WildPalms
Sep 5, 07:15 PM
Why isn't Mr. Incredible on that logo? Am I the only one who thinks he should be?
Who?
Who?
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 04:45 PM
Really, though $100 million isn't all that significant to a company with reserves like Apple has, vs. having a possible patent infringement hanging over them that could, given a ruling against them, cost much more.
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
Maybe not, but why do I think Apple could have bought the entire company for that kind of dough?
dime21
Apr 20, 08:12 AM
So, you're against personal responsibility then?
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
Silentwave
Jul 16, 04:09 AM
I got do a firmware upgrade and get on that X2 sales action. I just hope it will be fairly priced like the non X2's.
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Hrm...I don't trust cnet: looking at their comparisons I was struck by the XPS 700 with the X6800 being so much faster than the intel board testbed for the X6800. Then I saw what was going on....they skewed the results by using only half the RAM in the X6800.
Of course considering how it performed despite this, i'm very glad we're using intel core :D
Opps forgot to post the cnet review. http://reviews.cnet.com/Dell_XPS_700_Intel_Core_2_Extreme_X6800/4505-3118_7-31972975.html?tag=cnetfd.sd
Hrm...I don't trust cnet: looking at their comparisons I was struck by the XPS 700 with the X6800 being so much faster than the intel board testbed for the X6800. Then I saw what was going on....they skewed the results by using only half the RAM in the X6800.
Of course considering how it performed despite this, i'm very glad we're using intel core :D
IntelliUser
Apr 11, 07:30 AM
Why can't we finally all switch to metric?!
Why not to imperial?
Why not to imperial?
HecubusPro
Sep 5, 03:03 PM
I'm really hoping for merom in mbp's and mb's. The wait has been killing me.
Same here. I really want a new C2D MBP, but since all of this info about the iMac, movie store, nano, etc. has been taking the spotlight, the C2D laptop information has come to a near stop.
Will we now be forced to wait longer than September. I still doubt it, but the quiet on this front the past week has been alarming to me.
Same here. I really want a new C2D MBP, but since all of this info about the iMac, movie store, nano, etc. has been taking the spotlight, the C2D laptop information has come to a near stop.
Will we now be forced to wait longer than September. I still doubt it, but the quiet on this front the past week has been alarming to me.
extraextra
Oct 12, 01:35 PM
That looks nice. If it doesn't have Bono's name/signature/U2-something on it, I might have to buy it!
MattyMac
Oct 12, 05:07 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
Mitch1984
Sep 14, 04:14 PM
There is no way in hell that they will introduce laptops at this event.
Period.
Hmm didn't Apple release the 17" MacBook Pro at NAB earlier this year. :rolleyes:
Period.
Hmm didn't Apple release the 17" MacBook Pro at NAB earlier this year. :rolleyes:
iRobertM
Apr 22, 04:04 PM
Its already there and even smaller - and called iPhone...:rolleyes:
Right becuase the iPhone is a full laptop running OSX :rolleyes:
Right becuase the iPhone is a full laptop running OSX :rolleyes:
truz
Aug 28, 09:49 PM
Will an Apple Retail store upgrade your cpu? What's the cost to have this done without a warranty void?
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
Also,
The Intel Core 2 Duo E6600 Conroe 1066MHz will work in an imac intel? newegg sells them for $369
Core 2 Duo Extreme runs at 2.93GHz
bagelche
Nov 14, 10:23 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
That's a shame, Mike, because RA's mac-based apps are fantastic. I use them all the time at the small community radio station I volunteer at. I admittedly have not tried their iphone app.
Like you, I am also not a developer, just an end user. And as an end user, Apple's mishandled control of the gatekeeper role is incredibly frustrating. As an end user, if a program I'm using has a bug that can impinge on my ability to use it, I like to have a responsive system that fixes that bug. A responsive developer is important, but so is a responsive gatekeeper, if that role exists. Apple has repeatedly shown themselves to be a failure point in a system of their own devising.
To a certain extent the issue isn't even if RA's use of these images was in violation of the SDK (though, of course that is a big issue), but, again as an end user, how is the system that's in place functioning to resolve the issues that matter to the common customer of the developer and Apple? Unfortunately there are very visible breakdowns in the process and I want to see those treated as serious bugs and fixed accordingly.
That's a shame, Mike, because RA's mac-based apps are fantastic. I use them all the time at the small community radio station I volunteer at. I admittedly have not tried their iphone app.
Like you, I am also not a developer, just an end user. And as an end user, Apple's mishandled control of the gatekeeper role is incredibly frustrating. As an end user, if a program I'm using has a bug that can impinge on my ability to use it, I like to have a responsive system that fixes that bug. A responsive developer is important, but so is a responsive gatekeeper, if that role exists. Apple has repeatedly shown themselves to be a failure point in a system of their own devising.
To a certain extent the issue isn't even if RA's use of these images was in violation of the SDK (though, of course that is a big issue), but, again as an end user, how is the system that's in place functioning to resolve the issues that matter to the common customer of the developer and Apple? Unfortunately there are very visible breakdowns in the process and I want to see those treated as serious bugs and fixed accordingly.
kurtsayin
Oct 12, 11:14 PM
It makes me so happy to know that there are still plenty of stupid people in the world.
Thank you
LOL me too! What is so stupid about solving the problem with total success following my logic? Just because people are not going to follow my advice, does not mean that is somehow sophomoric.
Thank you
LOL me too! What is so stupid about solving the problem with total success following my logic? Just because people are not going to follow my advice, does not mean that is somehow sophomoric.
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:48 AM
Software will also have to keep up and unless your software becomes massively multithreaded and what you're doing can actually be multi threaded there's no real advantage to multi-core CPUs.
This is already a problem with Quicktime in that it doesn't scale past 2 cores. You'll find half of your computer under utilised for instance when transcoding video in Quicktime.Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
This is already a problem with Quicktime in that it doesn't scale past 2 cores. You'll find half of your computer under utilised for instance when transcoding video in Quicktime.Not if you transcode multiple files simultaneously - which is what I do with multiple instances of Toast 7 and Handbrake..
Plus that will probably be fixed in QuickTime 8 which is likely to come with Leopard.
p0intblank
Sep 26, 08:16 AM
Six months isn't a long time, so I guess I could wait until then. It'd be better if it supported Verizon from the start, though. :(
Mac Fly (film)
Sep 16, 01:20 PM
I'm soooo over the iPhone idea. I'm sort of hoping Apple comes out with iTelegraph or iMorse Code. RETRO IS VERY IN RIGHT NOW!
Retro is always in, it's never out. That's why it's retro. Like it or not, the iPhone is coming, and I think it will be here in by the end of Novenber, cause Apple wont go from now until the end of the year without another consumer based event. They're on a roll right now, and they wont let Christmas pass by without releasing that thing.
Retro is always in, it's never out. That's why it's retro. Like it or not, the iPhone is coming, and I think it will be here in by the end of Novenber, cause Apple wont go from now until the end of the year without another consumer based event. They're on a roll right now, and they wont let Christmas pass by without releasing that thing.
MacFever
Mar 23, 08:14 PM
would be nice to see.....macbook air refresh with sandybridge and thunderbolt. :D:D
dejo
Nov 13, 02:42 PM
Obviously the images are copyrighted by Apple, and those images they don't want people using.
It's just not that cut-and-dried. Apple even provided an API to access these images under Mac OS X. So, seems they do want people using them.
It's just not that cut-and-dried. Apple even provided an API to access these images under Mac OS X. So, seems they do want people using them.
shigzeo
Apr 19, 07:58 PM
Apples sales volume is staggering, as is their income. These are clear facts that are growing weekly.
With that in mind, the fact that Apple insists on fostering negative energy, launching a law suit, and showing their pro war position to the world, is very revealing of who they are.
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
Please come to Korea. Samsung have been doing this illegally for years, often suing the small person to popperdom. No big corporation is good, but when you attach massive corps under the umbrella of a conglomerate, you combine all of that evil into one massive black hole.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
With that in mind, the fact that Apple insists on fostering negative energy, launching a law suit, and showing their pro war position to the world, is very revealing of who they are.
Unable to be a good corporate citizen, unable to satisfy their greed as they rake in more profits than the competition, Apples looking rather desperate. Nothing will ever be enough.
Please come to Korea. Samsung have been doing this illegally for years, often suing the small person to popperdom. No big corporation is good, but when you attach massive corps under the umbrella of a conglomerate, you combine all of that evil into one massive black hole.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
asphalt-proof
Sep 5, 01:10 PM
All I know is, I will be buying whatever it is they have for sale.
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
Ugg
Sep 19, 06:23 PM
You do know that all this talk of Wal-Mart only applies to the US? They mean nothing out in the rest of the world, which is where Apple is taking this service.
Wal-Mart of big, but they are not that big.
Apple can still make a lot of money with Disney for the moment, they have the hearts of minds of children everywhere and parents are inclined sometimes to do things for their children, including downloading movies.
Then there is art house movies and independent movie companies which probably never see the light of day in a Wal-Mart store. There is to much going on that could be stopped by Wal-Mart.
Sucks to be them but they are not exactly the nicest company around.
Have you heard of ASDA in the UK? They're also big in Canada and huge in Mexico. walmart's impact on global shopping habits is much greater than what happens in the USA. Its vendors, in this case the movie studios will be influenced by its largest customer, no matter what country they want to sell in. Also, if you'll remember, the mishmash of laws regulating music sales in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU meant that it took forever for Apple to work out a deal.
Since I could mostly care less about American movies and prefer to rent as opposed to buying, I doubt the iTMoS will get much business from me now. But just as Apple encouraged the independent labels to sell via iTMS, I'm sure the independent studios will also be selling there too. They will be the true benefactors of online sales. Netflix is very picky about what movies it stocks due to the bricks and mortar expense associated with their business. For Apple to stock a movie costs them virtually nothing. I can't wait until I can get access to movies from around the world instead of just insipid Hollywood crap.
Wal-Mart of big, but they are not that big.
Apple can still make a lot of money with Disney for the moment, they have the hearts of minds of children everywhere and parents are inclined sometimes to do things for their children, including downloading movies.
Then there is art house movies and independent movie companies which probably never see the light of day in a Wal-Mart store. There is to much going on that could be stopped by Wal-Mart.
Sucks to be them but they are not exactly the nicest company around.
Have you heard of ASDA in the UK? They're also big in Canada and huge in Mexico. walmart's impact on global shopping habits is much greater than what happens in the USA. Its vendors, in this case the movie studios will be influenced by its largest customer, no matter what country they want to sell in. Also, if you'll remember, the mishmash of laws regulating music sales in the UK, Canada, Australia, Japan and the EU meant that it took forever for Apple to work out a deal.
Since I could mostly care less about American movies and prefer to rent as opposed to buying, I doubt the iTMoS will get much business from me now. But just as Apple encouraged the independent labels to sell via iTMS, I'm sure the independent studios will also be selling there too. They will be the true benefactors of online sales. Netflix is very picky about what movies it stocks due to the bricks and mortar expense associated with their business. For Apple to stock a movie costs them virtually nothing. I can't wait until I can get access to movies from around the world instead of just insipid Hollywood crap.
tfskora
Apr 20, 11:31 AM
Sweet! Now I can stop checking in with yelp, facebook, and 4square.
I'm in the who cares crowd. Many have posted that everything you do on a computer is being tracked.
Just go hide in a cave with no technology, no one will find you. Look at Bin Laden.
I'm in the who cares crowd. Many have posted that everything you do on a computer is being tracked.
Just go hide in a cave with no technology, no one will find you. Look at Bin Laden.
AppleHater
Apr 20, 12:43 AM
Please come to Korea. Samsung have been doing this illegally for years, often suing the small person to popperdom. No big corporation is good, but when you attach massive corps under the umbrella of a conglomerate, you combine all of that evil into one massive black hole.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
You're making some impressive allegation. Quite a conspiracy theory that is. Speaking of your buying up Apple comment, Samsung being able to buy Canada sounds pretty amusing and cute as well.
At least Apple try to get to the bottom of suicides and deaths at their factories; at least they have only one core business to protect ruthlessly. Samsung (indeed, the biggest copycat I've seen) are huge pirates (selling fake DVD's/CD's in their grocery stores; rebadging Mercedes, Nissan, etc., cars for their own line; buying out large portions of most newspapers here). Apple's rise to the top has been fettered with bad, but not outright illegal bad to the extent Samsung's has.
Now we have bad planting a peck on evil.
You're making some impressive allegation. Quite a conspiracy theory that is. Speaking of your buying up Apple comment, Samsung being able to buy Canada sounds pretty amusing and cute as well.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.