JGowan
Oct 27, 12:04 PM
I am so sick of these Greenpeace people -- pushy-shovey types with nothing better to do than harrass people when they're trying to have fun at an Expo. Don't they realize the people they want to convince are huge Apple supporters and enthusiasts -- they don't want to hear some downer telling them negativity about Apple.
Apple might not be at the top of what constitutes eco-friendly for GP, but they're doing ok. In my opinion, when a person buys a computer/ipod/whatever, it's THEIR responsibiity to do something with that's eco-friendly-- if they don't know what that is, then they need to be educated.
Most educated, computer types would be more than happy to do the right thing if they just knew what that was. In fact, the dumb ones would too.
Apple might not be at the top of what constitutes eco-friendly for GP, but they're doing ok. In my opinion, when a person buys a computer/ipod/whatever, it's THEIR responsibiity to do something with that's eco-friendly-- if they don't know what that is, then they need to be educated.
Most educated, computer types would be more than happy to do the right thing if they just knew what that was. In fact, the dumb ones would too.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 11:46 AM
It could be no other thing.
It could be many other things--Aperture, iSight, Cinema Displays, updated laptops, etc.
What it won't be is an iPhone.
It could be many other things--Aperture, iSight, Cinema Displays, updated laptops, etc.
What it won't be is an iPhone.
Bubba Satori
Apr 25, 02:47 PM
What do you mean, "you people"
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Best post of the day.
Image (http://oneguyrambling.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/600full-tropic-thunder-photo.jpg)
Best post of the day.
mi5moav
Sep 14, 09:50 AM
I'm sure it's just an update to aperture along with a new aluminium skinned Apple video camera with 1/3 CCD and 100G HD. The future of video recording is on us and apple more than anyone knows about digital video. Though I'm realing hoping some sort of Leica/Zeiss/Apple announcement.
infidel69
Apr 20, 11:33 AM
Shame that everyone is going to jump to conclusions rather than work out why this is stored.
And really, would you rather have the information stored on the device or logged by Google?
Neither, I was wondering how long it would be before some fanboy would bring up Google.
And really, would you rather have the information stored on the device or logged by Google?
Neither, I was wondering how long it would be before some fanboy would bring up Google.
Koodauw
Sep 18, 12:43 AM
I'm sure I late getting into the argument, and that fanboyism depending on what network youre own will not change, but I really think GSM does have better voice quality than any other network.
aegisdesign
Sep 10, 10:41 AM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
The Merom and Conroe are almost identical clock for clock. Really, if there's 1 or 2% difference in real world tests I'd be surprised and it's usually down to other factors like RAM or disk.
theelysium
May 3, 04:08 PM
I think there is an error on the iMac performance page.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
I think Fraaaa is correct. I re-read the quote at the bottom which shows what they compared. They don't say specifically say how they conducted it, but they say the different models and there are two for each of course. The logical answer is that the i5 got a bigger performance boos then the i7, but Apple should have made that chart clearer and also offered another chart showing how much faster the NEW i5 was to the NEW i7. Having a third chart in the diagram would have easily cleared up any confusion when reading it.:cool:
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
I think Fraaaa is correct. I re-read the quote at the bottom which shows what they compared. They don't say specifically say how they conducted it, but they say the different models and there are two for each of course. The logical answer is that the i5 got a bigger performance boos then the i7, but Apple should have made that chart clearer and also offered another chart showing how much faster the NEW i5 was to the NEW i7. Having a third chart in the diagram would have easily cleared up any confusion when reading it.:cool:
steadysignal
Apr 22, 06:44 PM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
very much correct. the cloud is great when you don't have a bandwidth limit.
very much correct. the cloud is great when you don't have a bandwidth limit.
rdrr
Sep 15, 05:52 PM
I thought 10 Mega Pixels were possible with some tech that is suppose to arrive at the end of this year for phones.
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone were you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
I wonder if the new phone was like the original iPod Shuffle. You wear it around your neck. That would be funny. I would like the Star Trek Next Generation phone were you tap it on your chest to call people and it automatically goes into speaker phone. That was sort of like the shuffle concept with simple controls and no screen. Even works with iTunes.
Hmmm that is an intresting thought. I saw a demo, over a year ago, of a wireles VoIP phone at Dartmouth University that did just that. They wear them around their neck or use a clip, but it was voice activated, and they actually called them their "Star Trek badges".
http://www.vocera.com/
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.
itsmenyc
Mar 29, 03:07 PM
Just out of idle curiosity: is IDC ever right? Ever nearly right?
No, never. They should be IDK not IDC! :D
No, never. They should be IDK not IDC! :D
nwcs
Apr 20, 10:08 AM
Where are people going that they need to be alarmist about this? Every phone, every gps thing, and more do this.
whooleytoo
Oct 12, 03:58 PM
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
Generally, that's a good point. But in this case I don't think it's significant: your average adult male in Africa is likely to be more affluent than the average adult female (or child), sure - but it's not as if he can afford quality healthcare either!
It's just people at two different levels of poverty, neither of whom can afford the healthcare they need.
LaMerVipere
Oct 12, 01:25 PM
This would definitely be the iPod nano I'd be buying for Christmas, if true. What a great cause! As long as it doesn't have any Bono or Oprah-related crap engraved on it, we're golden.
ergle2
Sep 10, 01:34 AM
True, the Pentium M (Mobil Centrino) was a hudge sucess for Intel! The Pentium D (Desktop) was a dual-core disaster, pushing the old "NetBurst" Pentium 4 past all safe design limits.
Core 2 is the all new rework that saved Intel!
Core 2 isn't "all new". It's an evolutionary design based on Core tho some parts are borrowed from other Intel designs (the Memory Disambiguation tech was originally designed for the unreleased, unlamented Tejas, for example).
Other changes include a full 128-bit path to the SSE registers, meaning that all SSE instructions can now complete in a single cycle, L2 shared cache instead of separate L2's per CPU, an extra integer unit, etc.
And, of course, the 64bit extensions :)
Sure, there's enough in the way of changes/additions to render it worthy of being considered a new microarch, but those changes are evolutionary.
Ironically enough, there's a direct line from Core 2 going all the way back to P6, whereas NetBurst really was "all new"!
Core 2 is the all new rework that saved Intel!
Core 2 isn't "all new". It's an evolutionary design based on Core tho some parts are borrowed from other Intel designs (the Memory Disambiguation tech was originally designed for the unreleased, unlamented Tejas, for example).
Other changes include a full 128-bit path to the SSE registers, meaning that all SSE instructions can now complete in a single cycle, L2 shared cache instead of separate L2's per CPU, an extra integer unit, etc.
And, of course, the 64bit extensions :)
Sure, there's enough in the way of changes/additions to render it worthy of being considered a new microarch, but those changes are evolutionary.
Ironically enough, there's a direct line from Core 2 going all the way back to P6, whereas NetBurst really was "all new"!
afields
Sep 12, 02:21 PM
let the whining begin
Chimera
Sep 14, 11:15 AM
Prior to the date being given out for the press event I was fully expecting a new MBP at Photokina.
However now given that it is on a Sunday I see no hope of an update. They wouldn't take down the store on a Sunday whereas the Apeture update will either be a free download or a preview of a 2.0 App therefore needing no major store changes.
PS Is there any precedence of hardware updates on a Sunday?
However now given that it is on a Sunday I see no hope of an update. They wouldn't take down the store on a Sunday whereas the Apeture update will either be a free download or a preview of a 2.0 App therefore needing no major store changes.
PS Is there any precedence of hardware updates on a Sunday?
JAT
Oct 27, 03:18 PM
...Uh, Internet law 2001-B... because he's the international scapegoat of this decade. He must be blamed for all unfortunate and tragic events, no matter when, where, how or why they occured. Including and not limited to natural disasters, "acts of God", actions by foreign powers and anything else that blame could possibly (no matter how illogically) be assigned to. Because, dammit, if there were anyone else sitting in that oval office, the world would have progressed into a virtual utopia by now. :rolleyes:
My predictions for the next presidency: A variation of the same old ****, completely different guy.
LOL!
My predictions for the next presidency: A variation of the same old ****, completely different guy.
LOL!
Westside guy
Sep 14, 08:38 AM
:eek: I just literally finished ordering a new battery and 1gb memory upgrade so my ibook would last a little longer. If they release a tablet (which is what I'm holding on for) I'll cry!
Don't cry - a tablet would be the absolute worst interface for edit digital photos, so there's absolutely no chance that'll be happening at photokina.
Don't cry - a tablet would be the absolute worst interface for edit digital photos, so there's absolutely no chance that'll be happening at photokina.
ksz
Jul 14, 09:16 AM
Bring 'em on, but place them in a mid-tower case.
anthonymoody
Aug 28, 03:12 PM
With the switch to Intel, Apple may have to provide timely upgrades to remain competitive with Windows-based PC manufacturers.
Aint that the understatement of the year!
TM
Aint that the understatement of the year!
TM
inkswamp
Mar 29, 03:27 PM
Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the facts - there are non-Android Linux-based mobile systems out there.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
Not sure what you're on about but the quote implies that Android is not a Linux-based mobile OS which is factually incorrect. I realize it's not a pure Linux but it is very definitely Linux-based (or more specifically derived from the Linux kernel.) It just sounds to me like the author, who differentiates Linux from Android, doesn't understand that.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
Not sure what you're on about but the quote implies that Android is not a Linux-based mobile OS which is factually incorrect. I realize it's not a pure Linux but it is very definitely Linux-based (or more specifically derived from the Linux kernel.) It just sounds to me like the author, who differentiates Linux from Android, doesn't understand that.
MacGeek7
Mar 22, 02:31 PM
Finally! I've been waiting for an iMac update for awhile and I'm excited to see the potential of Thunderbolt even though the list of devices is relatively short right now.
No comments:
Post a Comment