ghostlyorb
Apr 11, 05:04 PM
I wouldn't mind this being a late graduation present :cool:
Tones2
Apr 19, 01:33 PM
I'm sure quite sure what Apple hopes to accomplish here. Every smart phone steals from every other one. I don't know if you can differentiate design "concepts". It's like suing someone because the chords for his blues song goes in a 1-4-5 pattern like yours does. It's just part of the genre.
Tony
Tony
Cygnus311
Aug 27, 12:04 PM
Because, just as there are Mac fanboys, there are also Nintendo, Microsoft and Sony fanboys. As much as we'd like to think our platform of choice is clearly the best, in all actually, each one has something unique to offer that the other may lack.
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
But that doesn't make Nintendo (or Microsoft or Sony) suck. Fanboys just make themselves suck by being fanboys. :)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 12:02 PM
Pull your fingers out of your ears (or in this case your eyes) fivepoint, and pay attention to our responses. They would answer your question/accusation/calumny.
regandarcy
Apr 6, 04:06 PM
I've never liked backlit keys and have it turned off on my MBPs. I find it annoying, personally, but I do touch type so I'm never looking at the keys. I totally understand those who do want that feature (and Apple should add it to the MBA because it appears to be important for a enough people), but personally I don't care for it and am glad I can turn it off.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
I'm with you buddy. I totally don't need it either. Even if I was a hunt and peck guy, I could see keyboard fine in a dark room just by the light of the screen so I don't see the point. But that's just me. Personally I'd rather not have it drain my battery.
But since I am such a good touch typist, I don't have to worry about that. :-)
But to each their own.
szark
Aug 6, 02:00 PM
I have no idea how trademark law works, but looking at the information on the two trademark applications, I couldn't help but notice that Mac Pro Systems & Software filed their application after Apple filed theirs.
Assuming the USPTO thinks there is an overlap, would they favor the first to file the mark, or the first to use it?
I hope there are some interesting last-minute rumor developments tonight.
Assuming the USPTO thinks there is an overlap, would they favor the first to file the mark, or the first to use it?
I hope there are some interesting last-minute rumor developments tonight.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
shartypants
Apr 25, 02:05 PM
Those two people just want their "15 minutes of fame", be interesting to see how this plays out.
lar34
Sep 18, 11:22 PM
Merom notebooks by next week I hope, but more importantly, less heat... please.
Eriden
Sep 19, 11:47 AM
You know, Sony and Nintendo are just *SO* behind the curve with next gen gaming systems.
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
http://playstation3.joystiq.com/2005/07/29/kutaragi-on-ps3-itll-be-expensive/
411: Blonde Highlights: 5
Blonde Highlights And
londe hair with lowlights and
piecey dyed londe hair
pictures of londe hair with
fringes and highlights.
Ash londe hair style (level
lowlights and highlights
pictures of londe hair with
Reacent Post
Microsoft has had it's XBox 360 out for MONTHS, while Sony and Nintendo gamers are lagging behind, barely able to function on their PS2s and GameCubes.
If Sony and Nintendo don't release the PS3 and Wii, respectively, in the next week, they'll be the laughing stocks of the industry. There's no excuse for them to release their next gen gaming systems a year after their competitor.
http://playstation3.joystiq.com/2005/07/29/kutaragi-on-ps3-itll-be-expensive/
Gasu E.
Jul 14, 02:43 PM
Did you see my above post? Great minds think a like... ;)
Logically speaking, weak minds would also think "a like".
Logically speaking, weak minds would also think "a like".
Hastings101
Apr 6, 03:29 PM
But hey, haven't you heard, Honeycomb is a real tablet OS. (Whatever the heck that means.)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
Google must have used that line in a PowerPoint somewhere because I see it regurgitated verbatim on every single iPad vs. Honeycomb thread.
The Google brainwashing continues. ;)
No more a real tablet OS than iOS is
The corporate brainwashing continues ;)
JackSYi
Aug 27, 01:02 PM
Bring on the 13.3 inch MacBook Pro.
epitaphic
Aug 20, 08:07 AM
Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
This is precisely the transition we've been seeing for some time, becoming more and more apparent every 6 months. Computers are no longer general purpose machines. It's already happened to consumers: machines today are way more than what's needed for web and email. For prosumers, its just about right, for gamers, you can never have enough single core + GPU power.
I think its fair to say to that the Mac Pro is in a way too specialized already. If you look at it's server RAM for example, which group of professionals benefits from its strengths? How many professionals will actually be able to get close to using all four cores during their normal workflow?
The way i see it, there are about 8 mainstream lines of professionals:
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
Sure everyone else will probably get a 15% kick in performance in some apps but for the most part, 4 core Mac Pro is not going to make your apps run any faster (it does give the machine more headroom for ample multitasking though). Of course at the moment there is only a 4 core Mac Pro so it's a bit academic to discuss the fact that a 2 core Mac Pro would be just as productive and much more cost effective. However, as most of you probably already know, there are good chances of an 8 core Mac Pro in January.
Sidenote: This sort of update (new machine in August, new machine following January) is not new. It happened in 2002-2003 resulting in the top of the line machine introduced in August to drop 40% in price in January.
So the interesting thing to speculate now is, if most of us have a hard time utilizing a quad to its full potential, what would an 8 core do for you? I know its not cost effective for apple at the moment, but in the future I suspect we'll be seeing 4-8 lines of professional macs.
This is precisely the transition we've been seeing for some time, becoming more and more apparent every 6 months. Computers are no longer general purpose machines. It's already happened to consumers: machines today are way more than what's needed for web and email. For prosumers, its just about right, for gamers, you can never have enough single core + GPU power.
I think its fair to say to that the Mac Pro is in a way too specialized already. If you look at it's server RAM for example, which group of professionals benefits from its strengths? How many professionals will actually be able to get close to using all four cores during their normal workflow?
The way i see it, there are about 8 mainstream lines of professionals:
- 3D Artists
- Coders
- Graphic Designers
- IT
- Multimedia Artists
- Musicians
- Photographers
- Video Editors
Who can fully utilize 4 cores right now? I'd say possibly 3D Artists, Musicians(quad G5 only), and IT.
Sure everyone else will probably get a 15% kick in performance in some apps but for the most part, 4 core Mac Pro is not going to make your apps run any faster (it does give the machine more headroom for ample multitasking though). Of course at the moment there is only a 4 core Mac Pro so it's a bit academic to discuss the fact that a 2 core Mac Pro would be just as productive and much more cost effective. However, as most of you probably already know, there are good chances of an 8 core Mac Pro in January.
Sidenote: This sort of update (new machine in August, new machine following January) is not new. It happened in 2002-2003 resulting in the top of the line machine introduced in August to drop 40% in price in January.
So the interesting thing to speculate now is, if most of us have a hard time utilizing a quad to its full potential, what would an 8 core do for you? I know its not cost effective for apple at the moment, but in the future I suspect we'll be seeing 4-8 lines of professional macs.
CaoCao
Feb 28, 08:33 PM
Now you've stopped stating opinions and walked into fact territory.
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
I said "Both cases are untreatable."
CITATION NEEDED!
Has anyone ever been truly 'cured' of homosexuality? You need to produce empirical evidence. Notably brain scans showing the arousal of a homosexual to people of his same sex before and after this 'treatment.'
If you can produce that evidence, I will be satisfied that homosexuality is a treatable condition. Until then, I'm just assuming that you're stating dogma as fact to make reprehensible claims.
I said "Both cases are untreatable."
QCassidy352
Jul 27, 10:50 AM
nice. :) I'm predicting no MBPs at WWDC, just mac pros, leopard preview, and maybe new displays. MBPs will be quietly updated with Merom a week or two later and start shipping soon after that.
unless there's a new case design (which I doubt) - if there is, Steve would have something impressive to show up on stage.
unless there's a new case design (which I doubt) - if there is, Steve would have something impressive to show up on stage.
gkarris
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
My Wife says no....
;)
;)
Benjy91
Mar 31, 02:52 PM
Please, enlighten us, how does fragmentation bite Android's ass when it is the #1 smartphone OS. Regardless what you think, Android and iOS are by far the most successful OS in the last 5 years.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I never said it's already got them, I said it would get them eventually, and now Google has seen this, and is now tightening control.
And how it will 'bite them in the ass' is with the user experience, users seeing apps on the Android Marketplace, but the app doesnt support their phone, or requires features their phone doesnt support, or their phone doesnt quite have the power to run it. Could crash their phone etc.
Their strategy ensured short-term gain, but problems later on.
Apple wont run into problems with iOS Fragmentation for a long time yet. And they can easily avoid these issues by officially not supporting older devices and preventing them accessing apps they cant run.
How is it biting them in the ass? Android is the fastest growing OS with a larger share than IOS. I think it's been a very succesfull strategy.
I never said it's already got them, I said it would get them eventually, and now Google has seen this, and is now tightening control.
And how it will 'bite them in the ass' is with the user experience, users seeing apps on the Android Marketplace, but the app doesnt support their phone, or requires features their phone doesnt support, or their phone doesnt quite have the power to run it. Could crash their phone etc.
Their strategy ensured short-term gain, but problems later on.
Apple wont run into problems with iOS Fragmentation for a long time yet. And they can easily avoid these issues by officially not supporting older devices and preventing them accessing apps they cant run.
RebootD
Apr 10, 01:29 AM
Enough Nostradamusesque mysticism and lets get to the real demo already! (Impatient) :D
portishead
Apr 12, 12:28 PM
Why are you endorsing lack of improvement?
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
Nooooo not at all. You missed my next post with my feature requests. I'm just giving people a hard time about complaining that FCP isn't good enough. It has bugs, and it's quirky, but it mostly works.
AtHomeBoy_2000
Aug 7, 03:26 PM
I dont think the "Top Secret" stuff is really top secret. I think Apple needs some more time to develope a few things before releasing them out into the public. No reason to release buggy apps.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
Remember, WWDC was pushed back this year. THey aren't done with Leopard just yet.
entatlrg
Apr 6, 12:38 PM
The most interesting thing here is how some people hang on every word over updates to the MacBook Air line.
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
Some won't touch it without a Sandy Bridge update, others want it left alone to save the NVIDIA graphics.
From dated chips, future proofing, when to buy, getting in at the right time and on and on ...
What gives?
In 90% of the tasks the average MacBook Air owner does are they really going to notice it either way?
Future proofing/saving a few hundred dollars ... there is no such thing ... just look back at the electronics you purchased in the past... how has 'future proofing' worked for you so far? lol
Like it. Buy it. Enjoy it.
H. Flower
Apr 12, 11:45 AM
"grue likes this"
Good call on the "insufficient content" / transition split errors, those drive me right to the edge of madness sometimes.
Another one: TRUTHFUL !*@(#(!@#!@ ERROR MESSAGES!
Another one: Let's say I want to export a marked clip from my timeline and I call it "Hurf", and then go "Oh whoops I meant to mark that out point 8 frames later", I want to replace "Hurf" but I can't because the program is dumb and says the file is in use. So I have to go to the file location and delete the incorrect-made file, or give it a diff name and THEN delete the original.
ahhh.....Bane of my existence. Not an issue with After Effects and its annoying as hell!
Good call on the "insufficient content" / transition split errors, those drive me right to the edge of madness sometimes.
Another one: TRUTHFUL !*@(#(!@#!@ ERROR MESSAGES!
Another one: Let's say I want to export a marked clip from my timeline and I call it "Hurf", and then go "Oh whoops I meant to mark that out point 8 frames later", I want to replace "Hurf" but I can't because the program is dumb and says the file is in use. So I have to go to the file location and delete the incorrect-made file, or give it a diff name and THEN delete the original.
ahhh.....Bane of my existence. Not an issue with After Effects and its annoying as hell!
Ivan P
Apr 8, 02:25 AM
Well right now I'm looking at both their online stores. Both sites have the Apple TV @ $99, so... uh.. Lol.
Wait ... I don't think I mentioned Best Buy paying customers to buy Apple products. I don't fully understand your post :/
I think what they're saying is it costs Best Buy (and I guess other resellers) $90 for each AppleTV unit they order in - and they sell it for Apple's set price of $99, meaning they make a measly $9 profit from the sale of one unit. They didn't mean that they are selling the unit to the consumer themselves for $90.
Edit. Original poster replied saying the exact same thing
Wait ... I don't think I mentioned Best Buy paying customers to buy Apple products. I don't fully understand your post :/
I think what they're saying is it costs Best Buy (and I guess other resellers) $90 for each AppleTV unit they order in - and they sell it for Apple's set price of $99, meaning they make a measly $9 profit from the sale of one unit. They didn't mean that they are selling the unit to the consumer themselves for $90.
Edit. Original poster replied saying the exact same thing
0 comments:
Post a Comment