Al Coholic
Apr 28, 10:31 PM
I could use a good laugh. Please "deduce" this one.
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
One day it was Apple Computer Inc. The next it was just Apple Inc.
"Deduced" enough for ya?
Mord
Jul 12, 05:19 PM
jiggy:
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
your thinking is exactly why most pc's suck, dell ect choose components that are "good enough" or choose some unsuitable cpu because it sounds fast, woodcest makes the most sense to go into the mac pro, conroe into the imac merom into the mbp simple as.
just because something is not for you does not mean how you want it is how it should be, your a kid who likes playing with pc hardware and likes components with "big numbers" and overclockability, and while a quad would be wasted on you it'd be great for people who actually buy mac pro's/powermacs.
you give pc users a bad name it's not the other way around.
Macsavvytech
May 4, 01:50 AM
People sure get emotionally invested about the dumbest things....
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
Anyone who deliberately uses more than one question mark in English is not properly literate, so let's hope our friend the von Magnum's keyboard is to blame.
Indeed ????
lom8104
Sep 12, 04:12 PM
So would "iTV" run OS X or just Front Row? What kind of processor? Old PowerPC's perhaps?
WalkingDED
Mar 18, 11:21 AM
I actually paid for MyWi and I only use it to tether my iPad. I use it instead of (not in addition to) my iPhone and only when wifi is not available.
jaseone
Mar 19, 05:59 PM
I wish people would understand that this program is mainly created so that people who use Linux (don't know if you have heard of it, it has a larger market share than Mac OS X if I remember right :rolleyes: ) can listen to the music which they have purchased.
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
Uhm why is the program Windows only then???
LethalWolfe
Apr 13, 12:19 AM
From what I've been able to cobble together it looks like there is some very cool new stuff in FCP X. I can't wait for Apple to update its page and to actually kick the tires of the program. Hopefully it works as advertised (ex. FCP's current attempt at an 'open timeline' is nothing to write home about and the "auto correct" button in Apple Color is laughably bad) and I also hope all the helpful auto-features can be toggled on/off. For example, audio and video track assignments are a very common and very useful way to keep your timeline organized and easy to navigate around in (especially in a multi-user environment). White space is not a four letter word. ;)
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
There are times when software can try to be too helpful and it ends up just getting in the way so I hope Apple considered this and gives us the option to toggle a lot of these things on/off.
Lethal
faroZ06
May 2, 06:46 PM
Except this is not a virus. Some of you guys need a course on malware terminology. This is a trojan at best. Spyware at worst. Hardly a virus.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Exactly, everyone always talks about Macs being susceptible to viruses and viruses already existing for Macs, then they give the whole "market share" speech. I'm just sitting here virus and malware free laughing :p and most likely will be even if Apple gains market share. I'm a halftime Windows user, and I see soooo many security problems in it, but the MS fanboys blame market share!
I will say that market share DOES up the number of attacks on something, which is why Windows gets attacked so much, but it's also much much easier to attack than Mac OS.
Apple OC
Apr 23, 11:18 PM
Edit: I'll say you found an idiot who likes to claim knowledge they can't possess. and then I saw Apple OC's post. Okay. At least one atheist fundamentalist exists.
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ... there is nothing that points to the existence of any Gods.
Nothing ... other than all the followers that try to tell you to follow along.
Science points to logical explanations as to how humans became to be on this planet ... and none of it points to any form of a God.
I am not looking for proof ... for me it is already there.
Whatever:rolleyes: ... Like I care that you think I am an idiot ... there is nothing that points to the existence of any Gods.
Nothing ... other than all the followers that try to tell you to follow along.
Science points to logical explanations as to how humans became to be on this planet ... and none of it points to any form of a God.
I am not looking for proof ... for me it is already there.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 09:35 AM
I have a couple problems with this approach. There's so much attention brought to this issue of specifically gay bullying that it's hard to see this outside of the framework of identity politics.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
Where's the videos and support for fat kids being bullied? Aren't they suicidal, too, or are we saying here that gays have a particular emotional defect and weakness? They're not strong enough to tough this out? Is that the image the gay community wants to promote?
Man, being a fat kid in high school. That was rough. There were a number of cool, popular gay guys in my school. I'm sure they took some crap from some people, but oh how I would have rather been one of them! But hey, I'm still here, I'm still alive.
Bullying is a universal problem that affects just about anyone with some kind of difference others choose to pick on. It seems like everyone is just ignoring all that for this hip, trendy cause.
yeah that is kind of been my issue with this at well. They focus on the LGBT community but complete side track what I am willing to be is a larger group of striaght kids who get bullied and have long term emotional problems from bullies. That be the fact kids, kids with random disability or just easy targets for one reason or another but they are straight so they do not get focuses on by the media..
Ehh...I agree with you that bullying period, causes alot of pain. The only difference is, you can do situps to "fit in"...these kids are who they are. Kinda Apples and Oranges
Can not always do that. Also I was bullied to the point of near sucided when I was younger. I have always been skinny kid. I was not so much bullied because of weight or being skinny. I was a tall bean pole and hell even as an adult I am pretty much a bean poll. Currently I am 6'4" 175lb with out an ounce of fat on. 6 months ago I was 155 same weight I have been for nearly 10 years.
Fat kids was used as an example. But there are many others who are not fat and not looks and nothing can be done about it.
matticus008
Mar 20, 03:14 PM
No, this is completely wrong. Copyright is nothing more nor less than a monopoly on distribution of copies of the copyrighted work.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
Anyone purchasing a copy of the copyrighted work owns that copy. They do not have a license to that copy, they own that copy. They don't need a license to do anything with that copy except for re-distributing copies of it. Because the copyright holder holds the copyright monopoly, only the copyright holder may copy the work in question and then distribute those copies. Anyone else who wants to re-distribute further copies must get a license from the copyright holder.
But no license is required to purchase a work or to use that work once it is purchased. Copyright is a restriction on what you can do with the things you have purchased and now own.
This is how the various open source licenses work, for example. They only come into play when someone tries to redistribute copies. That's the only time they *can* come into play; without any redistribution of copies, copyright law has no effect.
For example, you can, and have every right to, sell things that you have purchased. No license is required to sell your furniture, your stereo equipment, or the CDs that you have purchased or the books that you have purchased. At the turn of the century, book publishers tried to place a EULA inside their books forbidding resale. The courts--up to the Supreme Court of the United States--said that the copyright monopoly does not cover that, and thus no EULA based on the copyright monopoly can restrict it.
In the Betamax case, the Supreme Court used the same reasoning to say that time-shifting is not a copyright violation. The copyright monopoly is a restriction on what owners can do with the things that they have purchased and now own, and must be strictly interpreted for this reason.
When you buy a book, a CD, or anything else that is copyrighted, you own that copy, and may do whatever you want with that copy, with the exception that you cannot violate the copyright holder's monopoly on making copies and redistributing those copies. You can make as many copies as you want, as long as you don't distribute them; and you can distribute the original copy as long as it is the original. Neither of those acts infringes on the copyright holder's monopoly on copying and redistributing.
This is why the DMCA had to be so convoluted, making the act of circumvention illegal, rather than going to the heart of what the RIAA, etc., wanted.
No, you're not at all correct here. Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy. When you buy a CD, you own the CD and can burn it [EDIT: literally] or sell it if you want, provided you don't retain a copy. When you buy a book, you can sell the book or highlight the pages or do what you want to your copy, but you can't change three words and republish it. When you buy a music download, you have every right to use it, make short clips of it, make mix CDs from those files and give them to a few friends (as long as you are not making the CDs in bulk or charging for them). Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law. You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying. If you could put a whole retail CD and magically duplicate it exactly, including the silk-screen label, professional quality insert printing, an exact molecule-for-molecule duplicate, and if you could do this for zero cost to you and give them away to anyone over the internet, what you would be doing is against the law. Copying the digital files gives you an exact replica, at no cost, and requires no special hardware or software--which is exactly why the artists and labels feel they need DRM. They're within their rights to protect their property.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law. It's like taking a Windows license and installing it on Mac OS. You can't do it, regardless of the fact that you own a copy of it for Windows. You bought that license for Windows and have no right to use it on a Mac (except through VPC, and only if that's the one installation you've made). Beyond the DMCA, your legally-binding Terms of Service specifically state that you are not to circumvent the protections on the files you buy and you are not to access the iTMS from anything but iTunes. Those are the terms you agreed to, and those are the terms that are enforceable in court, independent of the DMCA. If you think that the copyright owners who forced these terms to be included in Apple's software are wrong, tell them. But breaking the iTunes TOS is breaking the law. The DMCA is convoluted, I agree, and much of it can be spun to be inappropriate and restrictive. But you have to work to change it, not break the law because you don't like it. You have no right to do so, but you have the option to, and you must deal with the consequences if you choose that path. Breaking DRM is a violation of copyright law and the DMCA (or whatever similar legislation says so in your country). Steal if you want to, but know that it IS against the law and it IS stealing.
megfilmworks
Oct 8, 11:02 AM
When pigs fly.
bigchief
May 5, 12:01 PM
I've been with AT&T for many years and I can not remember the last time I had a dropped call. If I started having dropped calls I would change carriers.
leekohler
Mar 25, 02:54 PM
Loving v. Virginia (1967)
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
(emphasis added)
Skunk already quoted the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 16, so I don't think I need to quote that again.
People also have to get gun licenses, but that is clearly a right under the Constitution.
Licenses do more than extend a privilege; they can also be helpful in administering the rights that we have.
Actually, you might depending on when and where you wanted to speak. Parades need permits and most large protests have to be cleared beforehand so that traffic can be allowed to flow around it. All of these are handled by licenses.
That isn't what's at issue in same-sex marriage. The issue is whether the criteria themselves are a violation of equal protection (which they unequivocally are).
It could, for example, be a requirement that in order to drive a Class C vehicle, one must be Buddhist. This requirement would deny others with the same ability to drive a license to drive and it would deny everyone who wasn't Buddhist equal protection under the law.
Similarly, a gay or lesbian couple is just as capable of producing a loving household with shared duties and responsibilities, and yet they are excluded from the rights of marriage based on nothing more than old fashioned prejudices.
Funny how they always run when proven wrong. Just once, I would like to see someone admit they were wrong in here. It sure would be nice. I've done it before, that's for sure.
pkson
Apr 13, 12:05 AM
Anytime FCP is brought up there's a *body part* measuring *stuff*storm about who's "professional" and who's not.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
Who gives a cuss?
I think bringing down the price makes it within reach of students and hobbyists which might miff some "pros" but old editing hardware/software is... old. Just because someone has had experience in obsolete tools doesn't ever make the person "better."
The pros should be the ones welcoming a change in old/complex UI. Better UI results in a better workflow, resulting in a better final product. That's the point, isn't it? Isn't that why the unveiling received a standing ovation from a bunch of pros?
Computing has come to a point where most previous sophisticated tasks have become easily accessible. I personally think all these advancements should be embraced and not shunned.
Oh, btw and FCPX looks awesome!
edit:
Editing can start immediately during importing of AVCHD and other media, switches silently to local media as it ingests
Uses every available cpu cycle to keep things rendered. Also highly scalable. Will even work on a Macbook
No interruption for rendering. No transcoding, EVERYTHING native. (incl DSLR footage–assume this means AVC)
These features look like a real time saver and workflow streamliner! I, for one, am probably gonna buy it.
IBradMac
May 5, 08:38 PM
AT&T Customers Continuing to Experience Excessive Dropped Calls
Four years now. wow.
Four years now. wow.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 12:25 PM
That all depends upon what branch of religion you follow/ believe in.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
It was a line from a Monty Python skit...:rolleyes:
As a former Catholic, I know all too well the Pope's role as manager of church affairs rather than arbitrator of dogma.
Fear still rules much of mainstream religion in the subtext. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of divine retribution.
Your little Pope quip illustrates that you're unaware of just how narrow you made this thread.
You're sadly mistaken if you think that the Pope presides over all religious activity. There are a great many religious belief systems besides the Catholic Church.
It was a line from a Monty Python skit...:rolleyes:
As a former Catholic, I know all too well the Pope's role as manager of church affairs rather than arbitrator of dogma.
Fear still rules much of mainstream religion in the subtext. Fear of death, fear of hell, fear of divine retribution.
QCassidy352
Jul 12, 02:52 PM
I can't wait till august so when i get my Conore i can break all your hearts. when u see my Conroe clock up at 3.6ghz and blow that overpriced MacPro trash out of the water. Then please tell me that Core 2 belongs in an iMac. I swear you people deserve to be stuck with IBM/Freescale for another 5yrs.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
How is it an insult to conroe to say that a desktop chip should go in a moderately priced desktop? And perhaps more to the point, why exactly are you so worked up about someone insulting conroe... is it your personal creation or something? You do realize that both PCs and Macs will be using both conroes and woodcrests in various configurations, right? It's not like woodcrest is an apple product. So what exactly are you so worked up about?
Do you really think anyone here will care if you overclock your conroe-based PC? Let alone "break our hearts?" Have fun.
Even if you had a point worth making, your attitude is so repulsive that I don't know why anyone would want to listen to you.
Aduntu
Apr 15, 01:06 PM
The problem is, and maybe I misread, that it only counts as "rape" if the woman fights back. All rapes are different, just as all women are, a rape victim I know personally, went into a catatonic state during the sexual assault. So, by that definition, she was "consenting" and should be stoned as well. In some cases, the assailant will threaten death of the victim/victim's family to ensure submission. So do these count as rape, since they're not fighting back?
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
I wanted to make it clear that a person would need to be in a state of awareness that allowed them to resist. This may not always be the case. Like your example, some people may not be in a state that they are able to resist. The point of those examples in the bible were not to define rape or the final verdicts for cases of rape. They weren't written to judge whether a person was truly raped or not. Every situation is different, and it's in no way implying that a person hasn't been raped because they didn't demonstrate that they were resisting.
The point of my original response to another commenter was to clarify that the bible doesn't simply instruct people to stone a women to death because she was raped.
Sounds Good
Apr 14, 07:32 PM
I start a thread on restaurantrumors.com
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
"I enjoy Restaurant Win, but sometimes, I see an ad for Restaurant Mac and several friends tell me how much they love Restaurant Mac. I'm starting to wonder if Restaurant Mac should be my new favorite. I've passed by and looked in the window, I've checked out the menu by the front door. It seems nice, there's usually a good crowd. I really don't have specific reason to change, but it could be better than Restaurant Win. Please tell me all the negatives about switching.
Later on in the thread, I comment: "Gee, you don't like the filet mignon at at Restaurant Mac? That stinks, I order that a lot at Restaurant Win; and no shrimp scampi on the menu? Lots of other comments that make this look like a bad change. Well, I was mostly curious, I'm good with Restaurant Win."
I honestly have no interest in convincing you to switch, you may be better off with windows, but the fact is, I set myself up for this outcome. Why?
GGJstudios
Apr 10, 12:54 PM
For switchers in particular I do think it is worthwhile to leave the defaults as they are and understand what the defaults are and why before they try to impose something else.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
I agree with you, in general principle. When I switched to Mac, I decided to learn the "Mac way" of doing things, rather than trying to make Mac work like Windows. For those who may not have a large or well organized music library, using the defaults may be fine. However, I had spent years building my library, ripping CDs and vinyl records, editing tags. All file names were exactly as I needed them and I had them well organized, much better than iTunes organizes them. For me (and for those who have a very specific music file organization), leaving those boxes unchecked gives us all the advantages of using iTunes, plus the advantages of well-organized music files.
dj-anon
May 2, 03:20 PM
LOL. I got scared for a second since Pro Tools is dumb and doesn't like non-privileged accounts so I run as admin. But this "threat" requires so many clicks that it is ridiculous.
Doraemon
Aug 29, 02:19 PM
I have to say, I am APPALLED by the irresponsible attitude of some people on this forum (and probably the world). Businesses, corporations, governments, AND individuals should all be behaving in a socially and environmentally responsible manner. This is in no way "anti-progress". When did you all gain the right to be so selfish, self-centred, and bigoted in your beliefs?
So am I.
So am I.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 28, 12:50 AM
Amazing. Not a word in response.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
Bill, all gay people want is to be accepted for what we are, not what you want us to be.
Not so different from what you want, is it?
I was just replying to your previous note, Lee. But I stopped writing because I wanted to reconsider what I was saying and to ensure that I expressed my thoughts as politely as I could express them.
I accept same-sex-attracted people as they are. But I won't accept some things that many of them do.
If I harm others, I want them to tell me what harm I did. Then I'll try to make amends for what I've don't. But I need to say something that others may hate to hear, I'll say it.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق