seedster2
Apr 16, 08:21 PM
You have to admit this thread is really funny.
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
It's something I observed as well. It's an entertaining phenomenon
How many times have we heard Apple lovers say it's not all about "specs" and the general public are not interested in "specs" and rubbish others when they say how much better spec their PC might be.
And yet, now that Apple has the high specs, all of a sudden THIS IS the most important thing.
No average consumer is ever going to notice the difference between USB3 and Thunderbolt, in fact USB3 will be better for the general user experience as it's backwards compatible.
But now, sod the typical consumer, the only thing that matters now is specs.
Oh, you have to laugh don't you :D
It is par for course.
Just like we didn't need quad core cause it was too hot for no benefit. Or we didn't need 3G in the 2007 iPhone cause WiFi was good enough. Or that we don't need LTE cause HSDPA+ is fast enough.
;)
It's something I observed as well. It's an entertaining phenomenon
iGary
Sep 9, 05:34 PM
Why does it say "MacCentral" when MacWorld did the benchmarks? :confused:
andys53
Apr 20, 11:18 AM
Depends on the cipher really. Not all ciphers can be decrypted with even the latest of the latest hardware, especially if you lack the private key. And a court order can force you all you want to give up that private key, but they can't force you to remember it or not lose it. ;)
"I don't remember" or "I lost the private key to my encrypted backup, but here's the AES-256 encrypted file guys, have a go at it" are perfectly good answers.
Over in the UK not remembering passwords can sometimes land you in prison. Just remove the incriminating files frequently and regularly.
"I don't remember" or "I lost the private key to my encrypted backup, but here's the AES-256 encrypted file guys, have a go at it" are perfectly good answers.
Over in the UK not remembering passwords can sometimes land you in prison. Just remove the incriminating files frequently and regularly.
JAT
Mar 23, 04:38 PM
Miles you make a great point... You also confirm that Apple better pull them, its a pointless app because if your so drunk then you can't operate a phone let alone an app.
The legal limit is not so high that you have to actually be wasted to measure at illegal. I could see these being quite popular apps.
Here in Sweden, the Police says that their goal is to increase safety, not catch people. I'd rather have a drunk driver stay at home because of an app warning of a checkpoint than get in the car and get caught.
So, people get drunk at home, then drive? I would've thought most driving drunk were out and are returning home.
I don't think cops here even do this. I take it a checkpoint stops all cars? I've never seen that in my decades in MN. We have frequent notices (last one was on 3/17) on our highway info signs that say "Increased DUI patrol" or similar, no actual checkpoints.
Oh, and, this sounds like something Apple will agree to pull. I can't even decide which side I'm on. As I said, not relevant in MN, and not relevant to me personally, not too into alcohol.
The legal limit is not so high that you have to actually be wasted to measure at illegal. I could see these being quite popular apps.
Here in Sweden, the Police says that their goal is to increase safety, not catch people. I'd rather have a drunk driver stay at home because of an app warning of a checkpoint than get in the car and get caught.
So, people get drunk at home, then drive? I would've thought most driving drunk were out and are returning home.
I don't think cops here even do this. I take it a checkpoint stops all cars? I've never seen that in my decades in MN. We have frequent notices (last one was on 3/17) on our highway info signs that say "Increased DUI patrol" or similar, no actual checkpoints.
Oh, and, this sounds like something Apple will agree to pull. I can't even decide which side I'm on. As I said, not relevant in MN, and not relevant to me personally, not too into alcohol.
LagunaSol
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
You do understand that 2008 minus 2001 plus development time is more than 1 or 2, right? That's 7, maybe 9 years of losses.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
adnoh
Apr 30, 01:27 PM
wooo! finally!
ezekielrage_99
Sep 9, 10:19 AM
Faster processor, double the RAM, cheaper AND 21-37% better game performance:
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
I think more than anything the facts that they are cheaper and faster the previous models are more impressive than anything else and with tempt a lot of people to join the "dark side" of Mac.
New 17" C2D is 37% faster in UT 2004 than old 17" CD.
New 17" C2D is 21% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
New 20" C2D is 37.5% faster in UT 2004 than old 20" CD.
and I don't even play UT 2004 ;).
I think more than anything the facts that they are cheaper and faster the previous models are more impressive than anything else and with tempt a lot of people to join the "dark side" of Mac.
cube
Mar 30, 01:21 PM
Apple popularized the term "App" instead of "Application" (ugh!).
How come they don't have a trademark on the word "App"? (That would solve the problem.)
How come they don't have a trademark on the word "App"? (That would solve the problem.)
TallManNY
Mar 23, 05:38 PM
Personally I find it hard to believe that so drunk as to warrant avoiding a checkpoint will be collected enough to use the app effectively in the first place.
You don't realize how strict drunk driving laws are. After three beers you can certainly operate a phone and think to check an app. You could also, easily, blow a BAC high enough to have your license suspended. In New York, driving while ability impaired is only 0.05 and three strong beers and you could easily be over that. If the checkpoint is pulling over and testing everyone, you could still get busted.
You don't realize how strict drunk driving laws are. After three beers you can certainly operate a phone and think to check an app. You could also, easily, blow a BAC high enough to have your license suspended. In New York, driving while ability impaired is only 0.05 and three strong beers and you could easily be over that. If the checkpoint is pulling over and testing everyone, you could still get busted.
cwt1nospam
Mar 18, 06:32 PM
In any case, it's clear to me there are some really delusional people on these forums. Instead engaging in an utterly pointless argument with a bunch of stubborn fanboys that couldn't be convinced USB3 was a good thing unless Steve personally e-mailed them, I'll just leave you to your false sense of security and just smirk the day you find your identity stolen, especially those that feel the need to insult other people (2 cents comments, etc.) based on their own ignorance.
Talk about ignorance! :eek:
USB3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus) is slow and puts too much overhead on the system. Wake up and join the twenty-first century, where the future belongs to Lightpeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)).
Talk about ignorance! :eek:
USB3 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Serial_Bus) is slow and puts too much overhead on the system. Wake up and join the twenty-first century, where the future belongs to Lightpeak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thunderbolt_(interface)).
KYPackrat
Apr 4, 12:32 PM
As others have mentioned, the security guard (again, most likely an off-duty cop or a cop who has retired early) would not have been deliberately attempting for a headshot, unless the head was the only thing sticking up from cover.
I shoot IDPA. It's not real life shooting, but a lot of the rules are designed to simulate real life as close as any competition could do. In the heat of an adrenaline rush, it is very easy to aim the gun for the chest and hit the head. For most people, that's a less than 5% change in gun angle, which for most pistols is less than 1/2" up. That is, he was aiming for the chest, and let the tip of his barrel rise less than 1/2" higher than it should go. Maybe Horatio Caine can stand with bullets flying and kill 5 people with 5 shots, but that's not real life.
I don't know the facts, but here's a reasonable supposition:
* Mall guard sees multiple people with weapons in hand. In most states, the guard is now in a position where he can use deadly force to repel an attack. If the guard sees guns (again in some states), he is allowed to draw first, because they are the initiators of the lethal threat.
* Criminals decide that they don't want a witness, don't want to be detained, etc. One or more draw their weapons. The guard is now in honest fear of his life, and may respond as needed to end their threat.
* The guard shoots at them, until they retreat.
I shoot IDPA. It's not real life shooting, but a lot of the rules are designed to simulate real life as close as any competition could do. In the heat of an adrenaline rush, it is very easy to aim the gun for the chest and hit the head. For most people, that's a less than 5% change in gun angle, which for most pistols is less than 1/2" up. That is, he was aiming for the chest, and let the tip of his barrel rise less than 1/2" higher than it should go. Maybe Horatio Caine can stand with bullets flying and kill 5 people with 5 shots, but that's not real life.
I don't know the facts, but here's a reasonable supposition:
* Mall guard sees multiple people with weapons in hand. In most states, the guard is now in a position where he can use deadly force to repel an attack. If the guard sees guns (again in some states), he is allowed to draw first, because they are the initiators of the lethal threat.
* Criminals decide that they don't want a witness, don't want to be detained, etc. One or more draw their weapons. The guard is now in honest fear of his life, and may respond as needed to end their threat.
* The guard shoots at them, until they retreat.
CQd44
Apr 30, 06:10 PM
I don't see why people here are saying USB3 won't go anywhere. Portable hard drives are already using it =\
SFStateStudent
Mar 30, 11:50 AM
I'm thinkin' Apple should have gone with "iApp Store" (u heard it here FIRST! Let me get a trademark/patent on that) b/c Microsoft is just a big ole' COPYCAT...lol :D
Cinch
Sep 5, 12:56 PM
attempts to unify the TV and the computer have been done for the last 15 years or so without success. I give Apple a less then 10% success. Even if they succeed, the definition of success here is greatly compromise to a point of failure.
Cinch
Cinch
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 11, 02:27 AM
I can only imagine Steve Jobs hunched over his desk like in 'Pirates of Silicon Valley" and screaming "YOUR STEALING FROM ME!!!!" lol.
Otherwise awesome news.
Otherwise awesome news.
aristotle
Nov 13, 09:08 PM
To be fair, that's quite possibly a limitation imposed on them by navteq/teleatlas.
That is irrelevant. It is still someone's IP and Google is bound by law to honour their license agreement with that other company. It is also possible that Apple could be bound by an agreement for their system icons. Not likely but it is possible. I know that icon factory created a lot of the XP and Vista icons for MSFT.
I have no problem with people using fair use for justifying their own personal use but publishing apps on the app store whether for free or for profit crosses that line where fair use cannot be used as an argument. These apps are not a commentary or piece of journalism but rather a product offered to promote a commercial product called Airfoil which is available for the mac and windows.
Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?
That is irrelevant. It is still someone's IP and Google is bound by law to honour their license agreement with that other company. It is also possible that Apple could be bound by an agreement for their system icons. Not likely but it is possible. I know that icon factory created a lot of the XP and Vista icons for MSFT.
I have no problem with people using fair use for justifying their own personal use but publishing apps on the app store whether for free or for profit crosses that line where fair use cannot be used as an argument. These apps are not a commentary or piece of journalism but rather a product offered to promote a commercial product called Airfoil which is available for the mac and windows.
Are you trying to tell us that you promote ripping off icons from other people? Is it only ok if they are stealing from other companies? What if someone has a custom icon set installed? Did they creator of that icon set consent to this iPhone/iPod Touch app having access to those icons?
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
BlizzardBomb
Aug 31, 02:59 PM
Thats true but... but....
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
Valid point. We'll just have to wait for the day then. :) ;)
When was the last time Apple released 7 new hardware products on the same day?
The iPod shuffle has one earbud sticking out of it's grave; so six, maybe....
Valid point. We'll just have to wait for the day then. :) ;)
purell16
Sep 5, 03:33 PM
Isnt it pretty reasonable to assume that this will really just be iPod related/iTunes movie store related because macrumors did not get an invite but iLounge did. ABC News is even talking about the news iPods and Movie store. This thread has really gone crazy with people talking about the airport express and such. It has been a year since the iPod nano has been updated so we can be CERTAIN that their will be new nanos.
benthewraith
Oct 27, 09:46 AM
To quote the provocative and renowned philosopher Eric Cartman,
�No, I hate hippies! All they do is talk about the environment and then they drive cars that get bad gas milage!�
:p
I lost all respect for that character when he fed Scott Tenorman's parents to him in chili.
�No, I hate hippies! All they do is talk about the environment and then they drive cars that get bad gas milage!�
:p
I lost all respect for that character when he fed Scott Tenorman's parents to him in chili.
bjdku
Sep 13, 08:57 PM
This is stated so matter of fact. There is no ? in the title. How certain is arn? He always uses ?
seenew
Jul 15, 04:24 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?
deannnnn
Mar 29, 11:13 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone 3GS: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
lol. good one.
lol. good one.
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 02:55 AM
To some extent, sure.
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
55 miles to the gallon isn't even abnormal, a lot of standard hatchbacks/small family cars do that and more.
The big difference is that in the UK you can get cars which do 55 miles per US gallon, one that does that - the �17,345 1.6 Econetic Ford Focus does nearly 62 miles per US gallon.
And that car is made by a US company.
55 miles to the gallon isn't even abnormal, a lot of standard hatchbacks/small family cars do that and more.