Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:44 AM
quad core macbook pro anyone ?Probably not for two more years. :( It's not even mentioned in any of the published Intel roadmaps yet.
chrono1081
Mar 23, 04:57 PM
No one likes drunk drivers. No one. Period. That being said, Apple should not pull the App. Speed trap apps will be next (Trapster)... Keep the app store open to everything thats legal. This is no different than a friend calling you telling you to avoid a check point. Neither is illegal.
+1 I highly doubt anyone who is drunk is going to dig out their phone to look where the traps are.
+1 I highly doubt anyone who is drunk is going to dig out their phone to look where the traps are.
.jpg "justin bieber girlfriend")
jonhaxor
Mar 30, 12:48 PM
App market?
Program Store?
Program Market?
App Hub?
App Universe?
App Base?
Tool Shed?
Imagination?
Hello?
crapp store
What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.
It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.
no .. I go to the crapp shed after I visit the burger store :p
Program Store?
Program Market?
App Hub?
App Universe?
App Base?
Tool Shed?
Imagination?
Hello?
crapp store
What is the App Store? It is a store where you buy apps, an app store.
It's not a "shed where you buy apps", for example.
no .. I go to the crapp shed after I visit the burger store :p
revfife
Sep 12, 03:03 PM
My only problem is there doesn't seem to be an education discount right now on the new iPods. Just 249 and 349. :confused:
jeff1977
Mar 29, 02:24 PM
Just FYI...
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Thanks for clarifying that for me! I don't like doing things that I'm not sure about. As I said, my being unsure stemmed from windows that would sometimes come up in older versions of Photoshop, when closing, that mentioned clipboard sizes being too large. Or something along those lines. Again, thanks.
File size wouldn't affect performance at all, as long as you're copying between locations on the same drive. The "file" that you see in the GUI is actually a link to a location on disk where your data is; all the OS has to move is the link, which is very tiny.
Thanks for clarifying that for me! I don't like doing things that I'm not sure about. As I said, my being unsure stemmed from windows that would sometimes come up in older versions of Photoshop, when closing, that mentioned clipboard sizes being too large. Or something along those lines. Again, thanks.
rotobadger
Mar 30, 12:05 PM
What about "Burger Store" ?
BurgStore
BurgStore
thejadedmonkey
Sep 5, 04:21 PM
I think the notion that Apple is trying to get is like this senerio:
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
Seeing that I just got Batman Begins for $5 from Blockbuster, I think $4.99 to rent it a bit extreme.
Somebody who is bored on a Friday night with nothing better to do, who does not feel like driving out to the local video rental store. Howabout being able to download it on your computer for $4.99 for a 5 day rental.
Seeing that I just got Batman Begins for $5 from Blockbuster, I think $4.99 to rent it a bit extreme.
CalBoy
Apr 25, 01:54 AM
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Fast Shadow
Apr 25, 04:00 PM
I really can't say enough good things about my new MBP 17. If next year brings a redesign then it will need to be one hell of an improvement to get me to switch, because this thing has impressed me so much more than I expected.
Blue Fox
Apr 22, 06:39 PM
Its a little sad though, about the SB IGP :(
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
Why? The Intel Integrated 3000 graphics outperform the current Nividia GeForce 320M's found in the current MacBook Airs and outgoing pre-gen MacBook Pro's. So why is an improvement sad?
mdntcallr
Oct 27, 01:17 PM
well, i believe in saving the environment. but they ought to stick to the space plan for the convention.
Dont go PETA route. be nice, but get the message across
Dont go PETA route. be nice, but get the message across
fowler.
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
DUI checkpoints are basically "anything illegal" checkpoints these days. They check for insurance, suspended licenses, etc. This information should be available to anyone, in any form, as long as the law says it's legal.
wordoflife
Apr 4, 12:34 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
aafuss1
Sep 4, 07:12 PM
Same imac with more disk space, faster processor, 23'' screen, better wireless, maybe a second disk drive, and the same price as the old 20 Incher.
Happens every 8 to 12 months, more offten now with Intel.:cool:
No next gen DVD in the 23" yet, I guess.
Happens every 8 to 12 months, more offten now with Intel.:cool:
No next gen DVD in the 23" yet, I guess.
evilgEEk
Sep 19, 03:05 PM
I just feel like there are many more people like me that will prefer to have physical movie versus a "digital" counterpart. Songs just seem more petty and i feel more comfortable downloading them, but movies... meh.
I remember a lot of people saying that about music when iTMS first came out. ;)
As good as this news is its not likely to appear outside the US for a LONG time... heck we still dont get TV shows!
Honestly I think movies will come to other countries before TV Shows do. Movies are more universal than TV Shows are, each country has their own TV Shows but everyone wants to watch Lord of the Rings.
I remember a lot of people saying that about music when iTMS first came out. ;)
As good as this news is its not likely to appear outside the US for a LONG time... heck we still dont get TV shows!
Honestly I think movies will come to other countries before TV Shows do. Movies are more universal than TV Shows are, each country has their own TV Shows but everyone wants to watch Lord of the Rings.
Frisco
Oct 12, 12:53 PM
So it's a red nano?
n/m had to fish the links. :)
http://www.t3.co.uk/__data/assets/image/413249/redipod_250.jpg
(not as illustrated)
These look like white iPods viewed through 3-D Glasses.
n/m had to fish the links. :)
http://www.t3.co.uk/__data/assets/image/413249/redipod_250.jpg
(not as illustrated)
These look like white iPods viewed through 3-D Glasses.
freeny
Aug 28, 12:46 PM
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?
I think my new rule will be to automatically place anyone using that line on my ignore list.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
I think my new rule will be to automatically place anyone using that line on my ignore list.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
WiiDSmoker
Apr 30, 05:22 PM
Okay --
1) Next year you'll be able to buy a 5TB drive for about $200 bucks. (You can get a 2TB drive today for $120 at your local office supply store.) You should start backing up those outdated Blu-ray disks now.
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
Put 1 and 2 together, and Blu-ray is looking like it's heading for "end-of-life" status pretty fast.
I'm sorry if I offended any Blu-ray fans, but I gotta say, the writing is on the wall.
Lemme know how that works out for you when your internet provider are capping everyone and going this route means you won't own any of the content that you buy.
Please show me where I can stream a movie in 1080P w/ HD audio. It does not exist.
1) Next year you'll be able to buy a 5TB drive for about $200 bucks. (You can get a 2TB drive today for $120 at your local office supply store.) You should start backing up those outdated Blu-ray disks now.
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
Put 1 and 2 together, and Blu-ray is looking like it's heading for "end-of-life" status pretty fast.
I'm sorry if I offended any Blu-ray fans, but I gotta say, the writing is on the wall.
Lemme know how that works out for you when your internet provider are capping everyone and going this route means you won't own any of the content that you buy.
Please show me where I can stream a movie in 1080P w/ HD audio. It does not exist.
Blue Velvet
Apr 11, 01:20 PM
I use metric feet.
So does a centipede. :o
So does a centipede. :o
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.
stagi
Nov 16, 08:38 AM
Yes, but only for Apple, because they own the infrastructure. We still haven't heard of a company that can really make a living with software for the iPhone/iPod Touch platform. So far, it's all just hype and even though there are hundreds of thousands of apps distributed through the AppStore, the only winner at this point in time is Apple.
I have actually heard of lots of companies making very good money since the app store has been released, plenty of small devs that the app store has changed their lives as well as big companies making millions already.
I actually think RA should have worked a little harder with apple to address their frustrations instead of just leaving the app store to make a statement and in the end are only hurting themselves.
I have actually heard of lots of companies making very good money since the app store has been released, plenty of small devs that the app store has changed their lives as well as big companies making millions already.
I actually think RA should have worked a little harder with apple to address their frustrations instead of just leaving the app store to make a statement and in the end are only hurting themselves.
emaja
Apr 22, 01:32 PM
Streaming will never be as good as audio stored on your device. Not. Ever.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
Not on 3G, not on 4G, and not even over WiFi. The software and streaming protocols are way too slow to offer even comparable performance.
While I do prefer local storage as well, streaming over WiFi for the AppleTV works wonderfully. Streaming over WiFi is fine. Streaming over 3/4G is spotty due to coverage gaps and such.
Peterkro
Apr 17, 04:59 AM
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
The bottom 80% of the U.S. population own 8.9% of stocks,that means those who you refer to as middle class own around 7% (incidentally because of the bizarre use of the social term middle class in the U.S. it hides the obvious fact the entire 80% are actually economically best described as workers).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/193014-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-stock-market
The bottom 80% of the U.S. population own 8.9% of stocks,that means those who you refer to as middle class own around 7% (incidentally because of the bizarre use of the social term middle class in the U.S. it hides the obvious fact the entire 80% are actually economically best described as workers).
http://seekingalpha.com/article/193014-the-haves-and-have-nots-of-the-stock-market
AaronEdwards
Apr 20, 01:57 PM
*Shrug* It is probably a feature enabled on the majority of GSM carriers for statistical purposes. Again, I don't see the problem. If this information is used to improve my network coverage, why should I care? If I'm not part of a secret terrorist cell, I don't see how my life is being negatively impacted by this information especially if it does not have any identifiable information attached to it.
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
Totally agree, if Apple turns every iPhone into a listening device, what's the problem if it ends up improving noise cancelling? And by a strange coincidence, I'm not part of a terrorist cell either.
Has there been any actual information about this information being used for improving network coverage? As far I as I know, Apple has still not said one word about this. And why is it not encrypted?
Apparently this feature is not enabled on Verizon phones.
Totally agree, if Apple turns every iPhone into a listening device, what's the problem if it ends up improving noise cancelling? And by a strange coincidence, I'm not part of a terrorist cell either.
Has there been any actual information about this information being used for improving network coverage? As far I as I know, Apple has still not said one word about this. And why is it not encrypted?