Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×

Comment Re:No... (Score 0) 598

Here you go little child, because you can not seem to use Google on your own I have done this for you, let me know when your arse needs wiping I'll send your mum down to the basement.
https://www.google.com/search?...

Note that one of those Google returned searches shows Apple now has "guidelines for returning bent phones".

I do like how you pick one thing out of a list and go on a tirade about that though, as if you're refuting the premise of my post.
It's an amusing form of debate, here are a list of others you can enjoy "intellectually" masturbating with.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Comment Re:No... (Score 1) 598

Now: I have a macbook pro - because it's just an "insanely great" piece of hardware. But the ONLY reason I'm running OS X is to be able to use VMWare Fusion. If VMWare Fusion's features were available on Linux, that's what I would be running on my MBP.

I use an iMac with OSX for exactly the same reason, I run VMware and Virtualbox, the seamless mode in OSX is aces.

Comment Re:No... (Score 0) 598

Can you not Google this yourself? Since the premise of your comment is that you do not believe me, why would you then ask me to prove something when you can get the proof, or lack of proof yourself?

Basically you want a liar to prove something to you rather than show some evidence to the contrary of my statement, the logic behind this shows a damaged and lazy pattern of thought.

Why wouldn't you do your due diligence and discover for yourself if what I say is true?
Why would you debate it rather than be informed by your own methods?

The answer? Because you don't want to believe it, because your style of debate is to simply put the onus on the other person, because you're not interested in truth, you're interested in your own opinion and things that reinforce your own opinion.
Because it's easier to refute something outright, and not provide evidence, than it is to gather the evidence to the contrary and let that stand on its own.

Because you're lazy.

Comment Re:No... (Score 1) 598

I don't care about the board and the layout, that sort of thing is only interesting to a small select group.
I care about performance and upgradability, which you seem to get little of with Apple products.

I've mentioned this multiple times, but I get much better performance using Windows 7 for high end video and music production (Adobe suite, Komplete, Reason, and Cubase) than I ever got from Apple products and those using Apples Final Cut and Logic.

Few might know that for a time, and possibly now as well, Apple would sell a portable with X GPU or X CPU stating it's high power, only I came to find out that the GPU or CPU had been clocked down because of over heating in their tight cases, so you never got the advertised power.

Comment No... (Score 2, Insightful) 598

"Apple's hardware today is amazing — it has never been better.

So board soldered RAM, non upgradeable parts, antennas that stop working when you put your hand on it (exactly where you were meant to put your hand), bendable phone frames, baking portables in the oven, the list is huge, if this is better then they were shite before.
But they are right about the software, never has it been more insecure and more geared towards grabbing up your data and marketing/profiting from it.

Queue the fanbois to the defense.

Comment Malibu Media (Score 5, Interesting) 181

Magistrate Judge Stephen L. Crocker didn't like this tactic. He froze eleven of Malibu's cases in western Wisconsin, and ordered Malibu's lawyer to explain why she shouldn't be sanctioned for violating court rules. Filing paperwork with the Court with no purpose except to harass or embarrass an opponent is a big no-no. Judge Crocker wondered why Malibu would file a list of movies with embarrassing titles that Malibu doesn't own and can't sue over.

https://www.eff.org/cases/mali...

Comment Curious (Score 1) 174

I read quite often that galaxies are moving away from each other at increasing speed.

In fact faster than light.

While special relativity constrains objects in the universe from moving faster than light with respect to each other when they are in a local, dynamical relationship, it places no theoretical constraint on the relative motion between two objects that are globally separated and out of causal contact. It is thus possible for two objects to become separated in space by more than the distance light could have travelled, which means that, if the expansion remains constant, the two objects will never come into causal contact. For example, galaxies that are more than approximately 4.5 gigaparsecs away from us are expanding away from us faster than light. We can still see such objects because the universe in the past was expanding more slowly than it is today, so the ancient light being received from these objects is still able to reach us, though if the expansion continues unabated, there will never come a time that we will see the light from such objects being produced ‘'today (on a so-called "space-like slice of spacetime") and vice-versa because space itself is expanding between Earth and the source faster than any light can be exchanged.

So that's confusing to me, wouldn't their mass increase as well and possibly lead to a massive attraction then collapse of the Universe back to the point prior to the Big Bang?
Or is it just the distance not the velocity relative to each other.

Comment Re:Don't get your hopes up. (Score 1) 114

I would attribute that to inadequate familiarity with the subject area.

Because you have a historical view, you can't see what's happening to you in this time, the things that happened under Bush opened a Pandoras box of nastiness for the future.

That won't be obvious for most until quite a few years have passed.

Slashdot Top Deals

New York... when civilization falls apart, remember, we were way ahead of you. - David Letterman

Working...