I'm pretty sure I've seen eSATA enclosures advertised as working with a Mac. I'll see if I can find one.
BTW I find USB2 HD hook ups to be far less problematic and just as fast or faster than FW hooks ups. Is that true?
I've had pretty much the same luck... Some USB2 devices struggle a bit due to the onboard USB2 chipset, but for the most part, they're equivalent to FW400 (with a max rate of 480Mbps) and USB2 handles traffic from multiple devices better than firewire. OTOH, lots of older Mac systems, especially those Powerbook G4s, struggled with USB2 and often exhibited poor performance. But overall, I think USB2 has a bad reputation that it didn't deserve to get stuck with. In my experience having owned quite a few USB2 storage devices, I find that poor performance is more the fault of the device maker than the interface itself as I've got some hard drives - like a couple of my external Maxtor units, that perform blazingly fast and in no way slower on USB2 than when connected via FW.
darkplanets
Mar 12, 02:14 PM
While I am not a nuclear engineer, I do have a fair amount of knowledge in the area, so with that in mind I can personally say that this will NOT become another Chernobyl situation. Again though as a disclaimer, this is not my career.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
With that said, the BWR should be fine. What we saw earlier was the steam blowing apart the structure-- this just means that they didn't do their job in relieving the pressure. The core should be intact, and the reports state that the housing is still in place. When the control rods are inserted into the core, the rods will not melt down, however heat WILL still be produced. In this case, steam. Steam voids moderate fewer neutrons, causing the power level inside the reactor to lower. Furthermore, there should be safety overpressure valves... not sure why these didn't work; they may not be there due to the age of the plant.
To quote wikipedia about BWR safety:
Because of this effect in BWRs, operating components and safety systems are designed to ensure that no credible scenario can cause a pressure and power increase that exceeds the systems' capability to quickly shutdown the reactor before damage to the fuel or to components containing the reactor coolant can occur. In the limiting case of an ATWS (Anticipated Transient Without Scram) derangement, high neutron power levels (~ 200%) can occur for less than a second, after which actuation of SRVs will cause the pressure to rapidly drop off. Neutronic power will fall to far below nominal power (the range of 30% with the cessation of circulation, and thus, void clearance) even before ARI or SLCS actuation occurs. Thermal power will be barely affected.
In the event of a contingency that disables all of the safety systems, each reactor is surrounded by a containment building consisting of 1.2–2.4 m (4–8 ft) of steel-reinforced, pre-stressed concrete designed to seal off the reactor from the environment.
Again; BWR =/= graphite moderated reactor. Why does no one get this?! Everyone will be fine.
Two more bones of contention (which will give you my perspective):
-I personally believe the linear no threshold model is crap, even with the adjustment factor
-I also personally advocate the use of thorium... there's many benefits, melt-down control being one of them (because of MSR)... also although there's still fabrication issues, thorium can be used in existing LWRs. There is also proposed designs where the thorium has to actively be fed into the core, providing a great shutoff mechanism. The only con to this is the fact that thorium is more radioactive than uranium, so it's potentially more dangerous. I think the pros outweigh the cons.
Do you have a link for this? I'd like to read about it. I would think a system setup to automatically scram when power is lost would be the ideal.
Sure! It's really rather cool. (No pun intended)
For starters here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boiling_Water_Reactor_Safety_Systems) is the current safety systems that are supposed to be in all BWR, however since this one is from the 80's, it's really hit or miss-- I can't answer that.
New reactor designs have these systems in place-- for example the Westinghouse AP 1000's. (here (http://www.ap1000.westinghousenuclear.com/ap1000_safety_psrs.html))
A general link about passive safety here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Passive_nuclear_safety).
Basically though, the idea is that human intervention, mechanical or otherwise, is always the weak point in nuclear safety. Instead of relying upon mechanical or man-controlled means, these safety measures employ the laws of physics and thermodynamics, which I hope are always working :D. Many of these systems rely on heat sensitive plugs connected to tanks to flood the chamber or coolant systems via gravity.
CallmeKenneth
Sep 20, 07:20 AM
This is just one of those things where we have no idea if it'll catch on until people start buying it (or not, as the case may be!). With anything else Apple have brought out (e.g. iPod) the need has been fairly obvious and you could tell that it was going to be a minor hit at least. I don't feel the same way about iTV. To me it just feels like *yet another* silver/grey box to stick under my TV, adding one more cable to the countless ones already there...
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
________________________
Alternative Mac History
Mactimewarp (http://www.mactimewarp.com)
Spanky Deluxe
Mar 18, 01:27 PM
It's only fair. After all, paying twice for our data allowance is completely fair and reasonable......
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
:rolleyes::rolleyes:
stompy
Apr 14, 09:58 PM
Do you honestly believe that I am ONLY using THIS particular thread to gather info about Mac machines?
It's clear you want to make an objective decision. Other than what I read in this thread, what else could I know about you? Here's a couple quotes that made an impression on me:
11 posts in you wrote "Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"?"
#27 "Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts."
Here's what I wrote at the beginning of my post:
I'm not sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
It won't show up in this quote, but I originally highlighted the phrase "based on this thread;" it certainly seemed that you were using this thread to sort things out. I apparently ruffled your feathers on that point, sorry about that.
not everyone will come to the same conclusions. But that's what good about "choice", right?
I said pretty much the same at the end of my post. :)
It's clear you want to make an objective decision. Other than what I read in this thread, what else could I know about you? Here's a couple quotes that made an impression on me:
11 posts in you wrote "Are you guys sure that switching is really "worth it"?"
#27 "Ya know what? These may all be little things individually, but collectively as a whole I think they'd drive me nuts."
Here's what I wrote at the beginning of my post:
I'm not sure he could have come to a different conclusion based on this thread.
It won't show up in this quote, but I originally highlighted the phrase "based on this thread;" it certainly seemed that you were using this thread to sort things out. I apparently ruffled your feathers on that point, sorry about that.
not everyone will come to the same conclusions. But that's what good about "choice", right?
I said pretty much the same at the end of my post. :)
localoid
Mar 14, 05:17 AM
Somewhat old news, but seemingly germane...
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
With a sparkle in his eyes, Bill Gates explains the Traveling Wave Reactor (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwRYtiSbbVg), a mini-reactor that can use nuclear waste as fuel.
Wonder if Bill had one of these Gilbert sets as a kid?
http://img822.imageshack.us/img822/2184/gilbertatomicopentrimme.jpg
