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
jacg
Jul 27, 10:12 AM
Does anyone know what the maximum size is for a laptop drive is likely to be at the end of August? In other words, predict what Apple will put in a top spec Merom 15" MBP. I want to at least double the 80 GB in my PBG4.
Will MBP get a redesign? New keyboard that doesn't mark my screen perhaps? (BTW, I know nobody can actually give the answers to these questions...)
Will MBP get a redesign? New keyboard that doesn't mark my screen perhaps? (BTW, I know nobody can actually give the answers to these questions...)
Cowinacape
Jul 27, 03:56 PM
How about a new Mac at WWDC?
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
Lower Model:
CConroe E6300 - 1.86 GHz � FSB1066 � 2 MB cache - ($185)
1GB RAM
160GB Serial ATA hard drive
Double-layer SuperDrive (DVD+R DL/DVD�RW/CD-RW)
One open PCI-Express expansion slot
One open Optical drive slot [maybe] (i.e. for 2nd DVD drive)
Graphics Card with 128MB SDRAM
Built-in AirPort Extreme and Bluetooth 2.0, USB/FW800
Remote [(?] I think this box will still be small enough to fit into home entertainment setups.]
Keyboard, Mighty Mouse...................................................... $999
Some Options:
Conroe E6600 - 2.40 GHz � FSB1066 � 4 MB cache � (+$100)
Wireless Keyboard/Mouse +$60
Add DVD/CD ROM drive (in 2nd slot) + $50
250GB SATA hard drive +$75
+1GB RAM (2GB total) +$100
+3GB RAM (4GB total) +$300
Slightly Better Graphics Card with 256MB SDRAM + $50
Much Better Graphics Card +$200+
http://img92.imageshack.us/img92/9648/macandmacminipx9.jpg
You da man Dan :D I'd definetly hit one of your super sized macminis. Now if Apple was to fit those specs in a regular iMac, would make for a great little machine.
infidel69
Apr 11, 11:33 AM
Big mistake if true.
DocAlge
Sep 19, 09:39 AM
I am new to this (and still waiting to buy my first Mac). BUT why all this talk about speed and not about screen size.
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
I will buy a new Mac as soon as the new models arrive, but I could probably do with a MacBook - but I just think 13" is to small (my eyes are getting old). Does anyone think a 15" MacBook will be out anytime soon - or do I just have to pay the extra price for the MacBook Pro
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 04:02 PM
There is no way in the world Apple will be putting iSights in the Cinema Displays.
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
Well iSight or no, there needs to be an update anyway. The Mac Pro will have Front Row, and how will you control it by remote if you're meant to keep it under your desk? The new Cinema Displays need an IR "extender".
Besides, I still think Apple WOULD love to include an iSight in their displays.
iAlan
Nov 28, 08:16 PM
I haven't read all the post as yet, got to around post #50 but my sentiments pretty much reflect those of most posters.
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
However, if there is evidence that a bulk of the royalty (and I mean more than 50%) will go to artists then I can see justification in the process (but it should not be a flat $1 per device as the cost/profit of devices varies). But at the same time, Apple should get a higher share of the 99c per track as I believe the money they get per song pretty much only covers there management of the stored data and hosting on iTunes with very little profit per song - and this is understandable as Apple can leverage the iTunes store to drive iPod sales.
If the record companies want a profitable piece of Apple�s pie (no pun intended) then Apple should be entitled to a profitable piece of the 99c download.
Same logic me thinks�
Dobbs2
Apr 8, 12:57 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Well what happened is the following. They received ipads earlier this week. Didn't sell them because the Sunday ad has that Best Buy will have them in stock. Due to bait and switch laws if the ad has it they have to have a certain amount of stock. Apple didn't like it that we didn't sell through them any way and pull the add.
Well what happened is the following. They received ipads earlier this week. Didn't sell them because the Sunday ad has that Best Buy will have them in stock. Due to bait and switch laws if the ad has it they have to have a certain amount of stock. Apple didn't like it that we didn't sell through them any way and pull the add.
macMan228
Mar 26, 08:34 AM
To my knowledge, all these features everyone is complaining about, can be disabled or just worked around, so whats the big deal?
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
Bring on the Lion, i can handle it :apple:
Reventon
Aug 10, 10:47 AM
The Signature Edition is only available in Europe and Australia/NZ and not North America.
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
http://ps3.ign.com/articles/111/1110501p1.html
That said, I've already pre-ordered the Collector's Edition when they announced its release. (I probably wouldn't get it anyway, I'm not to keen on spending $300 for a game when I could get a Logitech G27 for roughly the same price). I love the GT series. The graphics look AMAZING and I can't wait for November to roll around. :D
gauriemma
Nov 29, 10:34 AM
Sounds like Universal is realizing that their anticipated cash influx they were hoping to see from Zune sales isn't going to materialize, so they're looking to leech off a player that will actually be AROUND in 2007.
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 08:55 AM
I agree, increasing the number of cores can't be the only solution on long term. In my opinion it's time to rethink CPUs: Single, maybe dual core, high processing* power with extremly low power consumption, much lower than we have nowadays.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
* Whatever that exactly means, I don't know.
Is having more cores more energy efficient than having one big fat ass 24Ghz processor? Maybe thats a factor in the increasing core count.
WillEH
Mar 25, 10:26 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
peharri
Jul 14, 03:11 PM
Some of this makes sense, some of it not.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
I think AppleInsider is right about the case. With the exception of the MacBook, whose design has been rumoured for years and clearly was something Apple would have done even had this been the "iBook G5", Apple has made it a point with all of their Intelizations to use the same case as the predecessor, as if to say "It's business as usual, all we've changed is the processor." So from that point of view, the PowerMac G5 case being, more or less, the Mac Pro case, makes a lot of sense.
Two optical drives? No, sorry, not seeing the reasoning. The reasons given so far don't add up:
- copying DVDs - you can't legally copy 99% of DVDs anyway, if there was no need for twin CD drives, why would there suddenly be for DVDs?
- burning two at once - few people need this, and it's a great sales opportunity for a Firewire external burner anyway. Hell, why stop at TWO?
- Blu-ray - not unless they're really screwed up BR and drives with BR will be incompatible with existing media or something.
Against this, you have the confusion generated by a Mac with two optical drives. I have a Mac with two optical drives (an in-built combo drive, and a FW DVD burner), and it's not terribly elegant. It's fine when reading disks (obviously), but writing them generates some confusion. How sure am I that I'm burning to the right drive? I'm not saying you can't do it, I'm just saying this would be unbelievably un-Mac like. It'd be like the next version of iTunes coming with a menu at the top of its window.
It's also kind of easy to see where this rumour might have originated, in some garbled communication where the rumourmonger says "Two optical drive formats", or "Two bays", or "Multiple media readers" (hey, why not put an SD/CF/MS reader on the front? Pretty much everyone uses them these days, especially the prosumer-market Apple is after. Bet there are more people who'd use an SD card reader than a Firewire port.)
I've been wrong before, but I'm going to go for a traditional PowerMac G5 enclosure, and a single optical drive which may, or may not, support Blu-ray in some shape or form.
Nuck81
Dec 7, 04:20 PM
So another patch for today adding mechanical damage. Must have the newest firmware...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
only online so far. It was a good fix, cuts down on the bumper cars in certain rooms...
Multimedia
Jul 15, 05:15 AM
I prefer the Simpsons' parody of that cartoon:
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
"...and I'll make Ted Kennedy pay, if he fights back I'll say that he's gay."
But seriously, the $1799 price point is a step in the right direction. If we could get it down to $1599 or <gasp> $1499, then that would be the de facto mini tower so many have clamored for. I would like a redesigned case, but that'll come eventually.
Sometimes the right price can make a person forget about what might have been.We have that already on the Refurbished page. :) Dual Core 2GHz G5 is only $1699 there. Quad only $2799. So your dream of $1499 will come when the 2GHz Core 2 Duo Mac Pro hits the refurb page - which, according to recent history, should happen before Christmas.I believe that the MacBook was on the refurb page in around 3-4 weeks. The iMac Core Duo took AGES though.Yes MacBook broke the speed record for shift to the refurb page in record time. Right now everything is up there except the 17" MacBook Pros. My Quad made it there in only 3 months last Winter.
Cooknn
Aug 23, 12:51 PM
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.I'd rather pray for the speedy development of Adobe Creative Suite 3 UB :cool:
HecubusPro
Aug 27, 06:25 PM
I hate to say it, but I think the chances of Apple dropping the merom chips into laptops before September 5th are pretty slim. It's probably more likely that the waiting times are due to back to school rush shortages; Apple has doubled its laptop market share with the Macbook. http://arstechnica.com/journals/apple.ars/2006/7/25/4753
I agree 100%.
In addition, thinksecret reported earlier this month that we might be seeing an updated case for the MBP. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html While this would be a good thing, because it alludes to Apple maybe addressing the heat issue, it is pretty unlikely that Apple would start shipping a machine to buyers without diclosing that the case looks different.
I've always loved the current look of the aluminum enclosure for the MBP's, so I'm not necessarily looking for a different enclosure, though I wouldn't mind if they did. It's what's inside that counts, right? :p
IMO, I believe the new enclosure will basically add easier access to swappable HDD's like the MB. It doesn't seem appropriate for a lower end model computer to have a feature the professional level model should have. That's why you pay the big $. I think the enclosure will remain the same, but we'll see an update that will allow users to change out their hard drives if they choose.
Apparently, the September 5th date stems from reports that Apple is scheduled to recieved a massive product shipment from Asia. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1965 This coincides with other reports of the new Macs being ready "after Labor Day."
Agreed again. I know it's exciting to think that we'll see new macs with merom tomorrow, but I think that's 99% unlikely to happen considering the report stated that Apple will receive "a massive product shipment from Asia" on the 5th of September (remember, remember the 5th of September:cool: ) that still doesn't take into account the time it takes to ship from their warehouses where they received those shipments, to their retail outlets--Apple stores, etc. My guess would be that we'll begin seeing merom MPB's between the 7th to the 22nd in stores and online. Perhaps that's not a bold prediction, but I think it's a safe one. :D
It's pretty safe to say that we will be able to get our Merom Macs at the very latest by the second week of September; thus, we will all be able to capitolize on the ipod deal that runs through the 16th. Personally, I think that the likelyhood of time running out on the nano deal is pretty slim because that sale is likely in response to an imminent refresh in the nano's own product line. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Though I certainly do hope they'll be available in time to take advantage of the free Nano before that deal runs out on the 16th.
I agree 100%.
In addition, thinksecret reported earlier this month that we might be seeing an updated case for the MBP. http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0606macpro.html While this would be a good thing, because it alludes to Apple maybe addressing the heat issue, it is pretty unlikely that Apple would start shipping a machine to buyers without diclosing that the case looks different.
I've always loved the current look of the aluminum enclosure for the MBP's, so I'm not necessarily looking for a different enclosure, though I wouldn't mind if they did. It's what's inside that counts, right? :p
IMO, I believe the new enclosure will basically add easier access to swappable HDD's like the MB. It doesn't seem appropriate for a lower end model computer to have a feature the professional level model should have. That's why you pay the big $. I think the enclosure will remain the same, but we'll see an update that will allow users to change out their hard drives if they choose.
Apparently, the September 5th date stems from reports that Apple is scheduled to recieved a massive product shipment from Asia. http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=1965 This coincides with other reports of the new Macs being ready "after Labor Day."
Agreed again. I know it's exciting to think that we'll see new macs with merom tomorrow, but I think that's 99% unlikely to happen considering the report stated that Apple will receive "a massive product shipment from Asia" on the 5th of September (remember, remember the 5th of September:cool: ) that still doesn't take into account the time it takes to ship from their warehouses where they received those shipments, to their retail outlets--Apple stores, etc. My guess would be that we'll begin seeing merom MPB's between the 7th to the 22nd in stores and online. Perhaps that's not a bold prediction, but I think it's a safe one. :D
It's pretty safe to say that we will be able to get our Merom Macs at the very latest by the second week of September; thus, we will all be able to capitolize on the ipod deal that runs through the 16th. Personally, I think that the likelyhood of time running out on the nano deal is pretty slim because that sale is likely in response to an imminent refresh in the nano's own product line. http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
Though I certainly do hope they'll be available in time to take advantage of the free Nano before that deal runs out on the 16th.
robotx21
Sep 19, 12:57 PM
I don't know if that's proof or a reason enough to think they'll have more than a chip drop-in, but I'm certainly hoping that it does get announced, and that you're right. :)
Well, like I have said before, brenthaven is releasing new "macbook pro" carrying cases next week the same time around the photokina event, and they are about 1/4" thicker in terms of "minimum/maximum" laptop specifications. This gives me reason to believe the case will be approx. .1-.3 inches thicker than current models, possibly making room for a better graphics card and dvd drive? Don't know...
Well, like I have said before, brenthaven is releasing new "macbook pro" carrying cases next week the same time around the photokina event, and they are about 1/4" thicker in terms of "minimum/maximum" laptop specifications. This gives me reason to believe the case will be approx. .1-.3 inches thicker than current models, possibly making room for a better graphics card and dvd drive? Don't know...
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 02:53 PM
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
They kind of cant do more detailed damage to standard cars. Premium cars are modeled exactly right their real counterpart. Each body part is completely separate from the rest and can be torn off in a collision. Standard cars are one big mesh that can be dented, but not broken apart. In order to give the same level of damage to a standard car they'd have to update it to a premium model.
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
They kind of cant do more detailed damage to standard cars. Premium cars are modeled exactly right their real counterpart. Each body part is completely separate from the rest and can be torn off in a collision. Standard cars are one big mesh that can be dented, but not broken apart. In order to give the same level of damage to a standard car they'd have to update it to a premium model.
I've heard/read chatter that some patches will update some standard cars to premium, but i dont think i've seen anything official yet. Kaz is way too ambitious and had to cut a lot out of the game already. I expect he'll add it in as time goes on, as patches and not paid DLC.
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 1, 05:11 PM
The IC-10 test is giving me hell. I've not had much of a challenge until now, but i just can not get gold on IC-10. I have silver, which is cool, but i keep wanting to go back and get gold because i've gotten gold on everything else so far.
Any IC-10 test pointers? It seems to be all about the first two turns, but i always end up tapping another car and getting disqualified.
Any IC-10 test pointers? It seems to be all about the first two turns, but i always end up tapping another car and getting disqualified.
Oh-es-Ten
Apr 5, 05:02 PM
So many things that FCP / FCS can improve upon here - they need the equivalent of Adobe's Mercury Engine, leveraging Grand Central, QTX, and a full Cocoa build for all the FCS apps...
At present we have to re-encode a lot of our footage (7D / Minicam etc), and you don't need to do that in Premiere, it just plays on the timeline - however editing in that is quite frankly an exercise in sheer frustration and strange bugs.
Come on, please be true! The days of pressing CMD+R I would love to see over! Especially when you are rendering an audio effect that actual renders in a microsecond, yet won't play realtime... Sigh.
At present we have to re-encode a lot of our footage (7D / Minicam etc), and you don't need to do that in Premiere, it just plays on the timeline - however editing in that is quite frankly an exercise in sheer frustration and strange bugs.
Come on, please be true! The days of pressing CMD+R I would love to see over! Especially when you are rendering an audio effect that actual renders in a microsecond, yet won't play realtime... Sigh.
leekohler
Mar 1, 10:23 AM
Lee, you should already know my answer to that question. It's an emphatic "no." Nor do I support the gay rights movement.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
I don't tell others what to do, but that doesn't mean I think it's all right for them do everything they want to do. I'll share my opinions with others if they're willing to hear them. I don't want to control anyone, and I will not be a codependent caregiver. I refuse to protect others from negative consequences when they need to learn from them.
But you ARE trying to control others Bill. It's quite obvious. There are no negative consequences inherent to being gay. I'm a 43 year old man, and quite happy. The only negative consequences I've suffered have been at the hands of people like you, who think you know how everyone should live and try to force your beliefs on us with laws. You absolutely want to control others, or at the very least, impose your punishments on us.
My parents, especially my Mom, hated to see me do some foolish things when I was a boy. They let me walk the half mile to the steakhouse when they knew that I probably would have been too tired to walk back home. They let me stand outdoors in the winter when I tried to run away from home in the winter. The front porch was too icy for me to stand on, so I couldn't walk down the steps.
Hmm...but did they make any laws against you doing any of those things?
I believe that people with same-sex attractions are endangering themselves at least physically when they have sex with each other. So I'll post a link to some evidence for my opinion (http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/homosexuality/ho0075.html). Notice, the document's author is a medical doctor.
There are risks inherent in any sexual activity Bill, heterosexual or homosexual. I'm well aware of the risks of both. Apparently, you seem to feel that all gay men engage in sodomy, which is far from the truth. Also, many of these statistics are based on the results of promiscuous behavior. Gay people marrying would discourage promiscuity, which would most likely reduce those statistics. One would think you should be pro gay marriage rights in that case. But hey, we all know that's not what your real concern is. Your concern is to get everyone to conform to your rules.
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment