iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 06:33 PM
We will take your depleted uranium, and use it in our reactors. :D
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
But the U.S. is using this material to coat their artillery shells, the better to penetrate the Bad Guy's tanks and fortifications. :rolleyes:
MacFly123
Mar 18, 01:46 PM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer designed it and the way your carrier supports it. (Is it unfair? YES! Are all of us iPhone users getting hosed, even though there's now two carriers? YES)
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
AMEN!
Do I think they are justified in classifying what data we use for what when we are on a plan that is supposed to be UNLIMITED? Not really! But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
Hopefully one day soon we will all just have 1 super fast LTE data plan that will tether to all of our devices and our cars at a reasonable price!
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
AMEN!
Do I think they are justified in classifying what data we use for what when we are on a plan that is supposed to be UNLIMITED? Not really! But that doesn't make it ok to be dishonest and steal things now does it?
Hopefully one day soon we will all just have 1 super fast LTE data plan that will tether to all of our devices and our cars at a reasonable price!
tf23
Sep 12, 08:07 PM
Will it support third party codecs?
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
Does it have an internal flash drive?
Will I be able to order Music, TV shows and Movies using it?
Do I need a separate computer to use it?
So far, I'm not impressed. How's it different than a media extender?
I would rather have seen a mac mini with core 2 duo, better graphics support, an internal 3.5" hard drive, and HDMI.
Outside codecs are doubtful. It'd support it in that if you convert the media that's encoded with the 3rd party codecs to something quicktime can handle.
Flash drive? *why* would that have any benefit. Too small. Very doubtful.
Ordering from it. Maybe. But then if you have 2 machines that it's pulling content from, which machine actually does the payment, downloading and storing of the file(s)?
A seperate computer? Seemingly, any OSX or Windows machine running iTunes will be what the 'iTV' pulls it's content from. So yes.
What's a 'media extender'?
I would love to know if those who are saying they'd rather have a Mac Mini, rather then an iTV (which would approx cost half what the Mini would) have ever used a Tivo or a ReplayTV. It's the interface that makes both of those what they are, the ease of use. It's what MythTV's always battled. Yes, you may be able to buy a Mini and morph it into an iTV, but at half the price, and having to spend the time dealing with it to make it all work, why bother? About the only justification for buying the Mini instead that I can see is if you don't already have a machine that can run iTunes.
crees!
Aug 29, 12:40 PM
I'm sure that if I cared about Greenpeace, I might care about this news. But honestly, I really could not care less about them. So I don't care.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
Not caring about the morons at GP, PETA, etc has nothing to do with the underlying issues. I care about eating a good hamburger, but McD's "can suck my left toe."
And this is how I feel too. Enviromental concerns.. sure lets deal with them.. Greenpeace.. go to hell. Might as well take the time to put the ACLU, Sharpton, & Jackson on my go to hell list too.
firestarter
Mar 14, 11:30 AM
"Japanese engineer Masashi Goto, who helped design the containment vessel for Fukushima's reactor core, says the design was not enough to withstand earthquakes or tsunamis and the plant's builders, Toshiba, knew this."
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
If you've got an hour 20 to kill, you can view Goto's entire press conference from today: http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/13320522
(He's also going to be doing an update, with another conference same time tomorrow).
His worry seems to center around the possibility of a hydrogen explosion inside of the containment vessel causing a wall breech. He also believes that the previous hydrogen explosion was due to gas escaping in an unplanned manner.
He's also concerned that the senior people making decisions may not be the correct/most knowledgable... which wouldn't be a surprise to student of Japanese corporations (or any corporation, to be fair).
firestarter
Mar 14, 06:51 PM
As someone already mentioned, mining uranium isn't "green". Dealing with radioactive waste isn't "green". Releasing heated water back into the environment isn't "green".
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Fission itself may not produce greenhouse gases, but calling nuclear power "green" seems like quite a stretch.
(I have to correct my quote (http://www.ecolo.org/media/articles/articles.in.english/love-indep-24-05-04.htm)... he described Nuclear as the only Green solution, not the only green choice - but the meaning is equivalent)
To answer you citizenzen:
1/ Perhaps you should take your complaint up with James Lovelock. I'm quoting him - I don't recall calling Nuclear energy 'Green'.
2/ Your English comprehension could be better. Calling Nuclear 'The only Green Solution' (or Choice) is NOT calling it Green. The opinion piece merely points out that hydrocarbon burning is LESS Green. See the difference?
Dr.Gargoyle
Sep 20, 09:47 AM
Since iTV most likely wont be a DVR device, I coughed up $700 today for a Sony DVR instead.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
I am sure Apple has a brilliant plan for the iTV, but I fail to see it.
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
Tobsterius
Apr 13, 07:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
The concerns expressed here have been echoed by many who have attended the Supermeet.
FCP needed an overhaul and it got it. No complaints there.
appleguy123
Apr 22, 11:07 PM
I think the definition is a bit tricky to nail down. I don't think that theists know that there is a God. They just believe that there is. I think my belief is just as strong as that. They may argue otherwise.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
I know my fair share of theists, and I think that they 'know' there is a god. They see him in everything and feel him in their every action. I don't think that assuming near 100% certainty is too much of an overstatement.
unlinked
Apr 9, 10:37 AM
SOOO??? Apple didn't fricken BUY Activision. They only hired a PR guy. Jeeez!! Read the article before posting such lame drivel.
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
Are PR people not supposed to stop everyone hating you?
strale
Mar 20, 07:00 PM
Music is too expensive, and the music industry doesn't do anything to fill the needs of the consumer - a aac file doesn't cost a penny to produce, unlike the CD, so why is a aac file so expensive? The music industry doesn't allow to sell mp3's - which is the format most likely to be accepted by the comsumer. At least Sony know now that mp3 is the future - their products now play mp3, unlike half a year ago. Mp3 is the most common format, my car radio plays it, my iPod (which harddrive crashed half a year ago) plays mp3, my laptop - everything, even our dvd player, plays mp3. Why in gods sake should I buy a aac file? It doesn't play on anything than the iPod ant my Powerbook. Every vendor has it's own format. I wouldn't buy a song in apples itunes music store. Sure, maybe apple would sell mp3 if the music industry would give them the rights to do so, maybe not, but who cares? I don't buy aac, I don't buy wma - mp3 is the past, and the future!
JackSYi
Jul 11, 11:41 PM
I like Appleinsider, and I believe that they are going to be right. But since this is all speculation at this point, anything can happen. Either way Mac users win.
Photics
Apr 9, 09:47 AM
You know how stereoscopic vision works, right?
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
I know how the 3DS works, but it was still fun to try. :D
Basically, the 3DS has an 800 x 240 display. It's using double the pixels to recreate the 3D effect, by creating the same image twice, but slightly adjusted to mimic three dimensions.
I think this is a horrible design choice, as the graphics looked blocky to me. I think Apple made the better decision. The extra resolution on the Retina Displays is used to make the graphics more crisp. I think it looks great! A sharper screen makes it more pleasant to use my iPhone, where the 3D effect made it more uncomfortable to use the 3DS.
Before you point out the mote in our eyes, remove the plank from your own.
If I had a plank in my eye, the 3D effect on the 3DS would be useless anyway. :p
Steve121178
Apr 28, 07:45 AM
Guessing 2012 see Apple shift up again? Redesigned MacBook Pro's, retina display iPad 3..
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
Doubtful. Windows 8 = large PC sales as people choose to upgrade etc
R.Perez
Apr 15, 02:49 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iWYqsaJk_U8
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
Well worth the watch. Im so glad they did this.
that made me tear up for sure. thanks for posting it. The Trevor project is a really great organization.
jsw
Nov 3, 07:12 AM
Then show me the data that backs up your claim that the average consumer is archeiving HD broadcast recordings on their iMac.
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.
I archive HD broadcast recordings on my Rev A mini Core Duo, both OTA ones via the Hybrid and ones via the FireWire connection on my cable box.
FWIW, it works just fine. I'd assume the main reason the average customer isn't doing this is a lack of an HD cable box or the lack of realization that a FW cable turns their Mac into a DVR.
There are numerous uses for 4,8,16,etc. cores... but HD recording doesn't even begin to stress the two in the mini.
Mord
Jul 12, 01:54 PM
I am very disappointed in you Hector , you of all people should know better then to post something like this. Do u not realise that the Intel deal ment apple dosen't have to do it's own R&D anymore when it came to chip sets.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
APPLE IS USING INTEL STOCK PARTS incase you didn't know , so mixing the MacPro with Conroe/Woody would not cost a dime more. they will use a basic P965 chipset for Conroe and 5000X Chipset for Woody.
any and ever motherboard has been designed with the chips lay out and logic requested by the vendor, in this case apple, the fact that they don't develop their own electronics changes nothing, freescale/IBM made the chipsets before the switch nothing has changed, apple outsourced the design of the board to intel sure but they are paying intel to do so somehow, anyway, the cost of support and manufacture rockets up too.
more i'm disappointed in you, i haven't seen you post in a year or so and your still the same childish n00b who completely misses the point.
the mac pro will be a pro machine, apple has never done a consumer tower and likely never will.
woodcrest is just conroe with SMP, overclocking is exactly the same, as in non existent due to EFI. professionals do not overclock their macs.
go play with your toys.
myamid
Sep 12, 07:09 PM
You are way off on serveral of your points -- iTV is widescreen to HD Complient Devices.
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
An enthusiast does not want to store DVD's -- they want drive based solutions with drive based backup. This is how all high end stuff is done. I work with a client that supports this kind of setup.
http://www.axonix.com/
I think you are misguided on this point.
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
crees!
Aug 29, 11:46 AM
Greenpeace can suck my left toe.
Multimedia
Jul 12, 04:51 PM
Yes Mulitmedia these are the same morons with too much money and too little sense , These are the same people who are saying ..ohhh why can't Conroe go into an iMac , but i want a Woodcrest , hey I don't care if Merom is Pin compatible can't they go with Conroe for it's better perfromance ..lol
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:pCareful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
What a bunch of whiny daddy's boys , no sense at all they just obey the all mighty Stevie Jobs when he lies about how the new MacPro is THE FASTEST PEECEE IN THE WORRRRLD:pCareful. You can get banned for calling anyone here a naughty name. They will go whining to the moderators and a moderator who might not like you in the first place will lock you out of the process. So I don't disrespect anyone in writing here any more. Everyone here is beautiful and fun to be with. :)
Rt&Dzine
Mar 14, 02:44 PM
What do you mean *if* we have a meltdown. Are you denying there has been a meltdown at all? I'll wager with you that there is not only just a meltdown, but actually *three* active meltdowns currently in progress right now. Even so, I'm not even sure where your confidence over the 'if' comes from, everything so far that we're seeing indicates that they are struggling to even keep the situation under control let alone stabilize it, so I believe it's more of a certainty than an if. I believe they are failing, if not already failed, and the situation is already out of their control so it's only a matter of time.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
Edit - my beilief is based on reading stuff like this (from the BBC) about the hitherto quiet reactor #2. While all the focus has been on the exploding #1 and #3, they've also been pumping seawater into #2 as well. So not only is that yet another wtf? moment, we also have a wtf? squared that the fire engine truck ran out of petrol to keep the pump going so the rods were exposed. So I hope you can understand what I mean about not having confidence that they are even abe to stay on top of the situation let alone control it.
Japanese officials are saying it's highly likely there is a partial meltdown occurring in three reactors.
AppleScruff1
Apr 29, 01:41 AM
Those days of "needing to run Windows" for work are behind us.
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
Not in many cases, but I'm glad it works for you.
lilo777
Apr 20, 08:56 PM
Why do they allow the files to be hidden?
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
Of course if you used Norton you wouldn't have this problem. :D:D:D
Why is it that hard to understand? Because every OS has files that users should not and could not touch. OS/X is not an exception to this rule. Showing these files to users in file manager generally makes user life more difficult. What's the point of seeing them if you can not do anything about them? Also, it reduces the chance of doing something stupid with these files accidentally (like removing).
Windows has an option to hide such files. OS/X does not.
