kresh
Oct 28, 07:23 PM
I don't think there are many out there who think all software should be free. I think these OSS advocates just want as much free stuff as possible, for many reasons.
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
People want OSS because it spurs innovation. Keep in mind that OS X is built on OSS, and that's one of the reasons it's more secure and more powerful than windows.
That's not to mention the fact that Apple has taken OS X from infancy to the mature OS that it is today at a record pace. This is, in no small part, due to the FREE code they're "stealing."
Apple doesn't sell operating systems for profit, they sell HARDWARE. These people over at OSx86 are trying to create a product that doesn't really exist: OS X on BIOS hardware.
That's just rationalization and obfuscation. Apple is not using anything outside of licensing stipulations. The GUI belongs to Apple. They are not giving OSx86 a license to Aqua thus it is theft.
That fact just can't be gotten around.
And to all those who seem to believe that Apple just has to open OSX up to run on any hardware or they will be doomed, you are ignoring history.
Apple wen't down the road of the clones and it damn near put them out of business. It would be sheer stupidity to go down that road again and expect a different result.
If Apple opens OSX to any hardware, just how will they compete? They could not compete against the cloners because they were smaller and could adapt new hardware alot more quickly.
Apple would quickly see their hardware sales dry up, those sales lost to the Dells, Acers, HP, and the whole litanany of bargin basement hardware assemblers.
If you really think Apple can't survive unless they open up OSX, explain how they would compete and win, don't just make a broad unsubstantiated demand that they open it up.
And who cares about marketshare anyway? 80% of the market is made up of almost zero margin hardware sales, how much of that does Apple really want.
/end rant
deannnnn
Apr 5, 06:49 PM
This app will be on the Top 25 list by tomorrow.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
nosen
Sep 25, 02:04 PM
Yes, a very good point. And it makes me wonder if Adobe will ever charge for it. In fact, now they have rebranded it Adobe "Photoshop" Darkroom, it leads me to believe it will be included as part of Photoshop and not as a seperate product. This might also be why they haven't released it yet, since the next version of Photoshop isn't finished. This strategy would undercut Apple since most photography professionals undoubtedly already own Photoshop and will upgrade.
Tough to say until its released. Taking the Adobe Bridge app by example--they give it to you with Photoshop, but I would still much rather go out and buy iView Media Pro, because Bridge sucks bad. So while you're probably right that there are some people willing to use a product because its free (and piggy-backed to a product you're going to buy anyway), there are still a lot of people out there that are willing to shell out a little extra dough for something that works better for them.
Tough to say until its released. Taking the Adobe Bridge app by example--they give it to you with Photoshop, but I would still much rather go out and buy iView Media Pro, because Bridge sucks bad. So while you're probably right that there are some people willing to use a product because its free (and piggy-backed to a product you're going to buy anyway), there are still a lot of people out there that are willing to shell out a little extra dough for something that works better for them.
janitorC7
Jan 15, 10:52 PM
Overall I liked it but there were some obvious things lacking.
I think that there are somethings that were cut out, because they were not ready, I think that time-capsule was supposed to be part of a greater home integration kit.
JC7
I think that there are somethings that were cut out, because they were not ready, I think that time-capsule was supposed to be part of a greater home integration kit.
JC7
AidenShaw
Nov 16, 10:37 PM
Let's be nice to the mundanes and stick to x86 instead of comparing vendor based virtualization technologies. :D
At one level, a 386 and a Core 2 are identical...
In spite of the mundanes, let's not pretend that a 386 and a Core 2 are actually identical.. ;)
At one level, a 386 and a Core 2 are identical...
In spite of the mundanes, let's not pretend that a 386 and a Core 2 are actually identical.. ;)
drlunanerd
Nov 27, 04:54 AM
They are doing a similar event in the UK on Friday 1st December - a 'one day only special sales event'
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
kurt.mac
Jan 15, 04:07 PM
Reactions -
Macbook air
Pros
- Smallest laptop yet
- touch pad
- lite
Cons
- EXTREMELY TO MUCH- 1200 more that any one expected
- 64GB to 80GB hard drive, thats what i partition my boot camp on, thats what my DOG eats for breakfast
- 1.6GHz... piss poor, your lucky to run word on that
- OPTIONAL super drive, what the hell is that, having to plug something the size of a macbook air onto it just to watch a dvd, WTF., optional.. ur i think that EVERYONE needs a superdrive, if not, say good bye to installing software
Overall, i think the macbook air is so over priced and doesnt give what everyone needs, power. I dont think i will buy something just because it look good, remember the old saying
" Dont judge a book by its cover"
i shall reword this to
" Dont judge a macbook by its cover"
Overall = 3 out of 10
Time Capsule
Pros
- Airport and external time machine hd all in one
Con
Overall= 8/10
Macbook air
Pros
- Smallest laptop yet
- touch pad
- lite
Cons
- EXTREMELY TO MUCH- 1200 more that any one expected
- 64GB to 80GB hard drive, thats what i partition my boot camp on, thats what my DOG eats for breakfast
- 1.6GHz... piss poor, your lucky to run word on that
- OPTIONAL super drive, what the hell is that, having to plug something the size of a macbook air onto it just to watch a dvd, WTF., optional.. ur i think that EVERYONE needs a superdrive, if not, say good bye to installing software
Overall, i think the macbook air is so over priced and doesnt give what everyone needs, power. I dont think i will buy something just because it look good, remember the old saying
" Dont judge a book by its cover"
i shall reword this to
" Dont judge a macbook by its cover"
Overall = 3 out of 10
Time Capsule
Pros
- Airport and external time machine hd all in one
Con
Overall= 8/10
gaseby
Aug 2, 02:58 PM
hi,
I have had a chance to browse through the reply (allthough parts of it was cencored):
- License agreement. Apple distinguish between license agreement for iTunes Jukebox and iTunes Music Store and they mean the government have been mixin this up
- License agreement. They will do som smaller adjustments (clarifications) around the issue of changes to the license agreement would have effect on previously purchased music, the intention was not to have any effect on previously purchased music
- License agreement. They will do changes so it will be clearer to the user when the license agreement has been changed
- DRM, usage of iTunes music files in other players than iPod. They do not give in on this, their argument is 1) it is playable on the PC 2) it may be burned on a CD and played on other CD players. They also blend into the argument that Norway has a fairly new law with respect to music download and copy/usage rights and the different plotical parties and politicians have said "this and that" which may support Apples case. I would assume that sooner or later there will be a court case in order to put more details on the law and its interpretation. This may be it (or not).
With respect to this having impact on other countries there are some arguments in the letter which quotes EU/E�S laws, however their DRM arguments is mainly reflecting their interpretation of Norwegian law.
I have had a chance to browse through the reply (allthough parts of it was cencored):
- License agreement. Apple distinguish between license agreement for iTunes Jukebox and iTunes Music Store and they mean the government have been mixin this up
- License agreement. They will do som smaller adjustments (clarifications) around the issue of changes to the license agreement would have effect on previously purchased music, the intention was not to have any effect on previously purchased music
- License agreement. They will do changes so it will be clearer to the user when the license agreement has been changed
- DRM, usage of iTunes music files in other players than iPod. They do not give in on this, their argument is 1) it is playable on the PC 2) it may be burned on a CD and played on other CD players. They also blend into the argument that Norway has a fairly new law with respect to music download and copy/usage rights and the different plotical parties and politicians have said "this and that" which may support Apples case. I would assume that sooner or later there will be a court case in order to put more details on the law and its interpretation. This may be it (or not).
With respect to this having impact on other countries there are some arguments in the letter which quotes EU/E�S laws, however their DRM arguments is mainly reflecting their interpretation of Norwegian law.
hob
Jan 9, 02:22 PM
I just PM'ed Arn
cambookpro
Apr 14, 08:11 AM
2x 2011 MBPs:
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/macbook_2011.jpg
And, while I've just spent �4k on computers, surely another �500 can't hurt?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31SjDpxVXSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Black 32GB with red smart cover :cool:
http://blogote.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/02/macbook_2011.jpg
And, while I've just spent �4k on computers, surely another �500 can't hurt?
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31SjDpxVXSL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
Black 32GB with red smart cover :cool:
kirky29
Apr 25, 12:24 PM
Looks nice actually.
iPhone 4S has a nice ring to it too.
iPhone 4S has a nice ring to it too.
Yvan256
Aug 1, 01:11 PM
"the songs can only be played on Apple's iPod"
I'm really tired of hearing this. First of all, people are not forced to buy from the iTMS, CDs still exist.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
I'm really tired of hearing this. First of all, people are not forced to buy from the iTMS, CDs still exist.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
63dot
Mar 4, 11:40 AM
When I talk to most people in my liberal town, they agree with me and say, "Those states are crazy and it's the state of today's republican party". That's what I think and what many posters are saying on these forums. It appears most of us, from what I gather, support unions.
So when I talk to my 28 year old son in law school, it becomes a different issue. He's a 3L in the thick of things seeing "both" sides of everything, without any moral consideration, and his conservative leanings tend to buy the myth that unions and "liberals" are anti-business. He can talk the liberal argument, because he may have to one day, but his conservative bias is hard to break. I wish him all the best, always, but God help us should he ever make the bench anywhere. ;)
Anytime I take a liberal point of view, he brings back the conservative argument, or platform, but then uses his great skills of persuasion to actually make his side sound correct. But come on, we are in the 21st century, and yes there were mafia thugs in the early union history, but to equate that "thuggishness" to today is trying to rewrite history. The unions are not that "Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito" movie but conservatives will want to push that ridiculous stereotype. His undergrad was history (from a liberal school, oddly enough) and mine was labor law/employment law (also ironically from a very conservative school) and if anything, he should know better. Neither of us were swayed by our professors and school leanings, but at least I try and take a middle ground where he won't. I try and see the good in both sides, but conservatives I talk to, whether it's him, or posters on Macrumors, are glacial in their ability to change. And political leanings, if gone unchecked, can wipe out a lot of great education, however expensive it was. "But I studied under so and so and they have Nobels!" and my school is tops he declares, where I answer back and say, "But they left your school to work for Clinton's administration". :)
The unions are now legitimate organizations and while not perfect, they are a pillar of our society which we can't live without (regardless of what 18th century politicians believed unions to be back in the day).
So when I talk to my 28 year old son in law school, it becomes a different issue. He's a 3L in the thick of things seeing "both" sides of everything, without any moral consideration, and his conservative leanings tend to buy the myth that unions and "liberals" are anti-business. He can talk the liberal argument, because he may have to one day, but his conservative bias is hard to break. I wish him all the best, always, but God help us should he ever make the bench anywhere. ;)
Anytime I take a liberal point of view, he brings back the conservative argument, or platform, but then uses his great skills of persuasion to actually make his side sound correct. But come on, we are in the 21st century, and yes there were mafia thugs in the early union history, but to equate that "thuggishness" to today is trying to rewrite history. The unions are not that "Jack Nicholson and Danny DeVito" movie but conservatives will want to push that ridiculous stereotype. His undergrad was history (from a liberal school, oddly enough) and mine was labor law/employment law (also ironically from a very conservative school) and if anything, he should know better. Neither of us were swayed by our professors and school leanings, but at least I try and take a middle ground where he won't. I try and see the good in both sides, but conservatives I talk to, whether it's him, or posters on Macrumors, are glacial in their ability to change. And political leanings, if gone unchecked, can wipe out a lot of great education, however expensive it was. "But I studied under so and so and they have Nobels!" and my school is tops he declares, where I answer back and say, "But they left your school to work for Clinton's administration". :)
The unions are now legitimate organizations and while not perfect, they are a pillar of our society which we can't live without (regardless of what 18th century politicians believed unions to be back in the day).
Scarlet Fever
Jan 13, 05:12 PM
so now if i need the widescreen ipod, but dont like the phone .. i dont have the choice .. either stand outside apple outlet and drool all day or go in and pay extra for the phone that comes with the ipod that i want.
but the point is that Apple's lineup isn't going to stay the way it is forever. Within a couple of weeks or months, Apple will announce the widescreen iPod. Now that they have shown what you can do with a touchscreen, I reckon we should expect OS X and a dully-touchable display on the iPod.
Just wait a little while; the 6th Gen iPod will be released :)
but the point is that Apple's lineup isn't going to stay the way it is forever. Within a couple of weeks or months, Apple will announce the widescreen iPod. Now that they have shown what you can do with a touchscreen, I reckon we should expect OS X and a dully-touchable display on the iPod.
Just wait a little while; the 6th Gen iPod will be released :)
Squonk
Oct 3, 01:48 PM
Software:
Am I the only one who thought the iTV interface looked less than polished?
My guess is that they are holding thier cards close on all things related to the iTV. :)
Am I the only one who thought the iTV interface looked less than polished?
My guess is that they are holding thier cards close on all things related to the iTV. :)
zephxiii
Dec 23, 08:57 AM
i usually just read these and do not post, but i decided to finally register and join the action. i know the arguement against lte in the iphone for vzw, but i say why wouldnt they? they like to be on the cutting edge dont they? as to the arguement on the original being edge not 3g, there was no 3g android when the original iphone came out now android has a significant share of the smartphone market and they are coming out with lte devices at ces for verizon. why would apple wnat to be so far behind android phones in terms of lte and 3g. i think that if apple were to launch a lte phone in june, then why not just launch it in february? what is the difference in a few months when people will be buying up lte android phones in droves after CES
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
Al Coholic
Apr 29, 01:20 PM
Does it come in "white"?
p0intblank
Sep 12, 08:17 AM
Very sweet! :D I love waking up to surprises like this. Notice Apple says the iTunes Store is being updated, rather than the iTunes Music Store? I know this is obvious, but I just thought I'd point it out.
Gah, I can't wait until 1:00 EST!
Gah, I can't wait until 1:00 EST!
NAG
Jan 13, 03:03 PM
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.
I can quote out of context too. But I won't, because I don't attack people who disagree with me.
Saying that Gizmodo's actions are going to hurt other online media is silly. It screams scapegoat. I know online media is trying to be taken seriously but viciously attacking each other instead of trying to come to a real solution doesn't help anyone.
I can quote out of context too. But I won't, because I don't attack people who disagree with me.
Saying that Gizmodo's actions are going to hurt other online media is silly. It screams scapegoat. I know online media is trying to be taken seriously but viciously attacking each other instead of trying to come to a real solution doesn't help anyone.
rtdgoldfish
Mar 26, 05:29 PM
Your thinking too much about the worst side of things. Aren't you grateful they didnt steal umm... $10000?
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
Well, they did steal over $1000 worth of stuff. Thats a big deal in my book when I only make $10,000 a year and that I'm in college. I know what you are saying but its still crappy for someone to even steal $100 worth of stuff from you.
PowerGamerX
Mar 24, 08:38 PM
Happy birthday OS X.
Although, OS X was never really that good until 10.3. 10.4 was pretty good too. Leopard and Snow Leopard are fantastic though.
Although, OS X was never really that good until 10.3. 10.4 was pretty good too. Leopard and Snow Leopard are fantastic though.
Stridder44
Oct 10, 08:22 PM
No guys it's coming out for reals this time. Just go down the isle with the MacBooks with C2D's in them. If you pass Duke Nukem Forever you've gone too far though.
rdowns
Apr 26, 09:04 AM
This guy was more than capable of defending himself...
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, don't post. Your act is wearing thin.
If you have nothing to add to the discussion, don't post. Your act is wearing thin.
No comments:
Post a Comment