Moyank24
May 3, 10:07 PM
ok, this is my proposal so we get going:
we temporarily split in two groups.
round1 turn 1:
a) appleguy (wilmer) and one or two more (ucf-rohn and aggie-rosius?) explore the start room
b) moyank (beatrice), me (Loras), plutonius (Jorah) and maybe another one (eldiablo-dante?) split and move to the door to the top right, as suggested by beatrice. hopefully no monster there on round one, but if so 3-4 people should be enough to deal with it
round1 turn2:
- group a) joins group b) in the same room
- group b) explores the second room for traps and treasure
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
we temporarily split in two groups.
round1 turn 1:
a) appleguy (wilmer) and one or two more (ucf-rohn and aggie-rosius?) explore the start room
b) moyank (beatrice), me (Loras), plutonius (Jorah) and maybe another one (eldiablo-dante?) split and move to the door to the top right, as suggested by beatrice. hopefully no monster there on round one, but if so 3-4 people should be enough to deal with it
round1 turn2:
- group a) joins group b) in the same room
- group b) explores the second room for traps and treasure
LagunaSol
Apr 7, 03:58 PM
Apple is anticompetitive and should be shut down. By producing products customers want when others in the industry can't, they are forcing the competition out of business.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
Thanks for the feedback, comrade.
All Apple did was created a premium brand. Technology was cheap and affordable in the MP3 market. You could pick up an MP3 player for under a $100 bucks until Apple came into the market with its $300 dollar iPod.
Bear in mind that the original iPod was the only one with the combination of capacity (5GB) and physical size (pocketable) that made it attractive to the general market. The Creative Nomad of the time looked like my old portable Sony CD player. :(
So it's not that Apple created a market for devices at a particular price point - they created the devices people wanted to buy. At the right price. There was nothing "premium" about the original iPod when you saw what you got for the money. The equivalent 2.5" hard drive of that capacity at the time was selling for as much as the iPod.
archipellago
Apr 26, 04:34 PM
That's a narrow and erroneous view. Are there some parallels? Sure. There are however some important differences.
First, market share is not anywhere near as important as revenue share. Apple is absolutely trouncing Google and everyone else in this area.
Second, developers are not making any money on Android, as it's user base appears to be comprised of spend-thrifts. It doesn't matter how many people you have using the platform, if developers can't sell applications that well then the lure isn't as strong. Combine that with the exceedingly frustrating fragmentation and inconsistent experience from device to device that makes the task of even writing an Android application that much harder, and it is less appealing still. Will that slow Android down? No, as there will always be customers for the Wal-Mart of mobile operating systems. It does, however limit them as any sort of real 'threat'.
Third, let us not forget that absolute whoring out of hardware at 2 or even 3 for 1 deals is a huge factor in this surge in usage. It's quite easy to inflate your numbers when you hand stuff out for free. Again, in reference to my previous point, they really aren't doing the platform any favors long term, as it will bring down the revenue curve.
Fourth, these numbers are for the US only. The worldwide picture is very different.
Why wouldn't he? iPod touch and iPad run the exact same mobile OS. Just because there is no real competition to either of these devices in the Android space, doesn't devalue their presence. Truthfully, I always take a skeptical stance on the motives of any 'report' on mobile OS usage which conveniently leaves these devices out. Smacks of fomenting, it does.
Yeah, cause that's been working out really well for them so far. Look, you can have your irrational "I hate Apple cause they are cool, and I rail against anything popular, cause I'M NOT A CONFORMIST!!!" BS all you want to. It doesn't change for one second the fact that Apple innovates, and everyone else imitates and tries to make all the money they can on the back of Apple's IP.
Personally, I'd say enjoy it while you can. Apple has been establishing precedent with its patent litigation against smaller targets. Now they are taking on a medium-sized one in Samsung, and once that victory is complete, Google will be the next to fall.
Look, I'm all for good old fashioned competition. But somebody besides Apple has to step up to the plate and actually create something. This whole me-too copycat crap is wearing thin.
I have no clue how to respond to this tripe.
The last time someone was this wrong, he was waving a piece of paper and calling it 'peace in our time'
First, market share is not anywhere near as important as revenue share. Apple is absolutely trouncing Google and everyone else in this area.
Second, developers are not making any money on Android, as it's user base appears to be comprised of spend-thrifts. It doesn't matter how many people you have using the platform, if developers can't sell applications that well then the lure isn't as strong. Combine that with the exceedingly frustrating fragmentation and inconsistent experience from device to device that makes the task of even writing an Android application that much harder, and it is less appealing still. Will that slow Android down? No, as there will always be customers for the Wal-Mart of mobile operating systems. It does, however limit them as any sort of real 'threat'.
Third, let us not forget that absolute whoring out of hardware at 2 or even 3 for 1 deals is a huge factor in this surge in usage. It's quite easy to inflate your numbers when you hand stuff out for free. Again, in reference to my previous point, they really aren't doing the platform any favors long term, as it will bring down the revenue curve.
Fourth, these numbers are for the US only. The worldwide picture is very different.
Why wouldn't he? iPod touch and iPad run the exact same mobile OS. Just because there is no real competition to either of these devices in the Android space, doesn't devalue their presence. Truthfully, I always take a skeptical stance on the motives of any 'report' on mobile OS usage which conveniently leaves these devices out. Smacks of fomenting, it does.
Yeah, cause that's been working out really well for them so far. Look, you can have your irrational "I hate Apple cause they are cool, and I rail against anything popular, cause I'M NOT A CONFORMIST!!!" BS all you want to. It doesn't change for one second the fact that Apple innovates, and everyone else imitates and tries to make all the money they can on the back of Apple's IP.
Personally, I'd say enjoy it while you can. Apple has been establishing precedent with its patent litigation against smaller targets. Now they are taking on a medium-sized one in Samsung, and once that victory is complete, Google will be the next to fall.
Look, I'm all for good old fashioned competition. But somebody besides Apple has to step up to the plate and actually create something. This whole me-too copycat crap is wearing thin.
I have no clue how to respond to this tripe.
The last time someone was this wrong, he was waving a piece of paper and calling it 'peace in our time'
itcheroni
Apr 15, 11:25 AM
...
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
World Cup 2011 final match
world cup cricket 2011 final
LAST MOMENTS CRICKET WORLD CUP
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
world cup cricket 2011 final
ICC Cricket WorldCup 2011 Live
world cup cricket 2011 final
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
rman726
Apr 20, 08:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
Considering Apple uses the same suppliers for the iPhone and iPad, and considering how they have shortages for every device they release due to massive demand, I just don't think that it is even possible for Apple to release both devices in the same time window.
Apple is also gunning for the iPad 3 to be released alongside it but I doubt it'll end UO that way.
Considering Apple uses the same suppliers for the iPhone and iPad, and considering how they have shortages for every device they release due to massive demand, I just don't think that it is even possible for Apple to release both devices in the same time window.
shelterpaw
Aug 7, 03:32 PM
I like it to show up ready to go.
Plus, I know for sure the apple chosen ram will be flawless...
This is a rev. A. ;)I wasn't trying to put a digg on you, you're machine is awesome, but not everyone can put down the amount of money you did and aftermarket helps. But you're super stoked nonethelss. :D
Plus, I know for sure the apple chosen ram will be flawless...
This is a rev. A. ;)I wasn't trying to put a digg on you, you're machine is awesome, but not everyone can put down the amount of money you did and aftermarket helps. But you're super stoked nonethelss. :D
airamerica
Sep 11, 11:05 AM
Consider this, the upcoming keynote is NOT given by SJ but by one of the other Apple senior team members - following his (Steve�s) below par performance last time out... Now this news would be bigger than anything else. I�d even suggest that if he shares any floor-time with anyone else things are not looking good!
BTW I hope I am very, very, wrong and we are all talking about amazing new products by this time tomorrow.
BTW I hope I am very, very, wrong and we are all talking about amazing new products by this time tomorrow.
applesith
Apr 26, 02:20 PM
Apple should have to keep working hard to keep customers. Stay innovative Steve and company!
Benjy91
Dec 9, 06:52 AM
Im hearing so many good things about Sophos, If this is their first offering to consumers, are they offering Sophos for home users on Windows?
Im using AVG 2011 Free Edition at the moment, and haven't had any problems with it, is it worth getting Sophos?
Im using AVG 2011 Free Edition at the moment, and haven't had any problems with it, is it worth getting Sophos?
AppleInLVX
May 7, 01:06 PM
Honestly, I am about to not renew. It's just not that useful. The only thing I would keep it for is the online idisk, and with dropbox or novadrive coming up with better and cheaper alternatives, I see no reason to continue to use it. However, if Apple makes it free, then they can use that as another feature of their products in general. They could sell the idisk storage, or give away 5 gigs or something, like drop box does.
Exactly how I feel about it. Google Docs does the same thing for free, and if you need extra storage, you can get four TIMES the storage for less annually than a mobileme subscription.
I'll keep it free. Otherwise come the renewal I'm gone.
Exactly how I feel about it. Google Docs does the same thing for free, and if you need extra storage, you can get four TIMES the storage for less annually than a mobileme subscription.
I'll keep it free. Otherwise come the renewal I'm gone.
Blinkwing
Nov 30, 02:33 AM
What's the sound quality like? I've noticed that a few people have complained about a buzzing sound.
EDIT: What car you've got plus any modifications relating to sound system (speakers, amps, etc) would help greatly.
EDIT: What car you've got plus any modifications relating to sound system (speakers, amps, etc) would help greatly.
LarryC
Mar 30, 05:40 AM
The data (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html) would say otherwise...
Number 41 is correct. Anyone who doubts that globalization is a lowering of American standard of living is a damned fool. The people who say otherwise do so because it hasn't hit them yet, but it will eventually. Some of you sound like you live in your parents basement and others sound like yuppie pricks. Just wait, it will happen to you, too!
Number 41 is correct. Anyone who doubts that globalization is a lowering of American standard of living is a damned fool. The people who say otherwise do so because it hasn't hit them yet, but it will eventually. Some of you sound like you live in your parents basement and others sound like yuppie pricks. Just wait, it will happen to you, too!
noservice2001
Aug 3, 11:06 PM
go apple! speed!
citizenzen
Apr 18, 06:46 PM
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
Yet you haven't convinced many here. Doesn't that indicate that perhaps you need to address it again, and perhaps find other ways to illustrate your point? It's not like I'm unwilling to be convinced. I just haven't heard a good reason to accept your argument.
Yet you haven't convinced many here. Doesn't that indicate that perhaps you need to address it again, and perhaps find other ways to illustrate your point? It's not like I'm unwilling to be convinced. I just haven't heard a good reason to accept your argument.
Tomorrow
May 6, 10:51 AM
BTW, no one really talks about 'megas', unless it's megabytes.
Or megaWatts. Look into large generators and data center infrastructure.
Or megaWatts. Look into large generators and data center infrastructure.
miketcool
Nov 22, 01:50 AM
Did Apple say the same thing when someone challenged their Newton?
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
bedifferent
Mar 31, 12:47 AM
Yes, it's the government's fault, together with corporate America. Easy ain't it, blaming politicians and greedy CEO's? How about taking a long hard look at your own (aka The Consumer) behavior?
A) Don't make ASSumptions. I don't shop at BestBuy, Walmart or Target. I patron my local stores, I vote with my dollar. If the facts upset you so much, perhaps you should point that finger of blame and judgment around (or better yet, stop vehemently judging people period).
B) I stated WE shot ourselves in the foot, and that WE vote with our dollars
I didn't read past your first two sentences as they wreak of pretension and you took no time in reading mine but rather wrote a lengthy paragraph about how well you know me and my political beliefs, cause, well, you certainly seem to believe you do (unless, of course, you're paying Ms Cleo for information, and that would be bad, cause, well, you're voting with your dollar to a corrupt and jailed CEO). Before you judge and assume, engage in civil discourse and respect.
This is beta/unfinished software. What the hell do you expect?
'MacPilot' is a mess of multiple functions that do not replicate native API's that are always enabled for use. Wow you have to click accept? Good. Why would you want the possibility of a bunch of random garbage sent to you without your consent?
Cool story bro, I was never talking about the actual UI elements.
Wow, the level of arrogance and lack of respect on MacRumors never ceases to amaze me. Every thread, and I mean every, turns into a free for all of personal attacks and insults. Interesting that I never once insulted or disrespected any one individual, yet two responses attempt to personally attack me. Do you know me? Why is this a personal matter for you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
A) Don't make ASSumptions. I don't shop at BestBuy, Walmart or Target. I patron my local stores, I vote with my dollar. If the facts upset you so much, perhaps you should point that finger of blame and judgment around (or better yet, stop vehemently judging people period).
B) I stated WE shot ourselves in the foot, and that WE vote with our dollars
I didn't read past your first two sentences as they wreak of pretension and you took no time in reading mine but rather wrote a lengthy paragraph about how well you know me and my political beliefs, cause, well, you certainly seem to believe you do (unless, of course, you're paying Ms Cleo for information, and that would be bad, cause, well, you're voting with your dollar to a corrupt and jailed CEO). Before you judge and assume, engage in civil discourse and respect.
This is beta/unfinished software. What the hell do you expect?
'MacPilot' is a mess of multiple functions that do not replicate native API's that are always enabled for use. Wow you have to click accept? Good. Why would you want the possibility of a bunch of random garbage sent to you without your consent?
Cool story bro, I was never talking about the actual UI elements.
Wow, the level of arrogance and lack of respect on MacRumors never ceases to amaze me. Every thread, and I mean every, turns into a free for all of personal attacks and insults. Interesting that I never once insulted or disrespected any one individual, yet two responses attempt to personally attack me. Do you know me? Why is this a personal matter for you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
i hate phones
Mar 29, 10:27 AM
so i just purchased an album through amazon and stored it in the cloud just to see what it was like... I got the this browser is not supported on my iphone when going to the cloud player, i clicked on continue anyway or whatever it was... and i was able to play my album on my iphone. the upload music files link is grayed out but i can still listen to the album. can't confirm playback of files that have been uploaded to the cloud but purchased from amazon and stored in cloud seems to work on iphone :)
Edit: I am using safari... I am also jailbroken so I don't know if there is any hidden difference?
Edit: I am using safari... I am also jailbroken so I don't know if there is any hidden difference?
cyberdogl2
Aug 11, 05:25 PM
I'm definitely holding out for Merom now since it seems like it's coming within the month. Customers Christmas shopping will compare laptops across all brands and if Apple isn't sporting a Merom they're gonna lose a lot of laptop sales. And I'm willing to wait since OS X 10.5 is even more 64-bit than 10.4 is, I'd be nice to have a 64-bit processor instead of a 32-bit processor running a 64-bit OS (yes i know 10.5 will run on 32-bit processors), although the overall benefits are up to discussion.
So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna buy the memory today (long story I have to spend within the week 200 dollars store credit at CompUSA) and put it in the Macbook when I get it, hopefully within the month.
I'm correct in assuming that Yonah and Merom takes the EXACT same type/speed of ram right?
So what I'm gonna do is I'm gonna buy the memory today (long story I have to spend within the week 200 dollars store credit at CompUSA) and put it in the Macbook when I get it, hopefully within the month.
I'm correct in assuming that Yonah and Merom takes the EXACT same type/speed of ram right?
Multimedia
Sep 16, 06:41 PM
Except that Apple has typically released only the 15 inch model before later introducing the 17 (and 12 when they existed) when they do major updates. Witness the introduction of the Al case and the Intel switch. Of course it matters whether this is a major update. If, like the iMacs, there is not a major case redesign and it is just a processor bump then expect them to be released simultaneously. But if there is a change in case, I would be surprised (pleasantly though) if the 17 came out at the same time.You need to brush up on your Mac history.
Original Aluminum PowerBook G4 was only 17" for 8 long months (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.0_17.html) introduced January 7, 2003 at MacWorld Expo SF by Steve Jobs. It ran at 1GHz and had two USB 1.1 ports. :p
The first 15" PM G4 in an Aluminum case running @ 1GHz & 1.25GHz (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.25_15.html) with two USB 2 ports didn't appear until Paris Apple Expo September 16 also introduced by Steve Jobs in his Paris keynote that morning. At that same time the 17" lost the USB 1.1 ports and went USB 2 also as well as to a top speed of 1.33GHz (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.33_17.html). Only 3 short years ago today. :eek: ;)
So there is no predictable introduction order. But this time it MUST be the whole line because of the C2D leap. ;)
Original Aluminum PowerBook G4 was only 17" for 8 long months (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.0_17.html) introduced January 7, 2003 at MacWorld Expo SF by Steve Jobs. It ran at 1GHz and had two USB 1.1 ports. :p
The first 15" PM G4 in an Aluminum case running @ 1GHz & 1.25GHz (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.25_15.html) with two USB 2 ports didn't appear until Paris Apple Expo September 16 also introduced by Steve Jobs in his Paris keynote that morning. At that same time the 17" lost the USB 1.1 ports and went USB 2 also as well as to a top speed of 1.33GHz (http://www.everymac.com/systems/apple/powerbook_g4/stats/powerbook_g4_1.33_17.html). Only 3 short years ago today. :eek: ;)
So there is no predictable introduction order. But this time it MUST be the whole line because of the C2D leap. ;)
teme
Jul 21, 02:53 PM
About MacBook... when Merom is released, Yonah's price will drop. This would help Apple to make a $999 MacBook with 2.0GHz Core Duo. The more expensive model could be a $1299 Macbook with 2.0GHz Core 2 Duo.
d4rkc4sm
May 6, 03:06 AM
this stupid rumor is stupid