Arcus
Apr 25, 10:31 AM
1. People who are scared by the media and do not think it through enough to see the media have it wrong.
There are quite a few things the media has wrong, but what it does have correct is asking "what is the point of the location database"
2. People who like to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.
Unfortunately with every one of these issues these people exist, on both side. The people who make too much of an issue and make it seem as though people with legit concerns are just being too anal and those who downplay a legit issue and call EVERYONE else trolls or etc even if they have legitimate concerns and are not caught up in the hype. I see both types posting here.
3. People who hate Apple and use any excuse to blast them, true or not.
Agree.
4. People who are paid to provide misinformation against Apple.
Citation?
There are quite a few things the media has wrong, but what it does have correct is asking "what is the point of the location database"
2. People who like to stir up trouble for the sake of trouble.
Unfortunately with every one of these issues these people exist, on both side. The people who make too much of an issue and make it seem as though people with legit concerns are just being too anal and those who downplay a legit issue and call EVERYONE else trolls or etc even if they have legitimate concerns and are not caught up in the hype. I see both types posting here.
3. People who hate Apple and use any excuse to blast them, true or not.
Agree.
4. People who are paid to provide misinformation against Apple.
Citation?
Lollypop
Aug 3, 02:28 AM
Meron and battery life aside, I will be very very happy if Leopard RULES! Been playing with vista and while the bling is a bit fake it does come across as very smooth at the same time. So here is what im hoping:
Good Apple finances
Excellent intel transition
Update on UB pro apps, maybe a quick chat with MS or Adobe about their progress
Long demo of Leopard and its technologies
> btw< the macbook pro im using runs at 2.33Ghz
Intro of new version of XCode that helps game developers port games and effectively make bootcamp useless for the bulk of people :D
Good Apple finances
Excellent intel transition
Update on UB pro apps, maybe a quick chat with MS or Adobe about their progress
Long demo of Leopard and its technologies
> btw< the macbook pro im using runs at 2.33Ghz
Intro of new version of XCode that helps game developers port games and effectively make bootcamp useless for the bulk of people :D
mambodancer
Jul 30, 09:45 PM
[QUOTE=mackiwi]umm....that magazine add looks rather real to me. WTF?:eek:
iCreate magazine buts together a fake ad each issue. The ad shown is a kind of "What if" or "Wishful Thinking" feature of their magazine. Had the poster posted the full page graphic, you would have seen this.
iCreate magazine buts together a fake ad each issue. The ad shown is a kind of "What if" or "Wishful Thinking" feature of their magazine. Had the poster posted the full page graphic, you would have seen this.
diamond.g
May 4, 02:45 PM
I wish Apple would sell the USB key + Lion. I think their Key is nifty...
Westacular
Apr 23, 04:51 PM
I think Apple is simply futureproofing here, and we won't see Retina displays for 3+ years, when it would be more feasible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Agreed re: future-proofing, but are you seriously suggesting that Apple isn't serious about GPUs? They've probably got a higher "minimum acceptable" standard for GPU performance than any other manufacturer. The one thing they don't do is chase the bleeding edge super-high-end gaming GPUs.
Also: games don't HAVE to render at native display resolutions. And as resolution gets higher, the artifacts from not being at the native level become much less visible.
I agree with you, though, it would be nice if Apple was more serious about their GPUs. Maybe the switch to retina will force them to be.
Agreed re: future-proofing, but are you seriously suggesting that Apple isn't serious about GPUs? They've probably got a higher "minimum acceptable" standard for GPU performance than any other manufacturer. The one thing they don't do is chase the bleeding edge super-high-end gaming GPUs.
Also: games don't HAVE to render at native display resolutions. And as resolution gets higher, the artifacts from not being at the native level become much less visible.
Cue
Sep 11, 08:42 AM
It's funny to see that people have completely forgotten about the Apple Expo in Paris, also tomorrow :D.
To me it is kinda strange that the expo starts 7 hours prior to the media event. Are they going to keep those black curtains (assuming there are some) during the complete 1st day of the event?
Are there any guarded stands whatsoever in the expo? Is anyone going there tomorrow to report? :)
To me it is kinda strange that the expo starts 7 hours prior to the media event. Are they going to keep those black curtains (assuming there are some) during the complete 1st day of the event?
Are there any guarded stands whatsoever in the expo? Is anyone going there tomorrow to report? :)
Don't panic
May 4, 04:38 PM
Actually, I can answer a few of those questions.
The villain isn't given any points prior to the start of the game, so as of round 1, he has 2 turns (points). There are no monsters nor traps pre-placed in the mansion.
As for the price-list and stats, that's secret.
thanks! that's most useful.
given this, mscriv can have so far only two points (but no placed traps/monsters) or 1 point and then place a 1-point trap/monster
assuming that there are both 1 point traps/monsters, if he put a trap, we can easily neutralize it, if he put a monster and we stumble on it, it has to be a lowly worm, so we are sure to kill it and move up one level, with the unfortunate and notable exception that one of us would be randomly killed.
so far is 2 votes to go forward. beatrice, dante?
3 now.
And goodness, Beatrice makes me feel like I'm 100 years old.
to my and Jorah's kin, 100 is barely of age :D
The villain isn't given any points prior to the start of the game, so as of round 1, he has 2 turns (points). There are no monsters nor traps pre-placed in the mansion.
As for the price-list and stats, that's secret.
thanks! that's most useful.
given this, mscriv can have so far only two points (but no placed traps/monsters) or 1 point and then place a 1-point trap/monster
assuming that there are both 1 point traps/monsters, if he put a trap, we can easily neutralize it, if he put a monster and we stumble on it, it has to be a lowly worm, so we are sure to kill it and move up one level, with the unfortunate and notable exception that one of us would be randomly killed.
so far is 2 votes to go forward. beatrice, dante?
3 now.
And goodness, Beatrice makes me feel like I'm 100 years old.
to my and Jorah's kin, 100 is barely of age :D
Jape
Dec 20, 09:17 PM
Ok, its the 20th...lets see what email we get next from BLT.
Well looks Like it didn't come again :(
Well looks Like it didn't come again :(
chaoticbear
Apr 11, 08:29 AM
I've read 2 pages, and that's 2 pages more than I should. I can't parse this in any way other than to answer it as 2; I agree that it is written ambiguously - while a calculator is cold and impersonal, I see it as a numerator of 48 and a denominator of 2(9+3). It's not the 2 camp doing multiplication before division out of some misunderstand of how order of operations works, it's us completing all the operations in the denominator before we solve the fraction. I assume any time I see a division symbol that it takes the place of a bar in traditional handwriting.
Unfortunately, there's not any way to express this clearly in a single line without some more parentheses. If you presented me with the expression "a/b(c+d)" in any form, I'd parse it the same way every time. If you are intending for the problem to read in such a way to get 288, I'd expect to see "(a/b)(c+d)".
Unfortunately, there's not any way to express this clearly in a single line without some more parentheses. If you presented me with the expression "a/b(c+d)" in any form, I'd parse it the same way every time. If you are intending for the problem to read in such a way to get 288, I'd expect to see "(a/b)(c+d)".
mdntcallr
Nov 22, 08:31 AM
i am sure apple is finding the world of phone carriers complex and difficult.
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
The biggest hangup of theirs is probably the sale of media and ringtones. They simply probably do NOT want Apple to provide the solution. Even if Apple's storefront is better, they will not want money going elsewhere.
that said, Apple's best option here is to simply launch the product themselves. Offer a GSM phone that is unlocked. The phone companies will get a clue later on when people want the product
Friscohoya
May 7, 11:19 AM
It should be free. Further lock people into this ecosystem. Besides, the future is in the cloud...
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
mcrain
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
That is a fair point.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:30 PM
Well Apple doesn't sell its software for use on any other phones (or computers), so how is it competing with software-installed numbers on all hardware types?
Apple isn't forced to allow iOS only on their own devices.
Besides, Apple is doing the same thing with OS X, it's made for Macs only, and people have always been comparing their sales against Windows.
Seems to me you're just bitter about it.
Apple isn't forced to allow iOS only on their own devices.
Besides, Apple is doing the same thing with OS X, it's made for Macs only, and people have always been comparing their sales against Windows.
Seems to me you're just bitter about it.
LagunaSol
Apr 25, 11:35 AM
Except that neither cares about watching YOU.
You don't believe a company whose sole source of revenue is providing advertising and data search services cares about keeping an eye on you???
Ignorance truly is bliss.
You don't believe a company whose sole source of revenue is providing advertising and data search services cares about keeping an eye on you???
Ignorance truly is bliss.
topherchris
Sep 11, 03:31 PM
Nobody else seems interested, so they must have already seen it, but I have not. That's pretty interesting.
no. THIS is interesting (though old)
http://mammals.org/
no. THIS is interesting (though old)
http://mammals.org/
bedifferent
Apr 24, 10:24 AM
Ah... But notice they sell one type of these displays and not the other ;)
Currently, roughly how much would a display that meets retina specs cost?
Currently, roughly how much would a display that meets retina specs cost?
QuarterSwede
Apr 18, 02:51 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
And risk losing a crap load of business? Yeah right. No one is that spitefully stupid but Apple.
And risk losing a crap load of business? Yeah right. No one is that spitefully stupid but Apple.
GGJstudios
Dec 14, 10:30 AM
I knew someone would say that. ... I'm not usually there to talk to them about that kind of security ... The client gets you in for particular job that they're paying you for... So, by all means ask them about it,
I've been a consultant for most of my business life. No matter what a client retains me to do, if I see another area where they need help, I'm going to discuss it. I'd be doing them a great disservice to "patch a broken arm" and ignore the "cancer" that represents a greater threat... and I tell them so. I've never had a client fail to appreciate this approach.
but if they say they have, why should I doubt them?
Because most clients are less computer literate than the consultants they hire. I don't rely on their word. I check their system(s). It's about being thorough and earning the fee I charge them. I would never leave a client's computer unprotected, unless I explained the risk in detail and they flatly refused. That has never happened, especially since there are great free antivirus solutions available.
Just wanted to put forward another point of view where it might be useful beyond the phrase, "the Mac doesn't have viruses, why would you need it?"
The flip-side of that phrase is, "Windows DOES have viruses; why wouldn't every Windows box have antivirus protection running?"
I've been a consultant for most of my business life. No matter what a client retains me to do, if I see another area where they need help, I'm going to discuss it. I'd be doing them a great disservice to "patch a broken arm" and ignore the "cancer" that represents a greater threat... and I tell them so. I've never had a client fail to appreciate this approach.
but if they say they have, why should I doubt them?
Because most clients are less computer literate than the consultants they hire. I don't rely on their word. I check their system(s). It's about being thorough and earning the fee I charge them. I would never leave a client's computer unprotected, unless I explained the risk in detail and they flatly refused. That has never happened, especially since there are great free antivirus solutions available.
Just wanted to put forward another point of view where it might be useful beyond the phrase, "the Mac doesn't have viruses, why would you need it?"
The flip-side of that phrase is, "Windows DOES have viruses; why wouldn't every Windows box have antivirus protection running?"
M2M
Apr 5, 01:25 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Low! Apple just low!
Low! Apple just low!
maclaptop
Apr 20, 08:10 AM
I wonder how many of these they'll sale? If it's not due out until September, but everything still points to a summer release of the iPhone 6, which is supposed to be a redesign, then why not wait six more months? I'm due for a new phone this June and if the iPhone is delayed til September I will certainly wait six more months and get the redesigned one. I'm not crazy about this form factor anyway.
You and I are thinking alike.
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
You and I are thinking alike.
Sobering stuff when Apple fails to impress.
Right or wrong the glass iphone will be forever associated with Antennagate.
I'm too much of an Apple enthusiast to keep an albatross like that.
Now I will celebrate a change of brand while Jobs and company hunts for answers. :)
ChickenSwartz
Aug 2, 01:46 PM
How about this for WWDC:
--Talk about how great the switch to Intel is going
--Praise developers work on Universal apps
--Talk about pro software
--Sit down and preview Leopard
--Talk about new Core 2 Duo
--Oh, by the way the iMac I have been using has the new Core 2 Duo
--Talk about how great the switch to Intel is going
--Praise developers work on Universal apps
--Talk about pro software
--Sit down and preview Leopard
--Talk about new Core 2 Duo
--Oh, by the way the iMac I have been using has the new Core 2 Duo
fishtank22
Jul 30, 06:23 PM
and by now, that photographer has been killed ... or more likely been fired by Apple :)
heisetax
Jul 21, 02:35 PM
Sheesh. This is a 180 from waiting for G5 updates.
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
Bill the TaxMan
To date we have not seen Apple update any of their Intel products. So it may not be any different. The pressure will be on Apple with new processors coming out all of the time. Steve Jobs keps Apple from doing what you would exspect much of the time.
Bill the TaxMan