ChrisA
Apr 4, 12:18 PM
Seems unfair to kill someone for robbery. Yes they're breaking the law, but only deserve a prison sentence. Do you really really think someone should be shot and killed for attempting to steal a few laptops and smash a few windows? If you do then man you have issues.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
If it were only robbery you are correct. In fact the guard would be in jail now. But these guys shot at a guard. When you do that the crime changes from robbery to attempted murder. It is also a really stupid move because I'd bet a bunch any armed guard spends some time at the shooting range. Many of them are off duty cops or ex-military police or have gotten training some place.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 30, 01:28 PM
More Thunderbolt the better!
bitfactory
Oct 27, 09:36 AM
If, say, Steinberg didn't like the fact that girls were hanbding out Protools leaflets in the aisles near their stand do you think Protools would have been kicked out?
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
No.
It's a huge over-reaction and shows that we now live in a world so devoid of genuine public spaces where debate can freely take place that Governments and corporations can silence anyone on a whim.
Dude, it's a MacWorld convention, not an environmental love-in. GP needs to get their own convention. They were on private property - the conf organizers have the right to do what they want. Never mind their rights, huh?
tortoise
Sep 20, 02:40 PM
The only reason why CDMA is basically only in the US is because it was still being developed while the EU jumped on GSM and endorsed it for every country. If your reason why CDMA is terrible is due to limited use, then, that's at best poor reasoning.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Jimmieboy
Sep 14, 01:21 AM
I like the 8801, but I definitely think it's overpriced at $399. You could get a Sidekick 3 prepaid for that price.
Sure is overpriced! Over in Australia it's around $1200. The one good thing I liked was the diamond coated dsiplay. It was scratch proof. Maybe apple should diamond coat their iphone! :p
EDIT: Actually I just did a bit of research. I think my claim that they diamond coated their displays is false. No one take my word on it.
Sure is overpriced! Over in Australia it's around $1200. The one good thing I liked was the diamond coated dsiplay. It was scratch proof. Maybe apple should diamond coat their iphone! :p
EDIT: Actually I just did a bit of research. I think my claim that they diamond coated their displays is false. No one take my word on it.
HiRez
Sep 19, 03:45 PM
Here's the things I need to see before I even get into this whole dowloading movies thing:
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
jmille44
Apr 22, 07:36 PM
I have an original mac portable sitting next to my 11". Laptop design has only downsized from this original beast and gotten faster.
I am not impressed yet. Incremental updates, nothing major or breakthrough.
That's just how it will always be. I'll hold onto this 11" for 8 years and guess what. It's replacement will be just an 11" roll out touch screen computer.
That is where this is going in 8 years and I am still not impressed.
I am not impressed yet. Incremental updates, nothing major or breakthrough.
That's just how it will always be. I'll hold onto this 11" for 8 years and guess what. It's replacement will be just an 11" roll out touch screen computer.
That is where this is going in 8 years and I am still not impressed.
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:46 AM
Apple has never cared about the user, this is not news. Apple only care about one thing: money
What does this even mean? "Apple has never cared about the user?" Perhaps you can teach us, then, how Apple has enjoyed so much success despite "never caring for the user."
Or was it simply fun to write those sentences?
What does this even mean? "Apple has never cared about the user?" Perhaps you can teach us, then, how Apple has enjoyed so much success despite "never caring for the user."
Or was it simply fun to write those sentences?
JMP
Apr 30, 01:24 PM
When the hell are they gonna re-implement spaces !!@$%#^&(&)(#
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
I need to be able to assign it to any corner I want !!!
What the Hell is wrong with them !!!!!!! :mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad::mad:
Onimusha370
Apr 30, 02:10 PM
can't wait till people start geekbenching these things, and we get the comments of... 'WOW, THIS THING BEATS MY 2010 MAC PRO'.
gonna be very exciting indeed!
gonna be very exciting indeed!
kiljoy616
May 3, 01:05 PM
Does anything use Thunderbolt yet? Will anything ever?
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20036002-1.html
Yes and anyway first you have to put it out there for other companies to make stuff for it. Business class 101 :rolleyes:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20036002-1.html
Yes and anyway first you have to put it out there for other companies to make stuff for it. Business class 101 :rolleyes:
Peace
Sep 5, 05:36 PM
I never said the streaming isn't possible. I just said there isn't a HARDWARE device like the airport that makes this possible without a computer.
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
Having to leave a computer hooked up to the TV all the time (or drag over a laptop) isn't a convenient solution. An airport box with video output IS a new solution, and something not available now.
NOW you're on to something.Let's expand on that ;)
Where is the video out from the airport going to go ? The TV of course!
Now..
Why not just make a Mini type box with 802.11n with DVI/HDMI/S-Video and Digital/Analog out ports.Connect that to the tv then stream from your computer or the movie store.While we're at it toss a hefty HD in the mini for recording.
It's much more convenient too.Just sit on the couch and surf Front Row for movies then buy it and send it to the tv.POW! one step..
Apple IS about ease of use..
kfscoll
Apr 25, 06:06 PM
...which is still a bottleneck.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
You're a silly man. Almost any standard SATA-II 2.5" form-factor SSD is faster than a standard MBA blade SSD. And a SATA-III 6Gbps SSD vs. the MBA SSD? Forget it.
So what's your point? You like moderetly better bottlenecks?
I'd rather eliminate them altogether.
You're a silly man. Almost any standard SATA-II 2.5" form-factor SSD is faster than a standard MBA blade SSD. And a SATA-III 6Gbps SSD vs. the MBA SSD? Forget it.
raymondso
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
When will i see a C2D MacBook....
a MBP is just too large in size for me :(
a MBP is just too large in size for me :(
kevin.rivers
Jul 14, 12:44 PM
Yeah, considering we get so many posts about "Will this RAM work?". It seems like the populous is clueless about DDR/DDR2 and FSB.
Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.
Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.
Exactly. Which is why the Ghz myth will stay for a long time. You can't market Memory or FSB or SATA or PCI-X/PCI-E, you won't get anywhere.
Ghz, GB, "X times faster", and you can play games that look very pretty. Those will be what computer marketing will be all about for many years to come.
evaporateddwarf
May 1, 02:38 AM
I'm looking at getting a new iMac fingers crossed for the following:
- Bluray (I know... but it would be nice)
- Thunderbolt
- USB3
- AMD Radeon HD 67XX-68XX with up to 2GB RAM (it wont happen though :()
- Space for 2 HDD (I know, again it would be nice for two internal drives)
- i5 and i7.. Hopefully no i3 in the line up.
- Up to 24GB...
Again if I can't get an iMac with beefier video card it looks like another Alienware with Linux...
I think you're gonna get pretty disappointed. It wont't have blu-ray, likely no usb3, less likely that it'll have 2GBVram, the only way you're getting another hdd is to take out the optical drive, and it won't support 24GB of RAM.
- Bluray (I know... but it would be nice)
- Thunderbolt
- USB3
- AMD Radeon HD 67XX-68XX with up to 2GB RAM (it wont happen though :()
- Space for 2 HDD (I know, again it would be nice for two internal drives)
- i5 and i7.. Hopefully no i3 in the line up.
- Up to 24GB...
Again if I can't get an iMac with beefier video card it looks like another Alienware with Linux...
I think you're gonna get pretty disappointed. It wont't have blu-ray, likely no usb3, less likely that it'll have 2GBVram, the only way you're getting another hdd is to take out the optical drive, and it won't support 24GB of RAM.
chilipie
Sep 12, 02:47 PM
Dear Apple,
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
YOU SUCK!
Love,
Nathan
PS- I will still buy your stuff.
Exactly how I felt...
..until I realised that I too could play Pacman! ;)
candybaws
Mar 30, 11:46 AM
This whole situation reminds me of this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_vs._MikeRoweSoft).
brianus
Sep 10, 12:29 PM
You appear to have no imagination. Kentsfield Will Go Into A New iMac Redesign. Have you not seen this mock-up yet? There are options in design that can make the iMac much cooler even with more heat producing elements inside.
Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.
And by the way, the iMac G3 design lasted, with modifications, for 4 years. The G5 design is a winning, modern, attractive design and one gets the sense there's really nowhere else to go with it at the moment as far as being a flat-panel monitor with a computer mounted behind it. There Will Be No New iMac Redesign Anytime Soon[TM].
Sorry, but that mockup is just stupid. Whoever made it obviously has no concept of Apple's product line. CONSUMER = WHITE OR BLACK. PRO = ALUMINUM. NEITHER = MIX OF IMAC WHITE + ALUMINUM. Every single frickin' product follows these guidelines. Get a clue.
And by the way, the iMac G3 design lasted, with modifications, for 4 years. The G5 design is a winning, modern, attractive design and one gets the sense there's really nowhere else to go with it at the moment as far as being a flat-panel monitor with a computer mounted behind it. There Will Be No New iMac Redesign Anytime Soon[TM].
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 17, 06:36 PM
The Safari exploit launched a Mac OSX program. How is that NOT an "OS" issue? The exploit could have just as easily told the Mac to delete a directory on the hard drive, for instance. So it's not just Safari that's an issue but the fact that OSX would let Safari execute a program outside the browser.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
I'd like to know where this idea that "many have tried" to create viruses and/or malware for OSX comes from. How do you know what people have done or tried? I'm not saying Unix is easy to exploit, but I know darn well it's not invulnerable. If they held an OS hacking event with a prize, I'm sure someone would prove my point for me.
And this idea that nothing can be done on the Mac until a virus or other malware exploit shows up on a news site is absurd. There are plenty of tools out there, for instance, to point out dangerous web sites that could be a threat to a computer. Most OSX users wouldn't bother to install one if one was offered to them because they believe themselves invulnerable. So why worry about visiting a malware site? Some exploits are potentially cross-platform (adobe flash, for example). Again, I say most OSX users are far too comfortable in a foolish belief that they are not in danger from anything out there.
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.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 09:42 PM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
They might want to make money off of the millions of people who watch TV outside of the US (where they don't sell their TV shows). They also don't have to provide for every TV possibility, just as EyeTV doesn't cover all options (and I agree with others that EyeTV is a good solution, but why not have a true Apple alternative?).
IntelliUser
Apr 11, 12:19 AM
Which is why the US
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
kreach
Apr 20, 09:58 AM
nice! Actually.