Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 04:38 PM
I support GreenPeace All the way!
So we can all assume you also support their haphazard attempts to save the environment, and the fact that they are indeed an incongruent entity with logic, reason, and good taste. They target apple, knowing full well other manufacturers have a generous share of toxic substances in their products (spare us the propeganda greenpeace, we know what LCD's and CRT screens contain).
Greenpeace is the sort that would assume a factory is producing an alarming amount of toxic waste if they happen to spot a dead bird on the roof of the building.
So we can all assume you also support their haphazard attempts to save the environment, and the fact that they are indeed an incongruent entity with logic, reason, and good taste. They target apple, knowing full well other manufacturers have a generous share of toxic substances in their products (spare us the propeganda greenpeace, we know what LCD's and CRT screens contain).
Greenpeace is the sort that would assume a factory is producing an alarming amount of toxic waste if they happen to spot a dead bird on the roof of the building.
Hackint0sh814
Apr 22, 01:49 PM
I had a current version 13" MBA that was a very nice machine, but the lack of backlight keyboard was a deal breaker for me. I returned it for my new 15" MBP i7 powerhouse and couldn't be happier. (My eyes thanked me as well :D)
Balli
Aug 29, 05:34 AM
I imagine Santa Rosa would be long gone by summer '08.
Why? Is Santa Rosa not due out around spring / summer 2007? I am sure it will still be around a year after it is released.
Why? Is Santa Rosa not due out around spring / summer 2007? I am sure it will still be around a year after it is released.
mrkramer
Apr 17, 02:13 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.
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.
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.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
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.
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.
You do realize that one of the main reasons why the great depression was so bad was because Hoover was so worried about inflation that he caused deflation right? With deflation what you have is nobody is buying because if they wait then they can get something for cheaper and the economy suffers as a result. How many people do you think would buy iPhones if they new that next week there was going to be a price drop?
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
If you are going to make a claim like that you really should provide a source.
SilianRail
Apr 22, 02:56 PM
Thinking of getting this for my mom. The top of her needs are 1080p YouTube videos, will they run smoothly?
Full of Win
Apr 25, 03:21 PM
Then show me a single modern GPU displaying more than 2560x1600 on a single display. I'd love to see it.
You mean this one, a single card, running FarCry at 3840 X 2160 almost two years ago. Since this was almost two years ago, I'm sure its a little dated. :)
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
You mean this one, a single card, running FarCry at 3840 X 2160 almost two years ago. Since this was almost two years ago, I'm sure its a little dated. :)
http://gizmodo.com/#!5277116/asus-mars-gtx-295-smoothly-running-far-cry-at-3840-x-2160-pixels
matrixmaniac
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
hideous? Really?
I am guessing this is the kind of laptop you admire for its beautiful case design, right?
http://www.gearfuse.com/a-rugged-dell-laptop-john-connor-would-use/
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 :d
I am guessing this is the kind of laptop you admire for its beautiful case design, right?
http://www.gearfuse.com/a-rugged-dell-laptop-john-connor-would-use/
+1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 +1 :d
teme
Aug 29, 06:17 AM
After looking around the apple website this morning.. I don't believe that we are getting the new chips until AFTER the iPod rebate offer.. and here is why.
The only legal way Apple could offer the new processor would be to offer it ONLY to out-of-education persons. If you read the fine print of the Apple iPod offer, it ONLY lists the current models (and G4) as acceptable units to use when filing a rebate.... if they were to place the new chip models on the store, it would invalidate the rebate, should someone have the old rebate forms, and a new machine. Just a thought.
But in Europe this same rebate ends at October 7th, 2006...
The only legal way Apple could offer the new processor would be to offer it ONLY to out-of-education persons. If you read the fine print of the Apple iPod offer, it ONLY lists the current models (and G4) as acceptable units to use when filing a rebate.... if they were to place the new chip models on the store, it would invalidate the rebate, should someone have the old rebate forms, and a new machine. Just a thought.
But in Europe this same rebate ends at October 7th, 2006...
nem3015
Sep 1, 12:30 PM
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
BRLawyer
Sep 9, 07:58 PM
No, not at all.
An affinity mask sets the set of CPUs that can be scheduled. A job won't be run on another CPU, even if the assigned CPUs are at 100% and other idle CPUs are available.
And that, by the way, is why setting affinity is usually a bad idea. Let the system dynamically schedule across all available resources -- or you might have some CPUs very busy, and others idle.
Win2k3 also has "soft" affinity masks, which define a preferred set of CPUs. If all of the preferred CPUs are busy, and other CPUs are idle, then soft affinity allows the system to run the jobs on the idle CPUs - even though the idle CPUs aren't in the preferred affinity mask.
But I am pretty sure the newest developer tools can cope with that, considering that multicore chips are a rather new thing in the mainstream market...
Try the Processor Preferences app contained in the Apple CHUD tools, for instance...
An affinity mask sets the set of CPUs that can be scheduled. A job won't be run on another CPU, even if the assigned CPUs are at 100% and other idle CPUs are available.
And that, by the way, is why setting affinity is usually a bad idea. Let the system dynamically schedule across all available resources -- or you might have some CPUs very busy, and others idle.
Win2k3 also has "soft" affinity masks, which define a preferred set of CPUs. If all of the preferred CPUs are busy, and other CPUs are idle, then soft affinity allows the system to run the jobs on the idle CPUs - even though the idle CPUs aren't in the preferred affinity mask.
But I am pretty sure the newest developer tools can cope with that, considering that multicore chips are a rather new thing in the mainstream market...
Try the Processor Preferences app contained in the Apple CHUD tools, for instance...
firewood
Mar 23, 04:50 PM
The way to solve this is to put a sobriety test in the app that has to be passed before the user can view any checkpoints. That way sober drivers won't have to take a route that wastes their valuable time. And sufficiently impaired drunk should be locked out of the app.
The app's sobriety test "login" can check a person's balance using the accelerometer and gyro, measure their reflex time, and maybe run a short N-back memory and attention span test that should discourage anyone who can't pass these tests from driving in the first place, maybe even display the length of the latest prison sentences doled out to people who drove impaired in their county.
The app's sobriety test "login" can check a person's balance using the accelerometer and gyro, measure their reflex time, and maybe run a short N-back memory and attention span test that should discourage anyone who can't pass these tests from driving in the first place, maybe even display the length of the latest prison sentences doled out to people who drove impaired in their county.
Don Kosak
Apr 30, 05:16 PM
:eek: How in the world can you make that statement? My 50gb Blu-Ray discs would disagree with you.
I have well over 200 Blu-Ray discs. Let's assume that each disc is a single layer (25GB) disc and that they only have one disc in each case, no bonus discs no behind the sceens.... I'd need 5TB of storage to keep the quality as good as it is sitting on the disc.
You'd be on something hard to think internet infrastructure could handle the digital distribution of all these movies on top of current expanding internet traffic.
Okay --
1) Next year you'll be able to buy a 5TB drive for about $200 bucks. (You can get a 2TB drive today for $120 at your local office supply store.) You should start backing up those outdated Blu-ray disks now.
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
Put 1 and 2 together, and Blu-ray is looking like it's heading for "end-of-life" status pretty fast.
I'm sorry if I offended any Blu-ray fans, but I gotta say, the writing is on the wall.
I have well over 200 Blu-Ray discs. Let's assume that each disc is a single layer (25GB) disc and that they only have one disc in each case, no bonus discs no behind the sceens.... I'd need 5TB of storage to keep the quality as good as it is sitting on the disc.
You'd be on something hard to think internet infrastructure could handle the digital distribution of all these movies on top of current expanding internet traffic.
Okay --
1) Next year you'll be able to buy a 5TB drive for about $200 bucks. (You can get a 2TB drive today for $120 at your local office supply store.) You should start backing up those outdated Blu-ray disks now.
2) The latest fiber optics tech is out and does more than 100 terabits per second -- or the contents of 250 Double Sided Blu-Ray discs each second. It does it on a SINGLE cable. This isn't tech you buy for your PC, it's tech that the Telco's are putting in to expand broadband coverage.
Put 1 and 2 together, and Blu-ray is looking like it's heading for "end-of-life" status pretty fast.
I'm sorry if I offended any Blu-ray fans, but I gotta say, the writing is on the wall.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 02:00 AM
you just admitted that what you are doing is wrong.
Uh no I didn't. I just interpreted the law. As someone implied earlier, this could all be a ruse. I might not have done anything I said in this thread. No one here can know 100% for sure, because you did not witness the event I claim occurred. That simple fact, in addition to any record searching anyone did without a warrant (which would be an invasion of privacy) would get anything I say in this thread thrown out of court faster than you could blink.
-Don
Uh no I didn't. I just interpreted the law. As someone implied earlier, this could all be a ruse. I might not have done anything I said in this thread. No one here can know 100% for sure, because you did not witness the event I claim occurred. That simple fact, in addition to any record searching anyone did without a warrant (which would be an invasion of privacy) would get anything I say in this thread thrown out of court faster than you could blink.
-Don
MagnusVonMagnum
Mar 23, 04:05 PM
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
It's quite predictable that when someone says something you cannot successively argue with that you will post pages and pages of nonsense instead. You haven't said anything that makes sense in this entire thread (e.g. comparing a monogamous relationship with your wife to exposing your computer to hundreds of millions of computers on the Internet. It makes NO sense and yet there is NO POINT to arguing with that kind of illogical crap because you will defend it with yet more NONSENSE until the end of time itself).
Furthermore, I wasn't talking to you. You clearly don't even KNOW the definition of a fanboy (it's not an insult, but a description of an emotional archetype type of poster) and then make false accusations of flaming while simultaneously supporting actual flamers like cwt1nospam (whose arguments you conveniently ignored TWICE just like I said). If you cannot "argue" based on all the evidence but just conveniently ignore anything that does not support your argument while attacking with anything that does and then pretending everyone else doesn't exist you've then proven you are not worth conversing with and thus my lack of replies to you. You will now predictably reply with yet more BS nonsense about how great your arguments are and how stupid everything I say is. Sorry, but I'm done playing your games.
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 06:47 PM
It may be a bookkeeping trick, but it's considered part of Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). The IRS and the SEC certainly doesn't have problem with it and ammorization is actually encouraged. Apple used the same method to record the $250 million cash investment in flash memory plants last year, as well as the $400 million it is setting aside for the new Cupertino campus. Neither of those big cash outlays really affected their profit recording.
I didn't mean to imply that it was somehow illegal or improper. My point was, even an amortized expense is an expense, and booking it as an asset doesn't mean it will produce a return on investment. All those numbers go on the expense side of the ledger, one way or another. Spread out over years or taken as a lump sum, they're still spending the money.
I didn't mean to imply that it was somehow illegal or improper. My point was, even an amortized expense is an expense, and booking it as an asset doesn't mean it will produce a return on investment. All those numbers go on the expense side of the ledger, one way or another. Spread out over years or taken as a lump sum, they're still spending the money.
freeny
Aug 28, 12:46 PM
So, uh.... PowerBook G5's tomorrow?
I think my new rule will be to automatically place anyone using that line on my ignore list.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
I think my new rule will be to automatically place anyone using that line on my ignore list.
It lost its funny a long time ago.:rolleyes:
mcarnes
Sep 19, 01:50 PM
How long would it take to download a two hour 1080p movie?
SeattleMoose
Apr 30, 03:20 PM
for a couple more years.....
Thunderboy is still "bleeding edge" and nobody wants to go and have to buy a bunch of new peripherals (as if there were any yet....:eek:)
Thunderboy is still "bleeding edge" and nobody wants to go and have to buy a bunch of new peripherals (as if there were any yet....:eek:)
sixth
Sep 5, 08:45 AM
hmmm..maybe a big update!? or maybe nothing...:-(
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:31 PM
trapster started out by showing where speed traps are. Why wasn't this app pulled long ago to help "save lives?" I didn't see the families of victims killed because of SPEEDING drivers upset about the app. Just sayin...
Eidorian
Sep 9, 11:33 AM
Wanna bet that Napa64 is 100% identical to ordinary Napa, apart from the fact that the CPU is Merom, instead of Yonah? Since Napa is a platform, just chaning the CPU to something else would mean that the platform has been refreshed.I'm a little skeptical about Napa64 as well. I did read the previous links and articles on it. Why make Merom backwards compatible with Yonah?
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.Nice information there. I wanted a little heads up on Kentsfield. Still, isn't it dual Conroe's with separate cache and then over the front side bus?
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.
iJohnHenry
Apr 11, 03:57 PM
Lottery and Gambling winnings are tax exempt. I wish the Canadians would annex Vegas.;) All my card counting skills is lining Uncle Sam's pockets.:mad: And if I get caught, the medical bills for fixing my thumbs won't come out of my pockets.;)
Bob, it that you?? :p
Bob, it that you?? :p