freebooter
Oct 27, 11:34 AM
ridiculous
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
cult hero
May 3, 03:07 PM
"Apple OSX" and "3rd party device drivers" defines a place that is not a "happy place"
No. No it's not.
No. No it's not.
emaja
Apr 22, 01:32 PM
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
hondaboy945
Sep 15, 07:00 PM
Most current phones have 64 MB of memory. According to actviity monitor, simple widgets like Gas, and Sol take between 6.2 - 8 MB of memory, where the more gui type of widgets take 20 - 32 MB of memory. Put that load on a typical phone with a OS and apps like iChat, iTunes, etc... It won't fly unless you can cram 1 GB into iPhone.
If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.
If the iPhone is half of the product that the iPod is, it should have a decent harddrive. I think that this would allow for whatever software, songs, movies,or whatever you want. Just take 2 gigsof the drive and partition it off for the OS. But, I could be wrong.
Al Coholic
Apr 14, 12:59 PM
Might want to do a little research:
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Uh... who cares? You missed my point.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Uh... who cares? You missed my point.
The "world" isn't going to support ThunderPants as Intel now embraces USB3. You're left with basically only Apple to beat the TB drum.
Hence, TB dies or at best fades away slowly. It will never sweep the land aka "firewire" style.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 11:51 AM
If you read the linked article you will see that the guard exchanged gunfire with the 2 male suspects. It's not excessive to try to save your own life...
It still must feel bad knowing you killed someone. I mean the intention was likely to wound to remove the threat rather than kill. Even if all was justified, the guard will likely need counseling or time to get over it. If he actually enjoyed it then he's in the wrong line of work.
It still must feel bad knowing you killed someone. I mean the intention was likely to wound to remove the threat rather than kill. Even if all was justified, the guard will likely need counseling or time to get over it. If he actually enjoyed it then he's in the wrong line of work.
AppleDroid
Apr 14, 12:34 PM
I think my next computer will be an Ivy Bridge MBA with Thunderbolt. My 2007 Macbook is getting a bit long in tooth.
Sounds like me as well! My 2009 15in MBP is still doing fine but I would love an ultra-portable that has the option for a fast external solution.
Sounds like me as well! My 2009 15in MBP is still doing fine but I would love an ultra-portable that has the option for a fast external solution.
Goldfinger
Sep 26, 01:06 PM
I hope for Apple that they're going to sell it unlocked. I would probably buy one (if it turns out to be any good) but locked phones are illegal here.
ghostlines
Mar 23, 04:29 PM
Pull these apps? That's a little drastic if you can use the app to avoid DUI checks you're quite good enough to drive I "think". Or they could give the developers the option to just take out that feature and leave the rest.
Anaemik
Apr 19, 06:58 AM
According to the Yahoo news article, Apple was Samsung's second-largest client in 2010 after Sony Corp and was responsible for $142 billion (4%) of Samsung's revenues last year.
So Yahoo would have us believe that Samsung's revenues last year were in the region of $3.5 TRILLION???? LOL
Tell me they were responsible for 4% of a $142B total ($5.7B) and I'd have a much easier time believing it.
edit: Ahh, seems like I was just beaten to it.
So Yahoo would have us believe that Samsung's revenues last year were in the region of $3.5 TRILLION???? LOL
Tell me they were responsible for 4% of a $142B total ($5.7B) and I'd have a much easier time believing it.
edit: Ahh, seems like I was just beaten to it.
Eidorian
May 3, 12:27 PM
If the monitors cannot daisy chain, you need a hub for the port(s) to which you connect multiple such displays.Thanks, I was just curious.
ctachme
Jul 14, 09:20 AM
The Core 2 Duo and Core 2 Extreme are widely expected to make their Mac debut in Apple's PowerMac computers which are rumored to be released on August 7th 2006 at the World Wide Developers Conference.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
I want my MacBook Pro Core 2!!!.
mduser63
Sep 5, 03:14 PM
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I really hope this is what they're thinking, because it describes my reasons for wanting an iTunes Movie Store. I don't buy movies much, because I generally don't watch movies more than once. I like to rent movies, but I find it annoying to have to leave, drive to Blockbuster, look through the shelves, often to find that they are out of the movie I wanted to watch. Being able to fire up iTunes, search or browse for a movie, and immediately download it for viewing would be great. I don't care about buying movies, only rentals. Blockbuster already charges around $4 or something, so I hope Apple can at least match that price if not beat it.
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
I really hope this is what they're thinking, because it describes my reasons for wanting an iTunes Movie Store. I don't buy movies much, because I generally don't watch movies more than once. I like to rent movies, but I find it annoying to have to leave, drive to Blockbuster, look through the shelves, often to find that they are out of the movie I wanted to watch. Being able to fire up iTunes, search or browse for a movie, and immediately download it for viewing would be great. I don't care about buying movies, only rentals. Blockbuster already charges around $4 or something, so I hope Apple can at least match that price if not beat it.
iMacZealot
Sep 18, 12:04 AM
There are ways of unlocking CDMA phones and using them on other networks.
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Digital Skunk
Apr 22, 12:21 PM
Now there's 100GB BDXL. There's plenty of time for Blu-Ray to keep on living on notebooks.
True, but I doubt Apple will put them in their machines and/or peripherals. I'd love to keep a third offsite backup of my information with BDXL, and I can with 3rd party hardware.
I think one of the biggest things holding me back though is the price of the discs.
I hope they bring back the backlit keyboard.
Same here! 100% same here!
I have been holding back on buying a 13" Air for the backlit keyboard and Thunderbolt.
If I get both it'll be a definite buy. If I get just TB, then I may just consider the MBP.
True, but I doubt Apple will put them in their machines and/or peripherals. I'd love to keep a third offsite backup of my information with BDXL, and I can with 3rd party hardware.
I think one of the biggest things holding me back though is the price of the discs.
I hope they bring back the backlit keyboard.
Same here! 100% same here!
I have been holding back on buying a 13" Air for the backlit keyboard and Thunderbolt.
If I get both it'll be a definite buy. If I get just TB, then I may just consider the MBP.
smazany
Jul 14, 11:52 AM
I just bought a Macbook, what does this news mean to me? How much more powerful is Conroe compared to my own Core Duo? Can anyone direct me to some benchmarks of Conroe that are being put against the Core Duo?
shanmugam
Apr 30, 02:00 PM
Weren't they just updated in October? Yes it may be closer, but not for a while yet considering the last update was over a year. :rolleyes:
the sandy bridget turbo boost will give good CPU performance upgrade from current MBA
but with lower GPU performance
mostly more battery life also, so it is due for refresh as well, MBA is currently selling well, so will receive a nice upgrade cycle compared to the old MBAs cycles (one year minimum)
the sandy bridget turbo boost will give good CPU performance upgrade from current MBA
but with lower GPU performance
mostly more battery life also, so it is due for refresh as well, MBA is currently selling well, so will receive a nice upgrade cycle compared to the old MBAs cycles (one year minimum)
OatmealRocks
Apr 16, 11:29 PM
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
I stop reading everything you said after this statement. You are clueless dude. Go back to school or finish school or jsut stop typing.
I stop reading everything you said after this statement. You are clueless dude. Go back to school or finish school or jsut stop typing.
aafuss1
Aug 31, 10:30 PM
Different regions, different distributors and laws.
Examples:
Lost-7 in Australia
Invader ZIM-Nickelodeon UK, in the UK, Nickelodeon Australia (XYZ Networks/Nickelodeon Australia own it here)
Examples:
Lost-7 in Australia
Invader ZIM-Nickelodeon UK, in the UK, Nickelodeon Australia (XYZ Networks/Nickelodeon Australia own it here)
ctdonath
Mar 23, 09:08 AM
it's quite gimmicky to only talk about interface transfer rates when the real performance is dependent on the hard drives.
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
Well, the discussion is about interface - point being that Thunderbolt-enabled devices will be available soon (days vs. years per the snide remark). Indeed, if the drives aren't fast enough to keep up then yes the bottleneck will be the drives - so the bottleneck won't be the interface, and the bottleneck won't be lack of anything to plug into the Mac's Thunderbolt port.
Funny how people will ignore the overarching real win to pick at a minor theoretical fail. There WILL be a bottleneck somewhere in the processor/memory/local-storage/interface/buffer/external-storage data chain short of perfect balance; I'm glad you're satisfied you'll always have something to point at and go "Ha-ha!". Twit.
ETA: Two 500GB 7200RPM RAID 0 drives should be pretty fast. Quick check on a random such drive and kicking around some numbers gives around 2GB/s sustained. Fine, you win, we can transfer that HD movie in 2.5 minutes instead of 30 seconds ... unless, say, we daisy-chain 5 of these LaCie drives together to saturate the pipeline. You have an application where this matters?
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Half Glass
Sep 14, 10:09 AM
Co-branding is a better idea because yes, unless they make a camera that would take Canon or Nikon lenses on their own it would be a failure as a pro tool.
--HG
--HG
bigandy
Oct 27, 10:27 AM
and nobody noticed this?
The group had purchased a small both with contract terms to only hand out leaflets within their assigned area and to not take photographs at other stands.
booth! not both! :rolleyes:
The group had purchased a small both with contract terms to only hand out leaflets within their assigned area and to not take photographs at other stands.
booth! not both! :rolleyes:
bjdku
Aug 31, 01:49 PM
I was thinking how they would be able to deliver movies of large sizes, and it seems to me if that they are going with full resolution feature length films, they will have to use BitTorrent, Quantum Streaming, or some other unknown method. If they do this right, this will be more innovating than iTunes/iPod legal music download. But will the customers buy.....
