skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
madhatter61
Mar 23, 10:36 AM
Widescreen is great for movie watching, and the spec-lover in me is all over that... but it�s not very flexible for portrait use. (Which is how you hold a tablet one-handed, and is how you see the most content on a web page or scrolling document.)
A 10.1� 1280x800 screen is actually almost exactly the same screen area as an iPad: the iPad is 45.2 sq. in., and the 10.1 is 45.8 sq. in.
Held in portrait mode, the 10.1 is .75� taller... but .5� narrower than an iPad. I don�t think I�d care for that. (But with 1280x800 you do gain 32 pixels of width, and 256 pixels of height. Still not great for portrait use.)
The 8.9 display, though�which seems to save a few bucks�is an interesting option for dropping the price floor on �real� tablets. (Not that I�d settle for Android�s failings. As pointed out: specs alone don�t make a good car, nor a good computer, nor a good tablet!)
Ha ha :D Good thinking!
Actually if you look at Xoom and Samsung 10.1 are both 16:10 ratio ... perfect for movies ... the iPAD is 4x3 old TV ratio ... creates the need for filler top/side bars... I think that is called letterboxing ... CRS?
The key advantage for iPAD is in Landscape there is more vertical space for the virtual keyboard ... duh?
Also key here is PPI and is the heart of the display issue. Apple wants the same density of PPI so software development has a common display requirement. Then all apps work across the board. That is why Apple has hundreds of thousands of apps that work.
A 10.1� 1280x800 screen is actually almost exactly the same screen area as an iPad: the iPad is 45.2 sq. in., and the 10.1 is 45.8 sq. in.
Held in portrait mode, the 10.1 is .75� taller... but .5� narrower than an iPad. I don�t think I�d care for that. (But with 1280x800 you do gain 32 pixels of width, and 256 pixels of height. Still not great for portrait use.)
The 8.9 display, though�which seems to save a few bucks�is an interesting option for dropping the price floor on �real� tablets. (Not that I�d settle for Android�s failings. As pointed out: specs alone don�t make a good car, nor a good computer, nor a good tablet!)
Ha ha :D Good thinking!
Actually if you look at Xoom and Samsung 10.1 are both 16:10 ratio ... perfect for movies ... the iPAD is 4x3 old TV ratio ... creates the need for filler top/side bars... I think that is called letterboxing ... CRS?
The key advantage for iPAD is in Landscape there is more vertical space for the virtual keyboard ... duh?
Also key here is PPI and is the heart of the display issue. Apple wants the same density of PPI so software development has a common display requirement. Then all apps work across the board. That is why Apple has hundreds of thousands of apps that work.
iPaf
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; fr-fr) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
Why do people care? I have nothing to hide, and I'm surely not enough "important" for Apple to track me step by step!
penter
Jul 27, 02:06 PM
i literally let out a high pitched "aaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhh" when i saw this. Im really excited about it, yet so sad that i wont be able to enjoy it since i just bought my new mac a month ago (hence the "aaaahhhh")
this summarizes my post: :) but :(
this summarizes my post: :) but :(
bdkennedy1
Aug 7, 04:09 PM
heh... they give MS so much crap for photocopying, but if anything, this is more or less taking a page out of MS's book with System Restore. Granted, it looks like it will be better, but still, MS had this kind of thing first.
I wouldn't say this was copying. A way to backup and restore your files is just common sense. Even if Microsoft didn't have a restore feature, Apple would have come up with it anyway.
I wouldn't say this was copying. A way to backup and restore your files is just common sense. Even if Microsoft didn't have a restore feature, Apple would have come up with it anyway.
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:36 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 10:31 PM
It does not matter that it was not US company as long as they were registered in US. Remember Apple suing Australian supermarket chain company for using as their log letter W which slightly resembled an apple?
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
I totally forgot about that! What a joke. Apple has become the king of hypocrites. And they copied the Apple logo from the Beatle's Apple Records.
http://www.tomshardware.com/news/Apple-Woolworths-logo-lawsuit,8784.html
http://gizmodo.com/#!5374027/deja-vu-apple-sues-someone-because-their-logo-looks-like-fruit
http://www.theage.com.au/business/apple-bites-over-woolworths-logo-20091005-ghzr.html
tf843364
Aug 26, 04:36 PM
I happen to have a Yonah Macbook, and im a little concerned.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
I wonder, if merom does make it into the Macbooks did i make a mistake by buying my computer before i had to (as in next friday is the cutoff)
I wonder if Merom is really that good. *it sucks that macbooks dont have PGA slots*
well im hoping to sell this one next year, and thatll get me most of the way to my santa rosa beast, cuz i KNOW santa rosa is that good.
growlf
Mar 31, 03:50 PM
I cannot help shake the feeling that some of the vitriol from certain people is the fear that a more coherent and unified Android ecosystem is an even bigger threat to the iOS platform.
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
First, I have a Dell Streak. Wanted to see what the fuss was about. Took a year for the official Froyo release to appear. Yeah, fragmentation exists.
(I appreciate Android on the Streak, but GOOD GOD does it feel like a laggy piece of software compared to my iPhone and iPad. It has widgets and tons of convenient apps for pirating software or games (no... I own ALL those ROMS)... but I digress.)
So, Android unifies. Google forces handset/tablet manufacturers to adopt a stock OS interface. How will they differentiate themselves? What incentive, beyond a free OS, will there be to creating "phone B" that looks just like "phone A". This is where Google will shoot itself in the foot. The less the carriers and handset manufacturers can customize, the less incentive they have to launch on Android. Heck, just emulate Android if you want the apps, right RIM?
Weren't there waves a few weeks about about Motorola wanting its own OS? I'd want to control my own destiny. This is creating a "walled garden" (Andy as caretaker) for the device manufacturers/carriers, and they're the ones that Google needs to be pushing the platform.
nbaker756
Aug 25, 09:20 PM
my dad bought a new 17in MBP and got it a week after it came out-couple days later, the battery would stop working and wouldnt be recognized by the computer-i called apple and by the end of the day i had a box sent to send in the computer-3 days later it was back with a new battery and everything. great service. also i had an airport problem-i brought it into the apple store, they looked at the airport, and in 20 minutes replaced it with a new one for no cost because i had applecare. i feel they have great service next to others, such as dell who i have called before and had a crap load of trouble...
hob
Apr 5, 05:15 PM
I'm not trolling, this is an honest question. But isn't a Final Cut pretty much worthless for commercial use without a way to put the results on Blu-Ray?
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...
GregA
Mar 26, 05:21 PM
While Apple may yet issue several such candidates before reaching the final version to be released to consumers, the candidate designation would suggest that Apple has essentially completed development on the new operating system version and will simply be fixing bugs that crop up at the last minute during the testing process.
so, it's beta #1? Feature complete but still has bugs to iron out.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
so, it's beta #1? Feature complete but still has bugs to iron out.
Golden master is usually when they are confident of no bugs isn't it?
Erasmus
Jul 21, 11:55 PM
So I read in this thread that Kentsfield and Clovertown ARE compatible with Conroe and Woodcrest sockets (respectively) (Cloverton or Clovertown?)
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
Hope for upgrading an iMac to Quad Core is kindled! At least if Apple releases Conroe iMacs.
BTW, In my opinion, one thing a person should never, ever say is some computer has too much power, and that it will never be needed. So when 128 core CPUs come out in ~10 years time, will we still be considering dual core CPUs as fast enough for our use?
I seem to remember that when the original DOS operating system was created, its RAM was limited. I can't remember exactly to how much, but it was decided that people would never use more than a few kilobytes of memory. Now we are arguing that Mac should provide no less than a gigabyte! Now we are moving to 64 bit processing, with its capability to address a few exobytes, or millions of Terabytes of storage, it seems impossible that we will ever need 128bit computing. But, no doubt, one day we will.
When we will be able to download our entire lives, and even conciousness into a computer, as is said to happen in about 40 years (very much looking forward to), I dare say it will take a lot of memory to do, and even more processing power to manage effectively, especially if we wanted to "live" inside computers, as we will no doubt want to do someday.
So as a conclusion to my most recent rant, Please, never tell me a computer is too powerfu, has too many cores, or has too much storage capacity. If it is there to be used, it will be used. It always is.
G5power
Jul 27, 09:48 AM
Assuming August 7 as an announcement date of new systems, the waiting is killer.
emotion
Jul 20, 08:11 AM
WOW! Octo cores:eek:
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
We just need most software to support that efficiently now.
gugy
Aug 5, 10:42 PM
predictions:
Leopard preview
Mac Pro (same enclosure)
New displays. Same enclosure, better specs.
Isight, smaller, stand alone. or BTO on displays
New large display 40"+
New Aiport xpress. Better range, wirelles music/video.
That's it
No ipods, no Ihome, no iphone.
Leopard preview
Mac Pro (same enclosure)
New displays. Same enclosure, better specs.
Isight, smaller, stand alone. or BTO on displays
New large display 40"+
New Aiport xpress. Better range, wirelles music/video.
That's it
No ipods, no Ihome, no iphone.
Stella
Nov 29, 09:31 AM
Are you spending as much on music as you did years ago?
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
Definitely not! Because a lot of music is pure crap. Simple. I'm not spending $1 on music I don't like.
Dump the manufactured bands and the quality may rise again.
Universal already get payments from blank CDs et al - there is no need for them to start getting payments per iPod sold. Pure utter greed.
Apple could argue by having the iPod on sale, it is Apple who are in fact driving music sales. However, I would NOT like Apple to start having a cut of music company profits. That would be wrong too.
arkitect
Mar 1, 04:35 PM
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
I was being kind… ;)
(Mind you, those Renaissance popes — such paragons of Catholic virtue with their prostitutes and illegitimate children…)
But I am sure our resident hair shirt will be around shortly to put us right about Sixtus IV et al.
;)
I was being kind… ;)
(Mind you, those Renaissance popes — such paragons of Catholic virtue with their prostitutes and illegitimate children…)
But I am sure our resident hair shirt will be around shortly to put us right about Sixtus IV et al.
;)
DavidLeblond
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
That doesn't make sense, marketing wise. If they do anything to the MacBooks and iMacs they would at least bump their speeds. It doesn't matter f the 2GHz Merom chip is faster than the 2GHz Yonah chip, the consumers don't give a crap about the chip... they want to see "them GHz numbers" go up.
nukiduz
Aug 7, 05:15 PM
From Vista Help:
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
"Previous versions of files and folders are copies that Windows automatically saves as part of a restore point. Any file or folder that was modified since the last restore point was made (usually 24 hours earlier) is saved and made available as a previous version. You can use previous versions of files to restore files that you accidentally modified or deleted, or that were damaged."
I can use this now but without childish animations. Simple right-click the folder and select "restore previous versions".
For me the Leopard preview was a big disappointment. No innovative features but silly Vista bashing all the time. Come on, Apple!
What about flash drives? Meta data organisation in Finder? Media streams over local networks? Better window management? Spaces is the next answere to the incomplete Dockbar-conception (Expos� was the first and Time Maschine is a next interface ornateness).
Preview and network-wide search in Spotlight? Who is copying here?
I can't believe that: but now Vista looks innovativ!
i completely agree. just hope that the top secret thing makes us think other way.
RebootD
Apr 12, 04:49 PM
The truly sad part about this is going to be when Apple doesn't deliver on our rumored promises.
I REALLY HOPE that Apple does what that article says, and does it WELL, with no bugs or issues that render the entire system useless, within a price point that's reasonable ($1500 --> $2500 for what's described).
Otherwise, it's going to make whatever update we do get for FCP moot.
Well everything outside of no tape capture option. I don't have a professional rig for video so I guess that would mean sticking with CS5. (As in I don't own a capture card, just use FW)
I REALLY HOPE that Apple does what that article says, and does it WELL, with no bugs or issues that render the entire system useless, within a price point that's reasonable ($1500 --> $2500 for what's described).
Otherwise, it's going to make whatever update we do get for FCP moot.
Well everything outside of no tape capture option. I don't have a professional rig for video so I guess that would mean sticking with CS5. (As in I don't own a capture card, just use FW)
nealibob
Mar 31, 03:00 PM
John Gruber's take:
Can't say I disagree.
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.
Can't say I disagree.
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.
NJRonbo
Jun 15, 06:36 PM
This whole day has left a bad taste in my mouth
as I am certain many others.
It was impossible for many to order an iPhone from
the Apple site.
Let alone the anger there must have been about there
being no white phones available.
I can tell you that Radio Shack was taking orders for
white phones. I opted not to order because I figured
if Apple was not selling them then I would not have a
phone on launch day. There is a rumor that 3rd party
retailers like RS and Best Buy would get white phones.
Anyhow...
Standing in the RS store as the employees kept punching
in attempt after attempt to get a stupid pin number was
just an inane process. It's the same thing as thousands
of people converging on the Apple site at the same time
to preorder an iPhone.
It shouldn't have to be this frustrating.
as I am certain many others.
It was impossible for many to order an iPhone from
the Apple site.
Let alone the anger there must have been about there
being no white phones available.
I can tell you that Radio Shack was taking orders for
white phones. I opted not to order because I figured
if Apple was not selling them then I would not have a
phone on launch day. There is a rumor that 3rd party
retailers like RS and Best Buy would get white phones.
Anyhow...
Standing in the RS store as the employees kept punching
in attempt after attempt to get a stupid pin number was
just an inane process. It's the same thing as thousands
of people converging on the Apple site at the same time
to preorder an iPhone.
It shouldn't have to be this frustrating.
Lord Blackadder
Nov 28, 09:49 PM
It would be a nice idea.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
Nice. idea. For whom, you greedy scum? :mad:
**** them and their greed. I shall say no more.
No comments:
Post a Comment