Resistors In Series
cube
Mar 30, 12:52 PM
Isn't "Hoover" the reason why the word "Hoover" became a generic term for a vacuum cleaner? The power of the brand name itself. Much like its common in the states to hear "Xerox" to describe a photo copier? Or to "Google" to search on the internet..
Or, Sallatape ( spelling ) for "sticky tape"...
Scotch tape.
You don't google using Bing. You google using Google.
Or, Sallatape ( spelling ) for "sticky tape"...
Scotch tape.
You don't google using Bing. You google using Google.
HecubusPro
Sep 14, 10:27 PM
Something that has been mentioned a few times here and there that I would like clarifying. I will be purchasing (as part of a group order) an MPB this Saturday. When I go to the apple website, for glossy, it says 5-7 days. If I ordered the MBP, and somehow managed to hold onto it without tearing it open until the 25th, could I really send it in, unopened, for an updated MBP not questions asked?
As long as it's not a BTO, you should be able to return the MBP within the 14 day grace period. There is a restocking fee, but several people have stated that if you ask nicely (maybe bake some cookies for them?) they'll waive the restocking fee.
BTO systems cannot be returned unless they're DOA.
As long as it's not a BTO, you should be able to return the MBP within the 14 day grace period. There is a restocking fee, but several people have stated that if you ask nicely (maybe bake some cookies for them?) they'll waive the restocking fee.
BTO systems cannot be returned unless they're DOA.
Maccus Aurelius
Oct 27, 04:38 PM
I support GreenPeace All the way!
So we can all assume you also support their haphazard attempts to save the environment, and the fact that they are indeed an incongruent entity with logic, reason, and good taste. They target apple, knowing full well other manufacturers have a generous share of toxic substances in their products (spare us the propeganda greenpeace, we know what LCD's and CRT screens contain).
Greenpeace is the sort that would assume a factory is producing an alarming amount of toxic waste if they happen to spot a dead bird on the roof of the building.
So we can all assume you also support their haphazard attempts to save the environment, and the fact that they are indeed an incongruent entity with logic, reason, and good taste. They target apple, knowing full well other manufacturers have a generous share of toxic substances in their products (spare us the propeganda greenpeace, we know what LCD's and CRT screens contain).
Greenpeace is the sort that would assume a factory is producing an alarming amount of toxic waste if they happen to spot a dead bird on the roof of the building.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
cvaldes
Mar 22, 02:10 PM
Me too. I have a 2 year old Mini and while the current models look cool, they aren't a whole lot faster. I would also LOVE an SSD option although at this point I would be more than satisfied with a 7200 RPM option! (Can't believe that you still can only get 5400 RPM drives unless you get the server.)
I bought last year's Mac mini; it's a great little system, but you should wait if you're in the market.
My guess is that there would be an entry-level Mac mini with a Core i3 processor and a Mac mini server with a Core i5 processor with options for SSDs. Heck, there's a chance that Apple would use their new SSD module for the boot drive, and use a 2.5" drive for the secondary drive, with a choice of a standard drive or SSD.
I bought last year's Mac mini; it's a great little system, but you should wait if you're in the market.
My guess is that there would be an entry-level Mac mini with a Core i3 processor and a Mac mini server with a Core i5 processor with options for SSDs. Heck, there's a chance that Apple would use their new SSD module for the boot drive, and use a 2.5" drive for the secondary drive, with a choice of a standard drive or SSD.
Kaafir
Oct 27, 01:05 PM
i think this whole environmental movement has been turned into a product. look at so-called environmentally-friendly cars (hybrids, flex fuel, etc). they're all using gas or resources in one way or another. but on the commercials you're told that by driving them, you're 'saving the earth'. it's all just a gimmick now.
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
I tried that, but the hobo down at the tracks said he wanted a new video iPod because it was the new hotness and the mini I was trying to give him was old and busted. (/sarc)
Somthing else that people don't readily think about is the fact that when paper is recycled, there are more chemicals put back into the environment in order to break it down to pulp than would be used to turn new pulp wood into paper.
I'm all for not clubbing baby seals to make Tiffany store tampons for rich ho's in Bel Air, but you have to draw the line for reasonableness somewhere. Some of this stuff, honestly, seems like a marketing ploy -
"We'll sell you this bottle made from 100% recycled iPods and which also contains 100% biodegradable chemicals that are safe to use in your bathroom! Best of all, we're going to make 600% profit since the ordinary non-ecofriendly stuff only makes us 150% profit, but you get to rest your conscious about driving that Tahoe with no kids and living in the suburbs by fooling yourself into thinking that you're being environmentally responsible and doing your part! Go you!"
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
I tried that, but the hobo down at the tracks said he wanted a new video iPod because it was the new hotness and the mini I was trying to give him was old and busted. (/sarc)
Somthing else that people don't readily think about is the fact that when paper is recycled, there are more chemicals put back into the environment in order to break it down to pulp than would be used to turn new pulp wood into paper.
I'm all for not clubbing baby seals to make Tiffany store tampons for rich ho's in Bel Air, but you have to draw the line for reasonableness somewhere. Some of this stuff, honestly, seems like a marketing ploy -
"We'll sell you this bottle made from 100% recycled iPods and which also contains 100% biodegradable chemicals that are safe to use in your bathroom! Best of all, we're going to make 600% profit since the ordinary non-ecofriendly stuff only makes us 150% profit, but you get to rest your conscious about driving that Tahoe with no kids and living in the suburbs by fooling yourself into thinking that you're being environmentally responsible and doing your part! Go you!"
notjustjay
Sep 19, 04:27 PM
He quoted that number on a 5M connection...is that what you have?
Pfff, who knows. The quality of our local DSL service has gone to crap lately. I would have thought in theory I should be getting 3M, but in reality, it's been pretty slow lately. It doesn't help that the DSL company I'm with now is one that I was dumped with because the one I had originally subscribed to went out of business. I would switch, but I'm not hearing very good things from neighbors with other companies...
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect. Sure, some of you can do that. But those of us with crappy DSL/cable (or even.. gasp! dialup!) are not in a place yet where large movie downloads are convenient.
Pfff, who knows. The quality of our local DSL service has gone to crap lately. I would have thought in theory I should be getting 3M, but in reality, it's been pretty slow lately. It doesn't help that the DSL company I'm with now is one that I was dumped with because the one I had originally subscribed to went out of business. I would switch, but I'm not hearing very good things from neighbors with other companies...
But my point is that Steve talked about 30-minute downloads as if to say that this is what your average user can expect. Sure, some of you can do that. But those of us with crappy DSL/cable (or even.. gasp! dialup!) are not in a place yet where large movie downloads are convenient.
macadam212
Mar 29, 11:58 AM
I believe Windows Phone market share gains will come largely at the expense of Android. I think iOS will do just fine, as they have great hardware software integration which differentiates them from what Microsoft and Google are doing.
CaptMurdock
Apr 21, 08:46 AM
Sure is. A hypothetical I like to propose:
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
Oh, good... I was wondering when the "Screw you, I got mine" crowd would come out of hiding.
Considering that the discrepancies between "rich" and "poor" as far as voting goes are far over blown (http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2007/10/24/even-more-on-income-and-voting/) (Rich DO vote liberal and poor DO vote conservative) with the top third of white income earners STILL voting liberal, despite their high incomes and the ever-pervasive myth that rich people vote republican.
If this top third of income earners, instead of trying to legislate their charities through democratic votes and the force of law, simply put 50%, 60%, 70%, hell, 90% of their incomes towards charity rather than owning a home, owning multiple vehicles, owning boats, "traveling", shopping at Lunds or Kowalskis, etc, the poverty problem would be fixed, or at the very least, helped significantly without forcing ANYBODY to do ANYTHING.
But then again, these people would rather force everyone to pony up the dough rather than take a hit to their lifestyles.
Charity is a beautiful thing, but forced charity?
Oh, good... I was wondering when the "Screw you, I got mine" crowd would come out of hiding.
PeterQVenkman
Mar 22, 03:29 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
Probably not until August at the earliest.
Probably not until August at the earliest.
bshort
Sep 14, 10:00 AM
New version of Aperture!.. Saweeet
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
or more likely a new Apple iSLR
16 Megapixels
full frame sensor
Adaptive lens mount supports all Canon and Nikon Lenses
60gb removeable 1.8" hard drive
3" OLED screen
Anti-Dust
Anti-shake
Shoots in a new Apple RAW format
eye tracking for focus
Spot metering
1/8000 shutter with 150,000 shutter life
Full weather sealing
Magnesium body
6fps (up to 25 raw frames)
Depth of Field Preview
Pop up flash
802.11 Wifi
GPS built in
Optional Battery Grip
Scrollwheel navigation for menu system
Apple iScreen Digital Image processor
64 Segment Metering and Spot Metering
Supports Compact Flash
You had me up until the magnesium body.
It would have to be made out of aluminium.
-B
FFTT
Sep 10, 05:12 AM
If my memory serves me correctly Conroe will not be pin compatible with Merom, is that right? I just can't remember what's what anymore. Old age.
Bluefusion
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
mac jones
Apr 4, 12:18 PM
The report says 40 shots were fired so the perps were armed and this is the whole point. The guard has a set (and is a good shot it seems).
If you go to do a crime armed, you should die.
Kudos guard.
If you go to do a crime armed, you should die.
Kudos guard.
Chundles
Sep 8, 09:13 AM
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Hell no, Leopard will run on G4s, G5s, Core Duos, Core 2 Duos, maybe even the old G3s but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Hell no, Leopard will run on G4s, G5s, Core Duos, Core 2 Duos, maybe even the old G3s but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
nem3015
Sep 1, 12:30 PM
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
Multimedia
Sep 12, 03:33 AM
Multimedia, in the Sept.12th thread, you said:
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
"I now predict a 50% chance the C2Q Mac will be unveiled tomorrow. And if not tomorrow no later than early November."
I guess that's what people disagreed with (although I haven't finished reading the whole thread yet). I agree with you that it is indeed really big news and I still can't quite wrap my mind around the idea, but I'd be extremely surprised if Apple announces anything Kentsfield later today. (It's already the 12th here in South Korea.)I agree. I let my enthusasm for the surprise Core 2 Quadro would be ready for retail shelves mid October swept my logic away. I've changed that post since coming to my senses.
jouster
Aug 28, 02:18 PM
These are products that are now competing directly with the products or the PC industry.....
Apple has always competed directly with PCs and related products.
.....now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design
When were those not the only distinctions Apple had? I mean, who really bought Macs because they had processors based on a different ISA?
Apple has always competed directly with PCs and related products.
.....now that Apple is using Intel Processors, all they really have going for them are their ability to run OS X and their design
When were those not the only distinctions Apple had? I mean, who really bought Macs because they had processors based on a different ISA?
israelagm
Mar 30, 01:11 PM
Thought it was clear so I'll try again.
http://i.imgur.com/bQOJh.jpg
Notice the iTunes.exe in the middle? It being the actual program but is denoted as Application.;)
Right... but your still using iTunes, an Apple 'application'. I think I would understand your point and your point would be made clearer if you showed a Windows program/software or any third party program/software that describes the file type as an "Application." If there are any, because I haven't used a windows in a few years. I'd boot up the old PC and check myself but I rather not.
http://i.imgur.com/bQOJh.jpg
Notice the iTunes.exe in the middle? It being the actual program but is denoted as Application.;)
Right... but your still using iTunes, an Apple 'application'. I think I would understand your point and your point would be made clearer if you showed a Windows program/software or any third party program/software that describes the file type as an "Application." If there are any, because I haven't used a windows in a few years. I'd boot up the old PC and check myself but I rather not.
Lynxpoint
Aug 31, 11:32 PM
I'm thinking of an Apple/Canon merger? I was hoping for a buyout of leica or kodak, but I think a Canon merger might work. We haven't seen any large mergers buyouts since HP/Compaq and something is going to happen soon. Though I don't know if this is true or not Steve Jobs and Canon have had close ties for nearly 15 years and I've noticed this recently with the Canon products being given first priority in there digital/video store. At one time Canon even invested something like $10 million into NEXT. Snapping(excuse the pun) Canon would help with a huge amount of patents and might be easier then starting from scratch with a camera or camcorder.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
TrollToddington
Apr 23, 07:47 AM
Why assume people want to game on the go ? I don't game on the go with my MBA, I usually use it to VPN to work on the go or to do some hobby programming. However, when home, I plug it into my external monitor and I game there. Why wouldn't people with 11" do the same ? Play some WoW/StarCraft/Civilization/Portal/Whatever at home when "docked", unplug and take the laptop on the Go for other tasks they need to do away from home ?If you read my post more carefully you'll understand I was referring to the people who play games on the 11". As far as I'm concerned, working on a laptop with an external monitor plugged in is an exception (rare) and not something common.
Are you guys so short sighted you can't see a lot of us don't have 2 computers ? What's the use when the MBA is capable of everything ?Perhaps you mean it is capable of everything you need it to do. I used to have a laptop as a single computer at my home. It resembled a Christmas tree pretty much - it had an USB optical mouse, a printer, external speakers, a Yamaha keyboard, card reader and power cord plugged in. I was always plugging and unplugging cables whenever I wanted to move it to another place. Thank goodness I did not come to the idea to attach an external monitor to it.
Are you guys so short sighted you can't see a lot of us don't have 2 computers ? What's the use when the MBA is capable of everything ?Perhaps you mean it is capable of everything you need it to do. I used to have a laptop as a single computer at my home. It resembled a Christmas tree pretty much - it had an USB optical mouse, a printer, external speakers, a Yamaha keyboard, card reader and power cord plugged in. I was always plugging and unplugging cables whenever I wanted to move it to another place. Thank goodness I did not come to the idea to attach an external monitor to it.
segfaultdotorg
May 3, 02:32 PM
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
Perhaps they're comparing the old i7 to the new i7?
Blakjack
Apr 4, 12:15 PM
Me neither. I wonder if the suspects were armed...or at least how smashing glass doors escalated into gunfire.
Obviously u didnt read the article. I have no sympathy for people who do stupid stuff like this. At the end of the day, u deserve what u get and the only people who really get *****ed at the end of the day is the family of the criminal who decided to do something stupid and got killed in the process. Its hard times for everybody right now, but thats no excuse.
Obviously u didnt read the article. I have no sympathy for people who do stupid stuff like this. At the end of the day, u deserve what u get and the only people who really get *****ed at the end of the day is the family of the criminal who decided to do something stupid and got killed in the process. Its hard times for everybody right now, but thats no excuse.
ditzy
Mar 22, 07:25 PM
Sounds like you'd be interested in a nice Windows7 machine. Enjoy. :rolleyes:
Seriously I am an apple fangirl, but this response embarrassed me. If in the future apple start offering 24 and 30 inch models, will you take back this statement.
Seriously I am an apple fangirl, but this response embarrassed me. If in the future apple start offering 24 and 30 inch models, will you take back this statement.
0 تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق
الاشتراك في تعليقات الرسالة [Atom]
<< الصفحة الرئيسية