bryanc
Sep 10, 08:13 AM
It seems clear from the fact that Apple put the first of (what are likely limited supplies of) the merom CPUs into the iMac, rather than the much-anticipated MBPs, that the iMac enclosure simply can't dissipate heat quickly enough to run the higher TDP CPUs like Conroe without unacceptable compromises (i.e. loud fans).
So I predict these new, mid-to-high performance CPUs will either not be used by Apple (bad move, IMO) or they will appear in a new product. The long awaited xMac. The problem that Apple needs to chart a course around with this product is that it can't be so powerful that it eats up sales of the MacPro (that's easy, make it cheap), and it can't be a direct competitor with either the iMac or the mini (shouldn't be too hard, drop the price on the mini another $100, making it a cheap, 'Value-priced' system with very limited upgrade potential, and continue to produce the iMac as a beautifully designed AIO system for the office, lab, etc.). I do think the xMac will cannibalize iMac sales to some degree, but it should be manageable.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
To deal with these issues, I think Apple needs to pull a rabbit out of it's hat WRT the industrial design of the xMac, making it an elegant, easy-to-work with, highly prized piece of technology that people won't mind paying a little extra for. And they need to be very explicit about using only 'Apple-certified' components or the warranty is void. This won't prevent people from using every standard PC widget under the sun, but it will give Apple an out when some of these systems fail.
Cheers
So I predict these new, mid-to-high performance CPUs will either not be used by Apple (bad move, IMO) or they will appear in a new product. The long awaited xMac. The problem that Apple needs to chart a course around with this product is that it can't be so powerful that it eats up sales of the MacPro (that's easy, make it cheap), and it can't be a direct competitor with either the iMac or the mini (shouldn't be too hard, drop the price on the mini another $100, making it a cheap, 'Value-priced' system with very limited upgrade potential, and continue to produce the iMac as a beautifully designed AIO system for the office, lab, etc.). I do think the xMac will cannibalize iMac sales to some degree, but it should be manageable.
The problem with the xMac as a product for Apple is two fold. Firstly, it has to be agressively priced, because, of all the Macs, it's the one that will be facing the most head-to-head competition from other vendors, and it will have the fewest Apple-only features to justify significant price differences. Secondly, it will have to be easily expandable to be competitive, and consequently, it will suffer from 3rd-party hardware and software quality issues.
To deal with these issues, I think Apple needs to pull a rabbit out of it's hat WRT the industrial design of the xMac, making it an elegant, easy-to-work with, highly prized piece of technology that people won't mind paying a little extra for. And they need to be very explicit about using only 'Apple-certified' components or the warranty is void. This won't prevent people from using every standard PC widget under the sun, but it will give Apple an out when some of these systems fail.
Cheers
Mac Rules
Sep 13, 12:22 AM
How do you use the search function guys?
Also, how do you ge the littel letter to appear, when scrolling through your playlists etc..
Cheers
Also, how do you ge the littel letter to appear, when scrolling through your playlists etc..
Cheers
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 12:55 PM
It makes more sense for Apple to wait for tomorrow, anyway. This way, they can avoid being drowned out by the other manufacturer's announcements and simultaneously steel their fanfare. They'll probably do something like "New, with Merom, and more..." and add on another fancy feature or two to each thing to outdo the other laptop guys.
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Yankee617
Apr 20, 12:28 PM
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
i'm not on facebook.
i'm not on facebook.
schimmel
May 4, 08:02 AM
Did anyone notice that it has an IPS display?
http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html#displays
iMac 24's have had IPS displays since their inception in 2006. Every 21.5 and 27 inch iMac has had IPS displays, as evidenced by SwitchResX readouts, and the fact that they have around 178 degrees horizontal and vertical viewing angles.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it. (the 2GB upgrade)
You get basically no performance benefit whatsoever going from 1 GB to 2 GB even at 2560x1440, see Anandtechs test of just this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428.html
More info on GPU memory in OS X:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2804
http://www.apple.com/imac/features.html#displays
iMac 24's have had IPS displays since their inception in 2006. Every 21.5 and 27 inch iMac has had IPS displays, as evidenced by SwitchResX readouts, and the fact that they have around 178 degrees horizontal and vertical viewing angles.
If allows me to run Starcraft 2 at the insanely high native resolution with all the details set to high at 60 fps, I'd spring for it. (the 2GB upgrade)
You get basically no performance benefit whatsoever going from 1 GB to 2 GB even at 2560x1440, see Anandtechs test of just this:
http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/graphics-ram-4870,2428.html
More info on GPU memory in OS X:
http://www.anandtech.com/show/2804
bchreng
May 1, 01:23 AM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Some people - like me - may not own a mac desktop yet and would like to purchase one soon and intend on using it for quite a while. So while there may be no devices at the moment, there could very well be such a device released next year or the year after. When it is released we'll be glad that our iMacs have the port. It's not exactly like a pc where we can open up the case and add in the port later on.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
Some people - like me - may not own a mac desktop yet and would like to purchase one soon and intend on using it for quite a while. So while there may be no devices at the moment, there could very well be such a device released next year or the year after. When it is released we'll be glad that our iMacs have the port. It's not exactly like a pc where we can open up the case and add in the port later on.
Synapple
Sep 1, 07:15 AM
Ok..You got me..
What I meant was Tuesday was Sept. 12th in Cupertino..NOT monday as the poster said.;)
Yeah I got that ;)
I was just euphoric due to the news of an upcoming Apple event and a couple of Pina Coladas... :o
What I meant was Tuesday was Sept. 12th in Cupertino..NOT monday as the poster said.;)
Yeah I got that ;)
I was just euphoric due to the news of an upcoming Apple event and a couple of Pina Coladas... :o
torbjoern
Apr 25, 03:07 AM
i thought this from my first post, but his join date is 08, and he's a regular. that is what has me thinking that what he is saying is really how he thinks/acts.
I thought it from the first post too.
We don't know how many accounts he registered here on MR in 08, and it doesn't really take that many postings to become a regular.
I thought it from the first post too.
We don't know how many accounts he registered here on MR in 08, and it doesn't really take that many postings to become a regular.
BLUELION
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Its plain to see what is happening here. But I agree with you I will not concede my rights for any reason what so ever.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
I stop listening to anyone who ever utters the words "Constitutional or not..."
Our basic freedoms as Americans aren't worth conceding for any reason whatsoever, no matter how noble the goal may seem from a distance.
jvmxtra
Apr 25, 02:07 PM
Let's keep our mbp 2011 clean...
peas
Oct 12, 08:04 PM
well here's the kicker for the fools who fall for these gimmicks.
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
you can donate directly and it's a tax write off as a charitable contribution.
or, you can buy the same boring lollipop, in 10 different colors, and see this 5% go towards the charity which apple will gladly pony up as it will benefit them after their returns and reports are done.
so i gotta ask, why bother justifying your purchase as "good will"?
why not just call a spade a spade and say...durr durr durrr?
arn
Sep 9, 01:42 AM
Is 20% speed improvement a lot for a core 2 designation?
Well, they said 20%, and it appears to be true in some tests.
It looks pretty good since it's not any more expensive than the previous iMacs.
arn
Well, they said 20%, and it appears to be true in some tests.
It looks pretty good since it's not any more expensive than the previous iMacs.
arn
ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:36 PM
"Shooting To Wound" is purely a product of television, movies, and video games. In real situations where gunfire is exchanged, milliseconds count, and center mass until the target is down is the ONLY reality.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
I know. And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd. Most shootings occur with no warning. If you were always hyper-vigelent and ready to brandish your gun, you would likely be a danger to those around you.
peeInMyPantz
Sep 14, 07:12 AM
the iPhone is going to be a useless product unless they release it in big enough sizes to replace my iPod. It's like carrying two ipods around. I already have a 60 gig...why would I spend the extra money to buy an expensive phone that only holds 5 gigs or something? It's just a dumb idea, unless they release major sizes that can replace the big ipods. I don't know why everyone is drooling over this thing.
ppl are going to want it because it's a phone. I will buy it for the look.
ppl are going to want it because it's a phone. I will buy it for the look.
cere
Apr 14, 01:24 PM
Guys, should I buy now or wa......
A Mac? Why not?
A Mac? Why not?
hodgjy
Mar 29, 11:20 AM
This forecast came from the same headless chicken that said my Margaritaville is worth 90 trillion dollars.
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.
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 05:35 PM
There is a significantly less amount of wiggle room for them, they will now have to answer to shareholders, about why they are taking so long to roll out a product that all the other PC manufacturers are shipping.
But since the other companies (Dell, HP, etc.) aren't actually shipping their C2D laptops and systems for at least another two weeks, I don't think Apple is sweating it, and I'm betting their shareholders aren't worried either.
Apple is probably simply waiting until their shipments from overseas that are due to hit on the 5th, are actually in stores and online ready to purchase before they make the announcement. If they do announce on the 5th or 6th, they'll pobably be available to order and ship that day. In that sense, they would actually be shipping before any of the other manufacturers. If they wait until the following week, or the week after, they'll still be shipping at or about the same time as the other companies.
Apple won't be behind on shipments just because they're behind on announcements. They probably just want to have their systems available before they announce them.
But since the other companies (Dell, HP, etc.) aren't actually shipping their C2D laptops and systems for at least another two weeks, I don't think Apple is sweating it, and I'm betting their shareholders aren't worried either.
Apple is probably simply waiting until their shipments from overseas that are due to hit on the 5th, are actually in stores and online ready to purchase before they make the announcement. If they do announce on the 5th or 6th, they'll pobably be available to order and ship that day. In that sense, they would actually be shipping before any of the other manufacturers. If they wait until the following week, or the week after, they'll still be shipping at or about the same time as the other companies.
Apple won't be behind on shipments just because they're behind on announcements. They probably just want to have their systems available before they announce them.
strike1555
Nov 15, 08:58 AM
Aristotle has absolutely no clue as to what he's talking about, LOL.
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.
JoeG4
Apr 25, 04:27 AM
Nor does having a 2400 SAT score and confusing "their" with "there", along with various other errors in his writing - which even for a forum are somewhat unacceptable lol.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
Still, it's kinda scary that someone with this kind of mindset is allowed to drive. Under no circumstances should you ever even think of running someone off the road.
DRewPi
Sep 9, 10:26 AM
New Ipods .... that's kool .....
New video movie store .... good !!!
We need some new MBP AND MB !!!
These cpus need an update really bad ... compared to what is goin to come out with the other pd competitors in two weeks with the C2D
I saw on a shope u can get an C2D Labtop for 856 bucks !!??!!!
that is pretty scary since the MB is more expensive and got Core Duos !!! :confused:
New video movie store .... good !!!
We need some new MBP AND MB !!!
These cpus need an update really bad ... compared to what is goin to come out with the other pd competitors in two weeks with the C2D
I saw on a shope u can get an C2D Labtop for 856 bucks !!??!!!
that is pretty scary since the MB is more expensive and got Core Duos !!! :confused:
codymac
Apr 20, 01:27 PM
...
Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
You can't hear it, but I'm clapping in response to your post.
:)
Our privacy is not based on "nobody knows", it's based on "nobody cares."
You can't hear it, but I'm clapping in response to your post.
:)
Number 41
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
Stupidity on MacRumors and in the federal government, as usual.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.
The only reason OVI / DUI / DWI checkpoints are legal under the US Constitution and your local state Constitution is because the locations are made public in advance. Your local newspaper (or some other paper of general circulation) will publish the locations a day or so in advance of the police operating the checkpoint. This is what allows the police to pull your car over and detain you despite lacking any probable cause to believe you are drunk. Without that notice (where you are considered to have consented to the stop by driving through the checkpoint), any stopping of your vehicle without probable cause is unlawful and renders any evidence located (such as your breath test or SFSTs) inadmissible in court.
Removing this app is tantamount to the federal government telling private citizens they don't have a right to know where checkpoints are located -- and that knowledge is the only reason checkpoints are legal.
The Senators are stepping in it on this one, and probably not a one of them has anyone on their staff who has ever spent time in a municipal court dealing with a drunk driving case.