h00ligan
Apr 20, 10:52 AM
Thanks for actually updating it and replying to me. That's refreshing.
No prob. Sorry I wasn't more verbose at first. I actually edited it fast (on my iPhone lol) but it took a min.
No prob. Sorry I wasn't more verbose at first. I actually edited it fast (on my iPhone lol) but it took a min.
Stridder44
Apr 25, 01:30 PM
I can't wait. I liked the materials and certain aspects of the current generation, but overall it never really did it for me. I'm excited to see what they'll do next.
striker33
Apr 25, 02:12 PM
Dont understand the hate for the UB looks, mine looks seamless with the sexy AG silver border. I can understand the hate towards the fugly mirror screens though.
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.
pyroza
Apr 25, 06:19 PM
Getting rid of the optical drive would be stupid. No way to burn CDs (yes, I buy CDs because I like supporting artists and I like higher quality music) and no way to watch DVDs (no DVD player or TV here in my dorm room).
twoodcc
Sep 11, 09:53 PM
Yes, the year when it can be proven that Macs are the same as the Dells and eMachines and Gateways and all the other systems from people who also glue Intel chips to a motherboard. :D
come on, you know that's going a little too far with that one. just b/c it's got an intel processor in it doesn't mean it's the same as everybody else
come on, you know that's going a little too far with that one. just b/c it's got an intel processor in it doesn't mean it's the same as everybody else
ChazUK
Apr 19, 11:36 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
I say again Laguna, are you really liable to get these two pieces of hardware (manufacturing branding and all) confused?
I simply can't see it, especially with the huge size discrepancy.
Eidorian
Sep 9, 02:52 PM
Seems like the application developers could add a link to such a feature in their code so the user could just assign core volume in each application prefs that would tell the system what amount to assign to that process. Maybe even have the system do that automatically to all applicaiton preferences so the choice appears in all general preference panes of each application.I don't know if it's up to Apple or the program developers to allow CPU/core assignment.
Could you get on an IM? I'd like to talk about the Guide we were talking about.
Could you get on an IM? I'd like to talk about the Guide we were talking about.
daneoni
Mar 22, 01:26 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Late 2011/early 2012 last i heard
Late 2011/early 2012 last i heard
.jpg "|prince william of wales")
Jovian9
Aug 23, 07:21 PM
What I find most interesting is that fact the Creative is joining the Made for iPod program and will be producing its own iPod accessories.
Definitely interesting......now I'll just have to remember to never buy Creative products :) I like Apple not Creative........so why support a company I do not like that sued a company I do like and got $100 million in a lawsuit over a BS patent.
Definitely interesting......now I'll just have to remember to never buy Creative products :) I like Apple not Creative........so why support a company I do not like that sued a company I do like and got $100 million in a lawsuit over a BS patent.
w00master
Sep 5, 04:40 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
I think this is totally feasible, but one question that many of you haven't addressed is: "Do you see this interaction and interface happening for the Windows users?"
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via a front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
I think this is totally feasible, but one question that many of you haven't addressed is: "Do you see this interaction and interface happening for the Windows users?"
I know we're all Apple fans here, but in order for the iTunes Movie Store to be successful, it will have to include "them."
w00master
.jpg "young prince william and")
dp351
Oct 27, 04:32 PM
I'm glad they were ejected. Green Peace is a joke anyway. Very few poeple take them seriously. The envitonmentalist movement is a joke as well. Nothing but a collection of displaced communists.
bshort
Sep 14, 10:00 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
ergle2
Sep 10, 01:41 AM
Please explain - I have no idea what "that" is....
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
---
Regardless of the tool, however, it is usually much better to let the OS dynamically schedule threads across the cores. Unless the programmer has some reason to try to control this, the alternative is some resources (CPUs) being overcommitted, while other CPUs are idle.
It doesn't matter who has the better tools - it's usually better to let the OS decide microsecond by microsecond how best to schedule the CPUs, than to have the developer make those decisions at edit time.
I've used the SetProcessAffinityMask APIs fairly often, but it's always been for specific test or benchmark situations. I have a hard time thinking of a situation where a general application would want to statically control the scheduler - it's just "bad think" to even try. (Except for those weird-a$$ NUMA Opterons - you can be really scr3wed if you have to go through HyperTransport to get to memory. I check NUMA topology, and use affinity to keep the AMD architecture from killing me.)
I've owned SMP machines in the past and often found it more useful to force CPU affinity of CPU-heavy tasks to a single processor, as Windows 2000 (which was current at the time) by default had a habit of swapping it between chips, resulting in a lot of cache-dirtying. I think it was the load balancing code, but it's been a while now and I don't have those machines handy currently. However, you could see some significant improvement in processing time on some non-parallelizable cpu-bound tasks.
I've no idea if MacOS does this, but at least in the case of Core 2 it shouldn't matter anywhere near as much, as the L2 is fully shared.
cube
Apr 24, 06:50 AM
My flat mate has one of those new Fusion based Netbooks. Seems pretty good. Could see the next gen of them in an Air. Considering getting one myself when I find one not made by Acer.
There are already AMD Fusion laptops from many vendors.
There are already AMD Fusion laptops from many vendors.
patsfan83
Mar 30, 12:06 PM
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/app
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
How long has Apple been using .app as an extension for applications?
278891
I think this is enough to show that Microsoft is unequivocally correct. The term has been in use for much longer than Apple's launching of the store and it has been ubiquitous in the computer industry for a long time.
The way to distinguish (if it needs to be done) between app stores is by saying the name of the app store before hand, ie the Apple App Store, the Amazon App Store, or the Microsoft App Store.
How long has Apple been using .app as an extension for applications?
revfife
Sep 12, 02:35 PM
lol!
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
And so the cries of disappointment begin...
Thats the best part of these forums is watching the buildup until it reaches some ungodly device that is not probable or even possible and then sheer disappointment when Apple announces a decent upgrade to a great product. :rolleyes:
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:10 PM
laaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaame
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
YES, another buddy who feel the same.............................
although...secretly I'm happy, because I don't want to see my 5G be outdated so quick...I just bought it!
YES, another buddy who feel the same.............................
Max on Macs
Oct 12, 01:42 PM
I hope people like Red, because this is definitely the iPod to buy... goes to a great cause, and doesn't cost you anything more.
Red's not so bad, but I'm afraid to say that even if all of the money and some went to any charity at all, I'd rather have the pink one.
Red's not so bad, but I'm afraid to say that even if all of the money and some went to any charity at all, I'd rather have the pink one.
Foggy
Aug 29, 04:45 AM
Am hoping they release some mbp info today. I was waiting for WWDC, that came and went, I went off on my holidays for a few weeks and came back hoping for an announcement and still nothing. Have been waiting a while to get one but I hate getting something new only to have it upgraded almost immediately afterwards. A laptop needs to last me 3 years so I expect it to go out of date, just not the week after I buy it :p
ezekielrage_99
Sep 4, 10:55 PM
WO0t! PowerBook G5 tuesday after next!
I never get sick of that, 12 month later and still is funny :D
I never get sick of that, 12 month later and still is funny :D
ju5tin81
Oct 27, 09:56 AM
By getting press coverage, by being ejected, they have got what they wanted: To raise awareness of their cause.
In addition, the british press just LOVE to bring down a sucessful person/product/brand... brace yourselves for a lot of anti-apple press, now everyone knows how un-green apple are.
I was there today, and was offered a leaflet, and an organic apple, on leaving olympia tube station. They do have a valid point...
It hurt when I saw my work arrange for a broken tangerine iMac to be taken to the tip, when Dell came personally to take their broken PC...
I love apple, they could do more than simply offer to recycle their PACKAGING! Finish the job Apple. (We pay enough for the privelige)
Edit: Apple can you also put a spell check into Safari please :)
In addition, the british press just LOVE to bring down a sucessful person/product/brand... brace yourselves for a lot of anti-apple press, now everyone knows how un-green apple are.
I was there today, and was offered a leaflet, and an organic apple, on leaving olympia tube station. They do have a valid point...
It hurt when I saw my work arrange for a broken tangerine iMac to be taken to the tip, when Dell came personally to take their broken PC...
I love apple, they could do more than simply offer to recycle their PACKAGING! Finish the job Apple. (We pay enough for the privelige)
Edit: Apple can you also put a spell check into Safari please :)
BlizzardBomb
Aug 31, 04:52 PM
Is the Pope German? :rolleyes:
How is that comment helpful in anyway?
How is that comment helpful in anyway?
dukebound85
Apr 11, 03:43 PM
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.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
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.
wtf, my bike gets in the low 40s! and it weighs 4xxlbs!
No comments:
Post a Comment