DJMastaWes
Sep 9, 08:30 PM
Well, since the iMacs and Mac Minis are running Core 2 Duo now, what do you think of this;
�Sales review
�Chit-chat about iMacs with Core 2 Duo
�^ Leads into the announced ment of Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros (Maybe MacBook aswell)
� New iPod
One More Thing...
iTunes with Movies.
Seems reasonable and doable. It sounds perfect for like a 1 hour event.
Opinoins?
�Sales review
�Chit-chat about iMacs with Core 2 Duo
�^ Leads into the announced ment of Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros (Maybe MacBook aswell)
� New iPod
One More Thing...
iTunes with Movies.
Seems reasonable and doable. It sounds perfect for like a 1 hour event.
Opinoins?
samiwas
Apr 18, 04:26 PM
1. If you are on Salary, you contractually agreed to get the job done regardless of the typical "work week". If you don't want to work long hours, don't accept a salaried position.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
2. I am just as whole-heartedly against forcing hourly employees to work unpaid overtime. That would be "theft" or "servitude". Totally different.
Ooohhh. So being on a salary, even a measly one for a basic desk job, means you are now at your employers beck and call 24 hours a day, 7 days a week, come hell or high water? Got it. So, if more work comes in and the amount you are given to do increases substantially, you just suck it up and work that many more hours because they won't hire more people for the extra work? That sounds like a pretty awful world...but pretty much what goes on. Too bad people like you manage to convince people it's how life should be.
savar
Sep 12, 02:36 PM
Gapless playback? What does this mean?
How will the home sync work? I don't want to screw up my iPod, my home library on my MacBook Pro & my iTunes library on my office G5.
I've downloaded iTunes 7, bought a game (same trouble w/my 5G; still no iPod software update yet to make the game work) & clicked to "Get Album Artwork," which seems to be running in the background. So far so good.
If you have a CD which has long pieces of classical music on it, they break it up into separate tracks even though there technically aren't any pauses in the music. On any decent CD player these tracks play back seamlessly -- without any gaps. iPod would insert a pause in between playing these.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
How will the home sync work? I don't want to screw up my iPod, my home library on my MacBook Pro & my iTunes library on my office G5.
I've downloaded iTunes 7, bought a game (same trouble w/my 5G; still no iPod software update yet to make the game work) & clicked to "Get Album Artwork," which seems to be running in the background. So far so good.
If you have a CD which has long pieces of classical music on it, they break it up into separate tracks even though there technically aren't any pauses in the music. On any decent CD player these tracks play back seamlessly -- without any gaps. iPod would insert a pause in between playing these.
Edit: The REAL question is have they updated iTunes to be a better video player? I hate watching TV or movies in the current version.
AidenShaw
Sep 9, 10:01 AM
Good - now we won't have to wade through any arguments with fanbois who claim that the iMac is the "most powerful desktop on the planet"....
:D
:D
Warbrain
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
With respect to all the "view with alarm" postings that will follow, this really doesn't mean anything. I leave my home at the same time every morning. The transponder in my car records my passage and debits my account with the state highway department. Traffic cameras record my license plate at several points during my journey. Once out of the car, my smiling phiz can be seen on any number of CCTVs en route to my office, whose door I open with a card that automatically records my entry. The IP address of this posting will reveal that I am sitting in my living room as I write. Even without the GPS turned on, my phone regularly initiates a conversation with the local cell tower. I can be found with almost pinpoint accuracy.
So I'm not exactly going to panic to learn that my computer and phone keep a record of my latitude and longitude that they don't share with anyone else.
The government already knows where I live, where I work, where I bank, and all kinds of other interesting information. It's how they collect their taxes and send me my mail.
If there were the slightest indication that liberals, atheists, and other enemies of the state were being tracked by their GPSes and rounded up, I'd be the first to the barricades. But there isn't. Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
You're dead on. Use a GPS device in your car? Can be tracked. Onstar? Tracked. Red light cameras, CCTV at buildings, etc? Yep, tracked.
So I'm not exactly going to panic to learn that my computer and phone keep a record of my latitude and longitude that they don't share with anyone else.
The government already knows where I live, where I work, where I bank, and all kinds of other interesting information. It's how they collect their taxes and send me my mail.
If there were the slightest indication that liberals, atheists, and other enemies of the state were being tracked by their GPSes and rounded up, I'd be the first to the barricades. But there isn't. Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
You're dead on. Use a GPS device in your car? Can be tracked. Onstar? Tracked. Red light cameras, CCTV at buildings, etc? Yep, tracked.
brad.c
Sep 12, 02:20 PM
I feel vindicated in my 60GB 5G purchase a few months back, particularly since I got it on sale. If I can upgrade the software, I'm all chuckles. Besides, I've almost never found the screen brightness an issue.
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
I do wish I could ultra-boost the audio on-board. Some of the video digitizations I have are too quiet.
bennyhenry
Apr 20, 02:02 PM
I've just used the software on my iPhone 4 backup, and was looking at timeline and the locations. I noticed that at the same time point, the map was showing use in Swindon (where I am) and High Wycombe (65 miles away), as well as in London (80 miles away) at the next date stamp, but i've never been to either of those places ever with my iPhone.
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
The only thing that I can think of is because my phone is a replacement from Apple because of a faulty home button (which could be refurbs according to some sites across the net). It seems as though the backup takes the cell tower data from the phone from any point in its life, and cannot be wiped.
Any other ideas?
WildCowboy
Aug 23, 10:30 PM
I don't think he is joking, it is about more than sales, but 100m songs on Itunes did make apple roughly 100M. So I think he is speaking solely about the moetary aspect of the Itunes sales. So no joke: money is money.
Actually, 100 million songs on iTunes makes Apple less than $10 million. Most of the money goes back to the record labels, and most of the rest pays for the infrastructure to run the store.
Actually, 100 million songs on iTunes makes Apple less than $10 million. Most of the money goes back to the record labels, and most of the rest pays for the infrastructure to run the store.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
emaja
Apr 22, 11:31 AM
Well no, not in the true sense of the word, but you do have the data and can use the data elsewhere.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
I was just pointing this out, but I agree that it could be something that was easier to take away if there was no physical media.
I am stuck between the two worlds of physical and digital media. I prefer to hold something in my hand since it makes me feel like I own something. As soon as I get the disk home I rip it in lossless into iTunes and put it in a box after tagging it meticulously. I enjoy the convenience, but not ready to take that full leap.
In the same way technically you don't own the music on a record, or cassette or CD, but you do have the ability to use/listen to the music elsewhere.
I can just see this ability, which we have taken for granted since the 1st every records were sold to the public in around 1894 will soon, if big companies get there way and the public buy into it without thinking, will be coming to an end.
I was just pointing this out, but I agree that it could be something that was easier to take away if there was no physical media.
I am stuck between the two worlds of physical and digital media. I prefer to hold something in my hand since it makes me feel like I own something. As soon as I get the disk home I rip it in lossless into iTunes and put it in a box after tagging it meticulously. I enjoy the convenience, but not ready to take that full leap.
DaddyShortLegs
Oct 27, 08:45 AM
How many trees were harmed in the production of their leaflets?
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
And were they produced on a "non-green" MAC?
:rolleyes:
QCassidy352
Oct 12, 01:26 PM
It's certainly better than an red, glossy 1G nano - hopefully it would have the proper matte, anodised finish of the current nanos rather than the glossy coating ColorWarePC use to do their custom iPods.
Not too bad though...
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
that looks pretty good, actually. I'm not sure it's better than the ones they already have, but it's another nice choice.
Not too bad though...
http://img144.imageshack.us/img144/7410/picture1pc9.png
that looks pretty good, actually. I'm not sure it's better than the ones they already have, but it's another nice choice.
techfreak85
Apr 25, 09:28 AM
Instead of increasing the driving age, what about requiring more logged hours with a parent whit a learner's permit, manditory quality driver's ed, and making it harder for unsafe drivers to get their licence? Then require a one year driving check up a year after the licence was attained?
MikeDTyke
Sep 1, 06:50 AM
Wasn't a silent upgrade. Apple bollocksed up the order.
You know this for certain????
Last year Apple did the exact same thing sneaking out faster G4's with more vram in the Mac mini line.
Everyone and their pet rumor site is expecting upgrades. We weren't expecting across the board superdrives. I now am.
Personally i'd trade that superdrive for GMA965 with x3000 graphics, but thats about as likely before MWSF07 as a bullet proof string vest.
M.
You know this for certain????
Last year Apple did the exact same thing sneaking out faster G4's with more vram in the Mac mini line.
Everyone and their pet rumor site is expecting upgrades. We weren't expecting across the board superdrives. I now am.
Personally i'd trade that superdrive for GMA965 with x3000 graphics, but thats about as likely before MWSF07 as a bullet proof string vest.
M.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
uv23
Sep 4, 07:28 PM
I predict a more powerful, larger storage, video iPod with a dock that has component/hdmi/whatever video and optical audio outs. No big deal. It's a natural progression from what's available today.
spicyapple
Sep 12, 02:08 PM
80GB iPod seems like the only model with good value/price ratio. :D The home sync feature is an especially nice touch, something people predicted since the 2G iPods.
Northgrove
Apr 19, 07:52 AM
Samsung running Android look very very similar to Apple's, to the point where it causes confusion in the marketplace for consumers. I've seen several people mistake one of these things for an iPhone because they look that similar. It's a combination of Google's Android and Samsung's hardware.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
I agree. Sometimes I think this kind of lawsuits are a stretch and a bit silly, but not this time. When there's confusion even to me as a geek after a quick glance on these smarthpones, I have to agree that it's gone too far. It's obvious that Samsung is simply mimicking Apple at this point to ride on their popularity wave, and thus leeching off their profits. That just can't be right.
I've seen other comments in this thread, comments saying that iPhone UI's haven't changed the last four years, so Apple aren't actually renewing themselves. This is however completely besides the point -- no company has an obligation to do so, especially when the UI is part of their brand and image, like in Apple's case. Then it's counterproductive to change UI drastically bi-yearly. Their patents are invalidated even if they don't renew themselves.
I like how the iPhone revolutionized the idea with apps and app markets, and still maintaining ease-of-use, but I had really assumed that major competitors like Samsung would be able to keep competing while not starting their carbon copiers. Yes -- there are many undiscovered ways of building a smartphone, especially in terms of the software which I imagine is what Apple is getting at here.
This confusion is no accident, that was the intent all along. There is no reason why they could not create their own look and feel... change it up enough so it's not an obvious copy. Other handset makers have been able to do that.
I agree. Sometimes I think this kind of lawsuits are a stretch and a bit silly, but not this time. When there's confusion even to me as a geek after a quick glance on these smarthpones, I have to agree that it's gone too far. It's obvious that Samsung is simply mimicking Apple at this point to ride on their popularity wave, and thus leeching off their profits. That just can't be right.
I've seen other comments in this thread, comments saying that iPhone UI's haven't changed the last four years, so Apple aren't actually renewing themselves. This is however completely besides the point -- no company has an obligation to do so, especially when the UI is part of their brand and image, like in Apple's case. Then it's counterproductive to change UI drastically bi-yearly. Their patents are invalidated even if they don't renew themselves.
I like how the iPhone revolutionized the idea with apps and app markets, and still maintaining ease-of-use, but I had really assumed that major competitors like Samsung would be able to keep competing while not starting their carbon copiers. Yes -- there are many undiscovered ways of building a smartphone, especially in terms of the software which I imagine is what Apple is getting at here.
p0intblank
Aug 23, 07:33 PM
Damn, that's a lot of money. I hate that Apple gave in... but I guess they kind of had to, right? At least all the hate is over with. :)
nybe
Sep 13, 10:30 AM
Install Quicktime 7.1.3 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/mac.html) then install iTunes 7 (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/). Connect your 3-5G iPod. Updater will appear in the new iTunes when you highligh the iPod in the left column. Eazy Peezy. :)
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
okay got it!! thank yah sir!
btw, I have beach envy... SC rules!
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
okay got it!! thank yah sir!
btw, I have beach envy... SC rules!
SockRolid
Mar 29, 01:16 PM
Oracle's lawsuit against Google is airtight. Android's use of a non-compliant virtual machine (the Dalvik VM) is a clear violation of the Java license agreement. And there's legal precedent: Microsoft paid Sun $20 million back in 2001 when Sun successfully sued them for trying to "embrace, extend, and extinguish" Java.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Google will lose the lawsuit. And nobody has ever accused Larry Ellison of being Mr. Nice Guy. He doesn't want money this time. He wants to protect the intellectual property Oracle acquired from Sun. He wants all copies of Android to be "impounded and destroyed" (a direct quote from text of the suit.) Because if Google is allowed to plagiarize and distort Java, others will follow. Ellison is making an example of Google, and it's going to be a law school textbook IP case study for the ages.
Soon Android will be off the market while Google is forced to retool their JVM to be 100% Java compliant. Google is already scrambling to get rid of their non-compliant Dalvik VM. They actually hired James Gosling, the "inventor" of Java, so they've got religion now.
And, although money isn't the motivating factor behind the Oracle lawsuit, it is a factor nonetheless. Google will end up paying Oracle a license fee for each and every generic me-too Android iPhone clone and iPad clone that their hardware partners can mash up. And that erases Android's only advantage over WP7. Android will no longer be free.
So, when Android is off the market, Nokia's WP7 phones will have a chance to avoid becoming KIN 2.0. There will be a window of opportunity for Nokia and Microsoft to build up a little market share. Some corporations and consumers will buy Nokia WP7 phones just because Nokia and Microsoft are "too big to die." (And just when Google thinks it's safe, when they've implemented a 100% compliant JVM, Apple can sue them for GUI patent infringement. But that's another story...)
In the meantime, both WP7 and Nokia will have zero market presence. For all of 2011 and part of 2012. That's an eternity.
Silentwave
Jul 15, 04:28 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.
Why?
Mobile vs. desktop
32 bit vs. 64 bit
Pentium M architecture vs. Intel Core microarchitecture (yes, Yonah uses the latest version of the pentium M architecture, far more efficient than netburst)
and I doubt very much they have comparable Mobos/ machines to test them on.
Why?
Mobile vs. desktop
32 bit vs. 64 bit
Pentium M architecture vs. Intel Core microarchitecture (yes, Yonah uses the latest version of the pentium M architecture, far more efficient than netburst)
and I doubt very much they have comparable Mobos/ machines to test them on.
Floop
Oct 28, 02:38 PM
...and by the way yes this thread has gone off topic, partly my fault because I couldn't believe some stupid posts and felt obliged to respond. I won't drag the thread any further down this path because it's not the right place to do it.
I saw the Greenpeace activists today at MacExpo. There were two outside the venue, and about six at the train station nearby.
They were quiet and calm, but I do actually agree with the Event Organisers that kicked them out - if you break the rules, you pay the consequences, and they admit they broke the rules, so boo hoo to them.
I also question the 'environmentally friendliness' of them handing out thousands of flyers to anybody who walks past, so the flyers end up strewn across the street at the end of the day, or chucked away.
I think their argument has also been shot to pieces by counter evidence.
I have respect for people who take a stand on principles, but not people who take a stand because they want to be subversive or outspoken for the sake of it. I believe Greenpeace have lost the plot.
I saw the Greenpeace activists today at MacExpo. There were two outside the venue, and about six at the train station nearby.
They were quiet and calm, but I do actually agree with the Event Organisers that kicked them out - if you break the rules, you pay the consequences, and they admit they broke the rules, so boo hoo to them.
I also question the 'environmentally friendliness' of them handing out thousands of flyers to anybody who walks past, so the flyers end up strewn across the street at the end of the day, or chucked away.
I think their argument has also been shot to pieces by counter evidence.
I have respect for people who take a stand on principles, but not people who take a stand because they want to be subversive or outspoken for the sake of it. I believe Greenpeace have lost the plot.
Sodner
Mar 22, 02:12 PM
Pity they didn't slim down the iMac by choppin' the chin (assuming this rumor is true). Can't wait to see what they release. The old "smaller iMac" rumor priced for the "mass market" kept me interested in the next iMac update--hope to see something trimmed for the "mass market".
Figured iMacs would update in April.
Like the chin the way it is but I am hoping for the "mass market price point" iMac. If not, the 21" goes to the family room and I get a 27". :)
Figured iMacs would update in April.
Like the chin the way it is but I am hoping for the "mass market price point" iMac. If not, the 21" goes to the family room and I get a 27". :)