bradl
Mar 18, 02:01 AM
Wow... was multi-tasking supported that early, or did we not get that until 4.0. It's early here in Florida and I can't remember.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
But hey, if its working for you... go with it!
No. it wasn't.
I rarely use it, and when I do, it is work related. I went the MyWi route after the BenM hole was patched up in iOS > 3.1.
BL.
Rot'nApple
May 5, 03:40 PM
Dismissive Title Macrumors!
Shouldn't that read 'SOME' AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls?!
When Gizmodo leaked the iPhone photos, I talked to a friend with an iPhone 3GS and she has had it for well over a year in my local area, surrounding cities and even states. It is her only phone, no more land line and she loves to talk on the phone. Even before iPhone she was burning up the minutes.
Anyway, not owning an iPhone myself, but this might be the model I've been waiting for, I asked her again, for her experience using the iPhone on AT&T's network regarding their service and if she had experienced problems, knowing all the complaints we hear and I'm not saying they aren't happening and are not legitimate, but what of my stomping grounds where I'll most likely be using the phone 99 percent of the time... What of it? Her answer...
No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
Shouldn't that read 'SOME' AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls?!
When Gizmodo leaked the iPhone photos, I talked to a friend with an iPhone 3GS and she has had it for well over a year in my local area, surrounding cities and even states. It is her only phone, no more land line and she loves to talk on the phone. Even before iPhone she was burning up the minutes.
Anyway, not owning an iPhone myself, but this might be the model I've been waiting for, I asked her again, for her experience using the iPhone on AT&T's network regarding their service and if she had experienced problems, knowing all the complaints we hear and I'm not saying they aren't happening and are not legitimate, but what of my stomping grounds where I'll most likely be using the phone 99 percent of the time... What of it? Her answer...
No Problemo (in honor of all the illegal aliens celbrating Cinco de Mayo by going to the Los Suns basketball game without any tickets 'cuz Lord knows you can't ask for "Papers Please" err tickets! :D
ender land
Apr 23, 10:31 PM
Frankly, it doesn't take much faith to claim that nothing and no-one stands above nature (i.e. being supernatural).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
...
Do you realize the sheer magnitude of this statement?
If even 0.0000001% of an incredibly lowball estimate as to the number of current Christians in the world (not to mention past Christians or other theistic religions) have legitimately experienced a supernatural event - pick one, doesn't matter which or how large or small it is - this is an incorrect statement.
Even if 99.9999% of a billion people claiming supernatural events such as religion are lying, that is still a thousand experiences which invalidate your premise.
Everything we can see is derived from nature.
Spoken like a true empiricist.
Where would God come from then?
I have never understood why this is used as an argument against a god(s). Clearly, something exists now (as an aside, if you disagree with this statement there is absolutely no grounds to say religion is not true either, so I'm going to assume you do agree something does in fact exist, namely the universe). No matter how you believe, either atheism, creationism, flying spagetti monsterism, anything, at some point, there will be the problem that something always existed. Or existed "before." Whether it's God or a singularity point or whatever, all rational beliefs agree upon this point.
Asking how God existed prior to the known universe is meaningless in terms of invalidating any religion.
If there are spiritual entities which stand above us humans, they do certainly not stand above these laws. It doesn't make sense, and was never even supposed to make sense to the human mind in the first place (ask any priest about the latter, he will confirm it).
Simple example: I make some robots. I put them into a world (let's say I put them in a room with no visible or perceptible interior doors/windows/etc). They interact and are reasonably self aware. Their entire world is this room. Gravity is "obvious" to them. Suddenly, I rotate the entire room 90 degrees. They would have a situation where the statement "no spiritual entity.. stand[s] above these laws."
Clearly this does not necessarily prove god(s). But it does mean your belief as stated above is illogical (unless starting from the assumed premise that no god(s) exist, in which case your faith rests upon this belief).
Rt&Dzine
Mar 13, 06:21 PM
Your anecdotal evidence, though saddening, proves nothing. Expert estimates place the figure at around 4000 and anything other than that is just playing fantasy conspiracy theory. Playing on people's fears of what is not known is just poor science.
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Perhaps the true figure is an unknown but even if we underestimate the figure by 10 times, it's still small compared to other risks and given that nuclear power is still in it's infancy, that risk can only go down with time as it did in other industries and technologies like cars. I would think the biggest risk from nuclear power at the moment belongs to the uranium ore miners.
People have the same irrational fear about flying. Every time there is a horrific plane crash, many people become afraid of flying for a short period of time afterwards, ignoring the excellent all-round safety record. Personally, I think it's because with flying or nuclear power, the risk lies outside of one's personal control. Walking or driving appears much safer because you are the one in control, even if statistics prove otherwise.
I'm not against nuclear power, but the estimates don't always take a lot of long term effects into account and the experts can't even agree. Some think radiation is good for you, and some say the Chernobyl estimate is 140,000 deaths in Ukraine and Belarus alone.
What's more, the long-term effects of the one instance of a severe radioactive meltdown and leak at a nuclear power plant—at Chernobyl in 1986—has also caused disagreement. The UN's World Health Organization and the International Atomic Energy Agency claim that only 56 people died as a direct result of the radiation released at Chernobyl and that about 4,000 will die from it eventually. But the International Agency for Research on Cancer, another UN agency, predicts 16,000 deaths from Chernobyl; an assessment by the Russian academy of sciences says there have been 60,000 deaths so far in Russia and an estimated 140,000 in Ukraine and Belarus. http://ecocentric.blogs.time.com/2011/03/13/japan-nuclear-emergency-how-much-radiation-is-safe/
Edge100
Apr 15, 11:59 AM
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
Nope; it says that they are required to deny their sexuality; to deny who they really are.
And if the argument goes that they have to deny their sexuality because they aren't married (just as non-married heterosexual people do), well isn't that grand: you've also denied them the right to marry. Why do you do that, pray tell? Because the invisible creator the universe told you that only men and women may marry.
That's a nice little roundabout way of making you feel better for your discrimination, isn't it?
CalBoy
Mar 25, 11:09 AM
As marriage is licensed by the state, it is in fact a privilege. The fact that it is near-universally granted doesn't make it any more a right.
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
On the contrary, our own Supreme Court has held it to be a fundamental right, and the United States through its treaty making power has also held it as a right through the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (Article 16).
.jpg "Kim Kardashian and Kris")
slinger1968
Nov 2, 06:28 PM
I'm back where I was to begin with, ready to buy the 2.66GHz release I hope will happen Tuesday November 14. The lower power ones will also be slower with a slower FSB as well. I forgot to remember that.I wouldn't expect the Clovertowns to be a BTO option right away. Sure they are pin compatable but Apple will need to make sure that they can cool these chips well enough to be very stable. Maybe Apple has already been testing the clovertown config, but we haven't heard any rumors and who knows if they need additional cooling.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
I expect Apple to be more conservative than guys like Anand and Tom's hardware. Hopefully there's enough cooling "headroom" already built into the Mac Pro.
Also, who knows if the chip yield is high enough to trickle down to Apple? I honestly haven't heard much on their expected ship numbers.
javajedi
Oct 10, 10:28 PM
Originally posted by ddtlm
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
javajedi:
Yes, the JVM is the deciding factor here. If the Java takes that damn long on a G4 but goes fast on a P4, can can rest assured that the JVM Apple is distributing sucks compared to whatever one the x86 machines are using.
There is no way in heck that the performance delta can be so large without a large difference in quality of JVM. G4's may be slower, but they are not as slow as those number indicate.
Like I've been saying, when you start to see 5x leads by the PCs you need to start asking questions about the fairness of the benchmark. The G4 is better than 1/5 the speed. There are very few things were a P4 can get better performance per clock than a G4.
BTW:
Your G3 results as bizzarre as well, because of the contrast between them and the G4 results. Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4. What we have here are raw numbers that defy a simple explanations. We should ask why these numbers are popping up, rather than running off with them as if they were uttered by a great voice in the sky or somthing.
I should note that the 90 second and 72 second results I just recently posted are from my cocoa implementation, not java.. so the jvm is out of the picture now on the mac.
Do not take it as proof one way or the other of the G3 or other IBM chips being superior to the G4.
Don't worry, I don't make assumptions like that. And no, I don�t think this does defy simple explanations. I will say that, what we are starting to see here is evidence that the scalar units (integer and fpu) in the IBM 750FX (G3) are more efficient than those in the Motorola G4.
If this is true, then my program hit it right on the nail. Also if this is true, it means there exist theoretical situations when using non altivec code that it would be faster on one of these newer G3 chips.
Also what alex said about how tedious it was to make altivec code, I would agree there is some truth to this. When you vectorize code (either for the P4 or G4), if you don't watch your p's and q's you can actually slow *down* your code. Just because you use the nice and special vector registers on these G4 and Pentium 4 processors does not mean you gain 5 times the speed. You literally have to take your methods back to the drawing board. You will only get peak performance out of pipelined, fully vectorized code.
None the less, scalar operations on both G3/G4 are miserable compared to x86. The JVM is no longer the deciding factor in the performance delta. It's out of the equation on the Mac since the benchmark is now a 100% native cocoa application with c code and no longer java. Mean while on the x86, the benchmark remains java.
70-ish seconds navtive on a G3
90-ish seconds on a native on a G4
5.9-6-ish seconds running under JVM 1.4.1 on a P4
WestonHarvey1
Apr 15, 11:55 AM
I'm just saying that it's very simple:
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
Someone who tells you, in the face of scientific evidence, that they believe who you are is wrong and that you should change can only be described as being hateful.
Their intentions are irrelevant if they're telling you something that is proven to be harmful.
No but hold on a second. I don't know what scientific evidence has to say about something like morality. It may certainly be that sexuality is immutable. But if you're referring to my quote from the Catechism (and I lost track)... that doesn't say homosexuals are required to change their sexuality.
takao
Mar 16, 06:08 AM
And now France are making $3bn EUR a year from exporting electricity - also probably laughing heartily when they see at the price of oil.
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
good for them that means finally the EDF can pay back those dozens of billions euro they are in debt
;)
for comparison:
EdF: 150.000 employees: 65 billion revenue, 1 billion profit in 2010
the 2 big german energy companies
RWE: 70.000 employees: 50 billion of revenue, 3 billion of profit
E.ON: 85.000 employees: 92 billion revenue, 5 billion of profit
looking at the competition which focus less on nuclear power plants they are doing actually rather bad
lilo777
Apr 28, 03:18 PM
Huh? A 2008 MBP should have no problem running iTunes.
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
You keep forgetting that most people run Windows on their Mac computers and iTunes on Windows is junk (yeah, Apple demands that others - like Adobe - optimize their software, if only they did that themselves).
millerb7
May 2, 10:46 AM
Hum, download and install are automatic. Good thing I don't use Safari.
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
Meh... if you're stupid enough to have open safe files checked.
skunk
Mar 14, 04:09 PM
what they went through was unprecedented, and beyond the worst case scenarios they were designed for, so if the accident is fully contained (which unfortunately seems less likely as time goes by) the whole system should be commended.Trouble with this argument is that if everything goes completely tits-up with any other kind of power station, the results are indeed containable, but in the case of a nuclear power station, the results can be catastrophically bad. It is taking a worst case scenario to a whole different level.
PittAir
Apr 20, 11:11 PM
Ask yourself what you do with your phone.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.
Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.
Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?
For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.
By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.
MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.
Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.
Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.
Surely
Apr 15, 10:58 AM
Ha ha! I love when people rationalize all their views through scientific/observable fact...and then use the same subjectivity and bias (they ridicule) to judge opinions they disagree with. Sorry friend, you can no more prove that scripture invalid than MacVault can prove it valid. :rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
I'm sorry, but any writing that advocates death to someone is wrong.
If you want to preach love, kindness, and being good to thy neighbor, I'm all for that.
Ha ha!:rolleyes:
javajedi
Oct 9, 08:03 PM
Someone inquired about the benchmark Java console program I created:
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
It's located at http://members.ij.net/javajedi
I've also included the source (FPMathTest.java) for the curious.
Download the class file and invoke it from Terminal via "java FPMathTest"
I must warn you in advance my PowerBook G4 performs miserabily. It does not utilize Altivec(G4), SSE2(P4), or other vector processing extensions.
Enjoy :)
Kevin
supmango
Mar 18, 12:31 PM
There are a dozen and one ways they can use rules/logic engines - they don't need a human eye.
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
And the timing of this new policy isn't by accident nor has it taken ATT "long enough". It's strategic.
With 4.3 - mobile hotspots are now enabled on their network and there is a clear billing system set up within their infrastructure. Remember - prior to 4.3 - ANY tethering via the iPhone was against TOS.
Now that they have a specific plan they can switch you to and/or illustrate that you have LEGAL ways of tethering - they are in a much better position to win any of these so called "arguments."
It's no accident. They clearly have been poised to take action and waited until everything fell into place with the enabling of hotspots.
I never said anything about it being an accident. I also don't think your argument is "clear" unless you have some kind of internal information that the rest of us don't know about.
If it is really that simple to develop "rules and logic engines" to crack down on tethering, why did it take almost a full year (after introducing tethering) to do it? A logical evaluation of network activity (one that can be done by a computer) works in many cases, but there are always instances where it misses things, or triggers a false alert. AT&T is limited in this regard. I also don't see anything special about the mobile hotspot feature that allows AT&T more access to information that it did not have previously. See the rest of my post.
If people aren't being careful about what they are doing online while tethered (for example, they are doing things their iPhones cannot do natively), it's pretty simple for AT&T to see that kind of activity. But someone who is smart about it can probably get by indefinitely.
I think AT&T is starting to panicking about the people who are leaving to go to Verizon. They need to make sure they are milking every dime they can get out of the iPhone users they still have
GGJstudios
Apr 14, 03:03 PM
Stompy, a few posts back somebody mentioned that the OP was later banned. That might explain why he hasn't come back.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
The OP was not banned. Just check the 1st post of this thread to see the OP is still around.
gorgeousninja
Apr 21, 08:02 AM
You must live in a alternate univerise if think that Apple users are tech savy. You average user is very happy to have Apple control thier experience, ie they are techtards. And frankly owning an Apple product is the best thing for them, with a PC etc they will just get themselves into trouble.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
it would help to show you were a little more tech savvy if you learned how a spell-checker works....
It's really quite amusing to hear some of these 'Droid fans who think that just because they've changed their phone wallpaper makes them some kind of techno demi-god.
I am sure all your family members are very happy you 'moved them over to mac' (though I do wonder if they're aware of how patronizing you are)..
Who got the best deal? Your family have products that will do what they need when they need. You have a product that if you can keep it virus free and updated to the latest version will be seen as a major achievement.
If your still under some illusion of how tech savy they are read through the macrumors forums...... and remeber they are the more tech savy ones!
I have moved every family member over to mac who has no idea about computer, they are happy. The people I know who work in IT, develop and are really tech savy, still have a PC (and an android, some have both android and iphone)
it would help to show you were a little more tech savvy if you learned how a spell-checker works....
It's really quite amusing to hear some of these 'Droid fans who think that just because they've changed their phone wallpaper makes them some kind of techno demi-god.
I am sure all your family members are very happy you 'moved them over to mac' (though I do wonder if they're aware of how patronizing you are)..
Who got the best deal? Your family have products that will do what they need when they need. You have a product that if you can keep it virus free and updated to the latest version will be seen as a major achievement.
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 07:18 PM
I was referring to the believers.
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
Ah, thanks.
It has been my experience, over many decades, that believers are rarely fun-loving individuals.
:p
Nameci
Apr 5, 10:06 PM
I have switched to OSX 4 years ago... and never went back to Windows as my personal computer operating system.
What I don't like after switching is that I did not have the appetite anymore to play games. It did make me more productive.
What I don't like after switching is that I did not have the appetite anymore to play games. It did make me more productive.
MacBoobsPro
Oct 26, 03:36 AM
I had a sneaky feeling since August this might happen so I decided not to take the plunge with a MacPro straight away. :D
*gleefully rubs hands in anticipation*
*shuts down g5, goes to bathroom, brushes teeth, goes to bedroom, gets changed. Goes down stairs. Jumps in car. Drives to work. Gets to work. Turns on 'ancient' G3. Sighs loudly*
*Logs back in to MacRumors*
*gleefully rubs hands in anticipation*
*shuts down g5, goes to bathroom, brushes teeth, goes to bedroom, gets changed. Goes down stairs. Jumps in car. Drives to work. Gets to work. Turns on 'ancient' G3. Sighs loudly*
*Logs back in to MacRumors*
Blue Velvet
Mar 27, 05:26 PM
But no one here has proved that Nicolosi is an unreliable representative of his field.
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
Sorry, but that's not how it works.
You expressed approval for his findings, you were the one who explicitly made him a topic of conversation. I and Gelfin asked you, based precisely on what, knowing full well the disreputable reputation he and his organisation has and the damage that he has done to many people... every major professional organisation in the behavioural sciences disagrees with him. Pointing out the core belief behind his philosophy, you seemed ignorant of it, yet somehow approved of his findings.
No-one in this conversation is a clinical psychologist or a psychiatrist, so they have to lean on reputable sources. The Surgeon General of the United States is just one example of a medically and scientifically reliable voice. And somehow, that's not good enough? Well, there's more:
No major mental health professional organization has sanctioned efforts to change sexual orientation and most of them have adopted policy statements cautioning the profession and the public about treatments that purport to change sexual orientation. These include the American Psychiatric Association, American Psychological Association, American Counseling Association, National Association of Social Workers in the USA, the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and the Australian Psychological Society.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Association_for_Research_%26_Therapy_of_Homosexuality#Position_of_professional_organization s_on_sexual_orientation_change_efforts
Why don't you tell us precisely why all these organisations are wrong and why NARTH and their ilk are right, since you claim to understand and agree with their findings?
thatsallfolks
Apr 5, 09:40 PM
I'm was a complete Mac virgin when I switched a couple of months ago but some of the small things that still annoy me.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
1. Pressing delete when you've selected a file in finder doesn't delete the file. You've gotta use the context menu or <gasp> actually drag it to the garbage.
2. It's kinda' weird that the menu bar shows at the top of the screen and not the window. When you have alot of windows open I sometimes go into the menu bar thinking it belongs to another program than what I intended.
3. There's no ".." button in finder(i.e. go one level up a directory structure)
4. Not having an actual uninstall program procedure kind of makes me paranoid.
I do love the magic mouse and obviously Macs look slicker than PCs so overall I guess I'm satisfied and I'm sure any reasonable person would be as well but from what I've seen of Windows 7 I would think most reasonable people would be happy with that too.
No comments:
Post a Comment