.svg.png "of world mapping and its")
berkleeboy210
Sep 5, 12:24 PM
Think Steve will still have a beard?
I predict, if he doesn't we'll see a fullscreen ipod, if he does we won't lol :D
I predict, if he doesn't we'll see a fullscreen ipod, if he does we won't lol :D
AppleScruff1
Apr 4, 11:41 AM
I've never seen a mall security guard carrying a gun.
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 09:45 AM
wait, now conroe is "widely expected" in the powermacs? I thought woodcrest was... I still think it will be:
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
mac pro - woodcrest
xserve - woodcrest
imac - conroe
macbook pro - merom
macbook - merom (but months later)
mini - merom (but months later)
We shall know soon! :)
Right except iMac.... it'll go to Merom which is a drop-in replacement for Yonah (Core Duo)
Although I agree that eventually Mac mini and MacBook will be Merom, I think it may be many months later..... I think the mini with the Core Solo might get upgraded to Core Duo tho' ... so that Apple can boast to be the _only_ major manufacturer to use dual-core across the whole product range!
Note that if I'm right (trust me!), then there's a gap.... no Apple box with a Conroe? I don't think so.... Apple will introduce a new system with support for a single Conroe. Hopefully it won't be the MacPro with a different mobo, but a completely new box (fingers crossed).
Oh.... the recently released educational iMac won't get Merom at first either... it'll get left behind so as to make the proper iMacs better value and worth splashing out for! :)
quigleybc
Sep 15, 05:50 PM
I think the iPhone is going to beat out G5 powerbooks for the most annoying front page rumor.
dukebound85
Apr 25, 01:01 AM
The simple fact is that I should not have to obey a 70mph speed limit if I don't want to. Why would I even bother driving a car that can hit 186mph (with the speed governor removed, with the governor top speed is 155mph) at 70 mph? A Ford Fiesta can hit those speeds, what's the point of fast cars if you're going to follow the speed limit in them?
Really?:rolleyes:
Seriously...I mean really???
You have NO business driving a vehicle with your state of mind
Really?:rolleyes:
Seriously...I mean really???
You have NO business driving a vehicle with your state of mind
Benjy91
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
Hilarious to all those people who jumped on the THUNDERBOLT bandwagon. No thunderbolt devices yet and they have the hideous old case design.
:rolleyes:
Yes because they forked out all that money for ONLY the Thunderbolt port for higher transfer speeds.
Not for a faster, better high-end machine. :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Yes because they forked out all that money for ONLY the Thunderbolt port for higher transfer speeds.
Not for a faster, better high-end machine. :rolleyes:
WisdomWolf
Apr 11, 09:21 PM
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
A NAS, Sonos and Popcorn Hour is all you need for your cd less, dvd less, blu ray less entertainment systems. But anyway, carry on bashing your heads against the Apple system.
That's why this key is so wonderful, because now you only need the NAS and an HTPC (like an Aspire Revo). One less device = happy people. Plus, with XBMC you get all the format support that the popcorn hour has, but a much nicer interface and a centralized database.
A NAS, Sonos and Popcorn Hour is all you need for your cd less, dvd less, blu ray less entertainment systems. But anyway, carry on bashing your heads against the Apple system.
That's why this key is so wonderful, because now you only need the NAS and an HTPC (like an Aspire Revo). One less device = happy people. Plus, with XBMC you get all the format support that the popcorn hour has, but a much nicer interface and a centralized database.
deputy_doofy
Aug 28, 03:28 PM
Come on Apple... open the doors. Let's not be too far behind, here...
I hope Apple is at least somewhat prepared for the demand... :)
I hope Apple is at least somewhat prepared for the demand... :)
3N16MA
Mar 30, 12:12 PM
What about "Burger Store" ?
Is anyone currently using the term Burger Store? Has anyone built a brand using the term Burger Store? Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
Is anyone currently using the term Burger Store? Has anyone built a brand using the term Burger Store? Does the general public think of a particular store when someone says Burger Store? I'm pretty sure people do not say "hey lets go to the Burger Store." The term Burger Store has no mindshare from what I know with the general public. No one uses it as a brand name.
gnasher729
May 1, 02:12 AM
I was wondering why so many people are so opposed to Apple offering Blu-Ray as a BTO option. I have read where Steve Jobs spoke negatively about Blu-Ray, I wonder if these same people would be all gung-ho for BR if Jobs had spoken positively about it? I realize that he is a very smart man, but he isn't God! I always thought that BR would have been a great thing to have on a Mac for things like backing up your iTunes library. Imagine that, being able to back up your entire iTunes library on two or three BR discs. That would have been really nice. I read somewhere the other day that they either have or are getting ready to have BR discs that have a 100GB capacity. What in the world would have been wrong with that?
Some people seem actively opposed, which is of course strange. My opinion: For backups, I wouldn't trust an optical drive. My iTunes library is backed up automatically as part of my Time Machine backup to an external drive, which is a lot lot faster than BluRay and I would trust it ten times more; it is fast because it is an incremental backup, and hard drives are faster anyway.
For playing BluRay disks, the content industry puts completely ridiculous demands on the OS and the hardware. Windows goes with these restrictions, Apple doesn't, Linux probably just can't. You need signed drivers, the OS only accepting signed drivers, and huge penalties if anything happened that allowed access to the unencrypted video stream.
Some people seem actively opposed, which is of course strange. My opinion: For backups, I wouldn't trust an optical drive. My iTunes library is backed up automatically as part of my Time Machine backup to an external drive, which is a lot lot faster than BluRay and I would trust it ten times more; it is fast because it is an incremental backup, and hard drives are faster anyway.
For playing BluRay disks, the content industry puts completely ridiculous demands on the OS and the hardware. Windows goes with these restrictions, Apple doesn't, Linux probably just can't. You need signed drivers, the OS only accepting signed drivers, and huge penalties if anything happened that allowed access to the unencrypted video stream.
shartypants
Apr 28, 04:16 PM
he he, time Microsoft took some Viagra in its old age ;)
fishcove
May 3, 10:25 AM
Who has room for two external displays on a desk that already has a 27" iMac?! Dual outs on the MBP would make much more sense, although achieving it may be more of a technical challenge in terms of GPU power.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
I'm thinking of a 3-monitor gaming/sim setup. No desk - think cockpit.
ghayenga
Nov 13, 02:41 PM
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
The "rules" *aren't* carefully spelled out.
simple
The "rules" *aren't* carefully spelled out.
TheSailerMan
Oct 12, 08:45 PM
I was wondering when this was going to happen. I'm glad it finally has, though the news has been a bit abrupt, especially for an Apple product.
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
As much as I like U2's music and how much I'd love to donate money to cure/treat AIDS, I won't be buying one of these.
I like the blue nano too much to buy a red one just because $10 goes to charity, plus... I've been told that red "isn't my color." Seriously.
This morning I was wearing a solid red t-shirt, kind of like the red that the nano is, and my mom told me to change my shirt. There's nothing wrong with the shirt, there's no profane graphics on it (actually, no graphics at all) and it wasn't wrinkled, she just told me that red "isn't my color" (even though she's the one that bought me the shirt)!
Hmmm.... does anyone think this will get Greenpeace off Apple's back?:D
Eh... probably not.:rolleyes:
Josias
Sep 10, 06:15 AM
It seems Apple could just wait for Clovertown...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/02/11/intel_clovertown/
which appears to be 2 Woodcrests on one processor. Could we see 8-Core Mac Pros' in 2007?
arn
Oh, Kentsfield will as Conroe maybe not support duel processors, thereby disabling the opportunity of 8 cores? I c...;)
swissmann
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
How about the whole incident being avoided by people being honest and working for what you want. In this case no robbery, no need for a guard, no guns, no death. Ideally we shouldn't need locks on our doors or guards in the first place (unrealistic I know).
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:00 PM
Off Apple's website that he pointed you to:
Playback time (30GB model)
World+map+continents+
Blank Map of Africa
Playback time (30GB model)
OS X Dude
May 3, 10:49 AM
The whole point of Thunderbolt is you can daisy-chain devices (up to 6 I think), so one port goes a long way.
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Besides the three-monitor doohickery on the 27", I struggle to see why 95% of people would need two ports often. But still, nice to have :)
Bomino
Apr 25, 02:45 AM
Because I actually care about my grandparents. They have done something genuine for me, they have cared for me, they have loved me, etc.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
this love you have for your grand parents is called conditional love. AKA the love of a spoiled brat. AKA fake love.
EDIT: you know, if your parents thought of you this way, there would be absolutely no incentive to even want to feed you.
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.
batitombo
Mar 22, 09:18 PM
Heh, and I just got a new MBP :/
ChazUK
Apr 19, 06:46 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (Linux; U; Android 2.3.3; en-gb; Nexus S Build/GRI40) AppleWebKit/533.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile Safari/533.1)
I wonder what will happen here. Form the "who's suing who" infrographics I've seen, Samsung remained pretty much untouched until now.
I wonder what will happen here. Form the "who's suing who" infrographics I've seen, Samsung remained pretty much untouched until now.
jettredmont
Sep 5, 03:10 PM
So, any bets on the new name for Airport Extreme?
My bets:
Airport Super K-Rad
Airport Gnarly Waves
Airport Excellent
Airport 3: Direct to Video!
My bets:
Airport Super K-Rad
Airport Gnarly Waves
Airport Excellent
Airport 3: Direct to Video!
Sensamic
Mar 23, 09:21 PM
Dont forget you'll need an SSD too inside the iMac to achieve the Thunderbolt speeds!!
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.
And it must be a very good and expensive SSD, with more than 700MB/s.
Thunderbolt not worth it right now because its TOO expensive. I'll wait 2 years, when SSDs are much MUCH more cheaper.