Larry

Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in news:lloydparsons-
E70829.22103605092010@port80.individual.net:

> And I wonder what they are doing or not doing with the iPad Hulu Plus
> app to make it work so well.
>

As with any mobile device, they all stop using the device for a data
transfer port, like they do home computers on broadband. There's no need
to hack into your hard drive, because there is none, and as so little
personal data is now stored on the cloud computing device, they can't
access that either, which would be a good thing if we hadn't already stored
the personal data on the cloud server "they" have full access to....which I
find quite scary, indeed.

Ipad's app only accesses the spam and the data but passes the market
research and spyware as there's so little stored on it to spy on....

Just a guess.....but probably accurate.

Your Name

"Larry" <noone@home.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9DEAD8CD138F7noonehomecom@74.209.131.13...
>
> It's Hulu, NOT Flash. Flash doesn't open 46 simultaneous ports the
> instant you click up a program, hulu does!
>
> Man! Hulu goes crazy opening ports for the first 5-8 minutes of each
> program. No WONDER it sucks up all the bandwidth doing whatever they're
> doing. Who's "MarkMonitor", some kind of "Global Leader in Enterprise
> Brand Protection". It's "Domain Management, MarkMonitor Brand
> Protection, AntiFraud Solutions, Corporate Consulting Service." That
> opens to report you for some violation or other. The Flash must be
> monitoring you to make sure you don't steal the crappy TV programming.
>
> 208.20.50.xx opens up about 32 ports, 209.130.205.38 is 1, 209.130.205.47
> is 1, yw-in-fxx.1e100.net is about 5. Lots of server ports from
> akamaitechnologies.com, the bigtime data repository open up. Facebook
> opens up, too.
>
> Then, after they've stolen whatever they're looking for with the Flash
> player, they all quickly close and only the 208.50.20.25 stays open on 20
> ports, one akaimaitechnologies I suspect is the actual video channel, 2
> yw-in-fxxx.1e100.net stay open. Then, it drops to 3 for the rest of the
> show.
>
> Here's what opened for one show:
<snip>
>
> I wonder what they're REALLY doing with all these connections to all
> these places??

Gee, Loser Larry is a conspiracy nutter as well ... noo real surprise there
then. :-\

Salgud

On 9/2/10 3:09 PM, Your Name wrote:
> "George Kerby"<ghost_topper@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:C8A53B0C.3C417%ghost_topper@hotmail.com...
>>
>> Get over it, Lar. Take that enema. You'll feel lighter.
>
> Unfortunately Loser Larry does that almost every day and posts the resulting
> mess here ... where else did you think such utter brainless garbage comes
> from? :-(
>
>
The morons replying to him?

SMS

On 9/5/2010 12:05 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article<4c83e54b$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On 9/5/2010 5:07 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
>>> In article<slrni85465.u88.ianji33@zenatode.org.uk>,
>>> Ian Gregory<ianji33@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> What it comes down
>>>> to is a race between hardware manufacturers producing mobile platforms
>>>> that are fast enough and energy efficient enough to mask the horrible
>>>> performance of Flash,
>>>
>>> This would take a while. Flash causes problems on the latest macBook Pro
>>> 13"
>>
>> Wow, that's terrible!
>>
>> You might want to consider a Dell Mini-10V netbook and install Snow
>> Leopard on it (you can dual boot Windows and Snow Leopard if you wish).
>> Flash works fine on it, and doesn't have problems like the ones you
>> claim that the MacBook Pro has (which I highly doubt).
>>
>> > and it will be a while before the mobile processors get that good.
>>
>> Fortunately they're already "that good."
>
> Only in the minds of those that want to believe. Virtually every review
> and comment from those that have actually seen it on mobile devices says
> just the opposite.

Nope. Read the reviews.

What I'm more worried about though is the claim that a Macbook Pro
cannot do Flash properly. That's something Apple needs to fix right away
if it's true, which of course it isn't.

Lloyd Parsons

In article <4c8524d6$0$1603$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On 9/5/2010 12:05 PM, Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> > In article<4c83e54b$0$1648$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> > SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 9/5/2010 5:07 AM, Walter Bushell wrote:
> >>> In article<slrni85465.u88.ianji33@zenatode.org.uk>,
> >>> Ian Gregory<ianji33@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> What it comes down
> >>>> to is a race between hardware manufacturers producing mobile platforms
> >>>> that are fast enough and energy efficient enough to mask the horrible
> >>>> performance of Flash,
> >>>
> >>> This would take a while. Flash causes problems on the latest macBook Pro
> >>> 13"
> >>
> >> Wow, that's terrible!
> >>
> >> You might want to consider a Dell Mini-10V netbook and install Snow
> >> Leopard on it (you can dual boot Windows and Snow Leopard if you wish).
> >> Flash works fine on it, and doesn't have problems like the ones you
> >> claim that the MacBook Pro has (which I highly doubt).
> >>
> >> > and it will be a while before the mobile processors get that good.
> >>
> >> Fortunately they're already "that good."
> >
> > Only in the minds of those that want to believe. Virtually every review
> > and comment from those that have actually seen it on mobile devices says
> > just the opposite.
>
> Nope. Read the reviews.
>
I've read a number of them. Very poor performance, crashes and lock
ups. I guess that could be stretched out to mean 'does well' for the
learning impaired.

> What I'm more worried about though is the claim that a Macbook Pro
> cannot do Flash properly. That's something Apple needs to fix right away
> if it's true, which of course it isn't.

I have difficulty believing a Macbook Pro can't do flash properly. Both
my older intel based mini and my newer iMac do just fine with it.

All except Hulu, which pretty much sucks on everything I've seen except
for the iPad.

--
Lloyd

Larry

SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in news:4c8524d6$0$1603
$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net:

> What I'm more worried about though is the claim that a Macbook Pro
> cannot do Flash properly. That's something Apple needs to fix right away
> if it's true, which of course it isn't.
>
>

Of course it isn't........

.....or is it?

Prinzip Gavrilo

In article <Xns9DEBA68F9C33Bnoonehomecom@74.209.131.13>,
Larry <noone@home.com> wrote:

> Of course it isn't........
>
> ....or is it?

We have a MacBook Pro, and it runs Flash just fine.
--
Next year in Sarajevo ...

Your Name

"Salgud" <spamboy6547@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:i639ll$6uv$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 9/3/10 12:30 AM, Your Name wrote:
> > most of them end up in politics and "big business" management!
>
> And the ones that can't make it in politics or big business come here
> and trade insults with trolls.

Wow! Two posts and neither of them any more useful than Loser Larry. :-\

JF Mezei

Prinzip Gavrilo wrote:

> We have a MacBook Pro, and it runs Flash just fine.

Not all flash is created equal. Some content requires far more CPU
horsepower than other content. It depends on how it is encoded, what its
bit rate is, image complexity etc etc.

When sound become unsynched with image, it is because of lack of CPU and
overly complex video stream. Such content would be fine if using another
player with same quality, or using lower quality on flash.

BreadWithSpam@fractious.net

nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> writes:
> Larry> <noone@home.com> wrote:
>
>> We COULD do that.....and put in a CHANGEABLE BATTERY so the customer
>> could DECIDE if he wants to swap it!
>
> customers already decided that. most never buy a second battery for
> their cellphones or laptops.

Moreover, there are downsides to building around a swappable
battery. It's not a freebie - the batteries themselves have
to have containers and contacts, etc. The device needs additional
structural support, plus the space for hinges/attachment points,
etc. Removing all that and doing nothing else probably adds at
least 50% more space for batteries, perhaps even twice as much.

So instead of swappable batteries that 99+% of folks never
actually swap out, we get either substantially smaller
devices or devices with substantially greater battery capacity -
advantages that consumers have made *very* clear that they do want.


--
Plain Bread alone for e-mail, thanks. The rest gets trashed.