Applespider
Mar 20, 06:27 PM
I switch all the time on this issue. For the most part, DRM doesn't get in the way of anything I do so I think 'what the hey!'
Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.
Then I envision wanting to make a silly video and using some music with it (which I could do if I'd burned it off a CD) and not being allowed to with the iTMS stuff. And yes, I know that the CD way is illegal too but until the RIAA make a very easy way for Joe Public to be able to pay a nominal amount for a very limited distribution, not-for-sale video, people are going to do it illegally.
Reach9
Apr 20, 06:22 PM
From the OP. I read a few things..
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
1. No LTE/4G network for iPhone 5, iPhone 6 hopeful but still not sure
2. iPhone 5 will have other features to make current iPhone 4 customers want to upgrade.
3. Steve Jobs will be back, and might be in WWDC and September event.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 27, 08:46 AM
I have a great one: until 1973 the DSM listed homosexuality as a mental illness until they looked at some evidence and found the only harm associated with being gay was the harm inflicted on gay people by hateful a-holes, and without the a-holes, gay people are as happy and well-adjusted as anyone else.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I meant what I said I didn't know whether homosexuality was a mental illness. But I think it's important to distinguish between a mental illness and a that has psychological and/or environmental causes. Mental illnesses include clinical depression, schizophrenia, bipolar, and others. Inferiority complexes, poor self-esteem, and some irrational fears, say, are psychological problems, not mental illnesses. I think homosexuality is a psychological problem with psychological and/or environmental causes. Many same-sex-attracted people think they're born that way or even that homosexuality is genetic. I disagree with them. I think homosexuality begins when the same-sex-attracted person is about 2. If homosexuality were genetic, why are some identical twins born heterosexual when their twins turn out to feel same-sex-attractions?
I wouldn't be surprised to know that the American Psychiatric Association changed the DSM because of political pressure from special interest groups who disagreed with what the APA thought about homosexuality.
Remember what I said about induction and the asymmetry between confirmation and refutation because even an inductively justified majority opinion can be false.
Obviously not. You are seriously presenting Joseph Nicolosi as your expert on homosexuality? Next up: Hitler's critical study of Judaism.
That sounds like an ad hominem attack against Nicolosi. I agree with him and with his coworker who gave the lecture.
I thought you said you didn't know either way. You seem to have taken a position. To wit, the wrong one. There is no evidence supporting the theory that homosexuality itself is either a consequence or a cause of any harmful mental condition. This is why credible evidence-driven psychologists (not Nicolosi) do not practice under that theory. Attending a psychologist who promotes this discredited and prejudiced viewpoint is no different from seeking the counsel of an astrologer or homeopath.
I may not have written clearly enough because I am taking a position, Nicolosi's position. Is there a chance that Nicolosi's same-sex-attracted critics dismiss his opinion because they're biased? Gelfin says that there's no evidence that homosexuality has psychological causes. But Nicolosi and his colleagues think they are presenting such evidence. Maybe they are presenting evidence for that I might think there's no evidence for something when there's undiscovered evidence for it or when others have discovered evidence that I've ignored deliberately or not.
I'mAMac
Aug 29, 02:36 PM
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
cars may have produced 100x less CO2 forty years ago. but today there 100x more cars on the road. Global Warming is caused by many reasons. I won't get into them all but I will mention one. Electricity. The heat from our major cities and towns go into the atmosphere, decrease O-zone protection, which in turn makes the sun shine stronger and melts our ice caps. But there are other reasons that i dont feel like explaining. If you want to know more...google it.
jmcrutch
Mar 18, 09:41 AM
you can buy an iPhone without signing a contract (eBay, from a friend, etc.) however you cannot get service for the iPhone (in the U.S. at least) without entering into an agreement with a carrier, which a court will enforce as a contract, regardless whether there's a physical signature or not.
awmazz
Mar 11, 08:57 AM
Link?
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
To get an idea of how massive this one was, I am in Himeji, and just an hour east of me, in Osaka, buildings were swaying. Now if you look at a map of where the quake is and how far away Osaka is, my god.
No link. TV coverage - NHK World.
baleensavage
Sep 12, 03:45 PM
But I expected something abit more radical than what they showed.
Me too. The other announcements met or exceeded my expectations, but the iTV just made me wonder why Apple even bothered. It's not a very revolutionary product to warrant a preview. As far as I can tell is its a souped up Airport with HDMI ports that can run Front Row. What can that offer me that a $40 DVD player from Best Buy can't. The DVD player has better resolution, costs 7.5 times less and has more content available for it. Sure I don't have to change DVDs but Im not that lazy yet that I mind doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
Me too. The other announcements met or exceeded my expectations, but the iTV just made me wonder why Apple even bothered. It's not a very revolutionary product to warrant a preview. As far as I can tell is its a souped up Airport with HDMI ports that can run Front Row. What can that offer me that a $40 DVD player from Best Buy can't. The DVD player has better resolution, costs 7.5 times less and has more content available for it. Sure I don't have to change DVDs but Im not that lazy yet that I mind doing that.
Now if it would stream HD content... that would be another story. Give me another option other than participating in Sony and Toshibas little spat. That would be cool.
HecubusPro
Sep 12, 06:38 PM
Anyone got a screenshot from the keynote?
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
What do you mean? That's a picture from the keynote this morning posted by one of the Gizmodo guys who was there.
wdogmedia
Aug 29, 02:26 PM
I didn't know we had a climate scientist in this forum, let alone one of the tiny percentage of scientists who dispute that human activity is a large factor in current climate change? Please enlighten us... that is, unless you're just some guy with an uneducated opinion. By all means, tell us why you know so much more about this well-studied topic than the hundreds of thousands of climate researchers around the world who've reached an almost unprecedented consensus regarding the roll of human activity, and CO2 production, in climate change.
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
30 years ago climate scientists warned us to expect an imminent ice age....it even made the cover of Time, if I'm not mistaken.
I noticed that you didn't dispute the fact that the dominant greenhouse gas is water vapor. This is not a disputable fact; no climate scientist will argue with you there. Global warming is also not a disputable fact; it is well-documented and has been occuring since records were first kept. However, saying that scientists have reached an "unprecedented consensus" is absolutely false; and would that even matter? How often do you read a story on CNN or MSNBC that begins with the phrase "Scientists NOW think...." Science is in its very nature an evolutionary process, and findings change over time. Who remembers when nine of out ten doctors smoked Camels more than any other cigarette?
I'm ranting now, sorry. The point is that I've never heard a satisfactory answer as to why water vapor isn't taken into effect when discussing global warming, when it is undeniably the largest factor of the greenhouse effect. But according to the Department of Energy and the EPA, C02 is the dominant greenhouse gas, accounting for over 99% of the greenhouse effect....aside from water vapor. This certainly makes C02 the most significant non-water contributor to global warming...but even then, climate scientists will not argue with you if you point out that nature produces three times the CO2 that humans do.
Forty years ago, cars released nearly 100 times more C02 than they do today, industry polluted the atmosphere while being completely unchecked, and deforestation went untamed. Thanks to grassroots movement in the 60s and 70s (and yes, Greenpeace), worldwide pollution has been cut dramatically, and C02 pollution has been cut even more thanks to the Kyoto Agreement. But global warming continues, despite human's dramatically decreased pollution of the atmosphere.
No climate scientist will argue the fact that global climate change has, in the past, universally been the result of cyclical variances in Earth's orbit/rotation, and to a lesser degree variances in our Sun's output. Why then, since pollution has been reduced dramatically, and since climate change is known to be caused by factors outside of our control, is it so crazy to believe that we're not at fault anymore?
And since when does being in a "tiny percentage" denote right/wrong? Aren't you a Mac zealot? :)
Nomadski
Apr 28, 09:16 PM
Apple may market the iPod touch as an "iPod", but in all reality it is just an advanced PDA that has a really good music player inside it. More of an iPod by Label, than it is by past definition.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
No, its a fully fledged iPod which has further functions. The music player is even called iPod. You use it in the same way you use old iPods (Artist, Genre, Album etc) except the interface has changed. Its an iPod.
I don't think it is. There are many past examples of fads that lasted an entire decade, even longer.
Huh? If a trend of popularity lasts a decade, "even longer" it most certainly cannot be considered a fad, by any definition. Just because less and less people (in your eyes) are using them in their old form, doesn't make them a fad over a period of 10 years (and still selling well). Were VHS tapes or DVDs a fad? Were Playstation 1's a fad? Ill give you a fad...Moon Boots. Tiffany. Puffa Jackets. Hula Hoops.
Some things fade away very quickly after huge popularity. These are fads. Some things simply evolve or get superceded by a superior version. These aren't.
The iPod was introduced in hit popularity in 2003 / when it was later replaced (in the eyes of masses of people buying them) by the iPhone, and later iPod Touch as the next "new thing".
The iPod came out years after the first mp3 players existed, and yet managed to completely dominate the market very quickly and stayed dominant for 10 years. They have become so intrinsically intertwined in what they do, that many people mistakenly refer to them as a generic term for all mp3 players - people come into my shop asking for Sony iPods for example.
If we were still using the 2001 models it would be a crazy world we live in, but iPhones are still iPods, Touches are still iPods and the original still sells well as the Classic, with the Nano and Shuffle also far more popular than any other none Apple product on the music market. This is 10 years on.
Are you? Why do you think Windows 7 sells so well? All Mac users need to buy one.
Im not even sure this guy can be serious. Windows 7 sells so well because people who upgraded an 8 year old OS (XP) to a buggy overbloated OS (Vista) had to quickly replace it with something that actually works (7). W7 is great IMO, but Mac users don't need to use Windows in any form, they have OSX. And OSX rocks.
Just because they CAN install Windows doesn't mean they do.
Multimedia
Oct 28, 03:07 PM
OK, so I now know what the potential capabilities of the new machines will have. If I look at the Apple Store and see the 3 current base options & price, when the release occurs, what is the speculation of choices & prices?
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.This is a fairly short thread. All your questions and answers have been discussed in depth above. You should wait in case there is more base RAM to 2GB since that's the new base in MacBook Pros.
Figure Plus $800-$1400 for the 8-core
I am also wanting to know that if I have decided that the current 2.66 GHz meets my needs, should I hold off because they may bump the speed, lower the price, etc., etc. I also understand that everything is pure speculation. I am also not wanting to shoot myself because something else happens to the current line up.
I appreciate the thorough & in-depth responses. It helps.This is a fairly short thread. All your questions and answers have been discussed in depth above. You should wait in case there is more base RAM to 2GB since that's the new base in MacBook Pros.
Figure Plus $800-$1400 for the 8-core
gugy
Jul 12, 01:55 AM
Why the obsession with Adobe? There are other companies out there as well.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
Oh really.
Ok, tell me what's out there that can substitute on a professional level Photoshop, After Effects and Illustrator.
I am sure you don't work on the business, so you have no clue.
mdntcallr
Oct 25, 10:58 PM
This is starting to sound like the war of the razors...
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
S
Dude, your so funnnnY!!
but this is a happy time, tech advancements are a great thing.
this is happily something better than how long it took with G5 to update.
Hope they do an update with Blu-Ray option.
Anyone remember when the Mach-3 came out, and everyone thought "wow... three blades. that's a lot!" Now we're up to FIVE... and an extra one on the back.
Just more proof positive that when it comes to Apple you should buy when you need, and enjoy what you've got, cause in two months it'll be replaced anyway.
... okay, I'm done. Eight cores is pretty wild. ;)
S
Dude, your so funnnnY!!
but this is a happy time, tech advancements are a great thing.
this is happily something better than how long it took with G5 to update.
Hope they do an update with Blu-Ray option.
dante@sisna.com
Sep 12, 07:12 PM
No, actually the guy had a very good point...
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
From one enthusiast to another, we agree to disagree on your points b through e -- As far as point A, I think you should rewatch what Jobs said today. And view the apple press release on the device.
a) you're making assumptions on the iTV's capabilities which may not be true
b) iTunes content (music or movies) is of fair, but not great quality - no "Enthusiast" would want it (tech fans aside that is...)
c) Enthusiasts WILL buy HD DVDs / BluRay
d) Enthusiasts will want to OWN the media...
e) Enthusiasts most likely won't touch this with a stick...
As I alluded to earlier though, tech enthusiasts are another story, but these people (like me) are ofter turned on at the idea of doing something new, even if in the end the quality is just so-so
From one enthusiast to another, we agree to disagree on your points b through e -- As far as point A, I think you should rewatch what Jobs said today. And view the apple press release on the device.
charliehustle
Nov 6, 04:41 PM
Maybe, but there is a good chance Verizon will screw it up.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Plus, the number of Windows users far surpasses MAC OS X users, but Apple is doing just fine when compared to Microsoft.
What are you talking about? You have any links to your belief that "verizon will screw it up"? or you just "believe"? kind of like the tooth fairy or santa?
lets' break it down.. (after all, this thread is about market share)
windows (90% market share of OS worldwide)
apple (10%)
Microsoft market cap, $250 Billion
Apple, $175 Billion
Microsoft Revenue:$56 billion
Apple Revenue:$36 billion
Microsoft Profit Margin:24%
Apple profit margin:15%
Microsoft total cash:$33 billion
apple total cash:$23 billion
I wish people would understand the difference between market share and "inferior product"
they do not go hand in hand. And because Google will sell more phones than apple does not mean google will have a better smartphone.
Multimedia
Nov 1, 01:49 AM
FBDIMMs are designed for maximum bandwidth, not for best possible latency, so they cope with this better than any other kind of memory. You may read that bandwidth is the bottleneck for these processors. However, that is only the case for pure copying operations. Code that calls memcpy () on all eight cores simultaneously will run out of steam quite quickly. However, most code does actually do some work with that data (like video compression), and the bandwidth won't be that big a problem.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.Thank you for the positive feedback. But I don't rip anything from DVDs much at all. I crush EyeTV2 broadcast recordings with Toast 7.1 (UB) to DVD Images on hard drives. Then I 2-pass rip from those images with Handbrake to mp4 so I'm not having any optical bottleneck at all. From what you say, this should be much faster like I'm hoping with all those cores.
Lets say you compress a two hour dual layer DVD with Handbrake at 1 Megabit per second. DVD = 9.5 GB takes ages to read from DVD, takes about two seconds to copy in memory. Copying the 1 Megabit takes two dozen microseconds. Most of the action will happen in L2 cache, so you should be fine.Thank you for the positive feedback. But I don't rip anything from DVDs much at all. I crush EyeTV2 broadcast recordings with Toast 7.1 (UB) to DVD Images on hard drives. Then I 2-pass rip from those images with Handbrake to mp4 so I'm not having any optical bottleneck at all. From what you say, this should be much faster like I'm hoping with all those cores.
CuttyShark
Apr 12, 10:42 PM
Ugh... you guys speak as if you are all full-time film editors...
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
For what it's worth, I'm a film production major...
ROTFL!! Sorry, I couldn't help but laugh! Start burnin' them bridges early, son!!
Looks cool, but I'm on the fence about it all. It's chump change and probably a fun tool to play with. I don't see it replacing some of the larger suites. It's 'pro' editing for the masses but I'm sure many will keep their Adobe and AVID tools around for more orgranized productions.
Cheers!
wrlsmarc
Jun 19, 02:07 PM
Just spent the last week in Manhattan. Wow. Service has seriously improved. I used my data card for the week to check email and work from my hotel. Good speeds and very reliable. I lost one connection over a period of 6 days and that may have been my data card fault. I use a mifi from Novatel, the device can sometimes be quirky establishing a connection. Overall my performance was solid.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
I aslo used my iPhone extensively for conversation. I did not drop one call the whole week and was on it continuously. In years past driving around corners would result in suspect connections but none of that happened this trip. Finally, my iPad data rates were near 2kpbs download speeds with acceptable latency.
I assume that much of the negative chatter about AT&T is from those that have not used their service in a while. Bad memories tend to run long. I live in San Francisco and service is improving there as well, although the New York market I would rate as pretty perfect.
swingerofbirch
Aug 29, 01:19 PM
I cannot speak at all to the Greenpeace report or what Apple does--I simply don't know enough.
But, I have always thought that computers are somewhat wasteful in how often they are replaced. A school will at once replace hundreds of computers. And I as a consumer will replace a computer and iPod every couple of years.
On the other hand, things like televisions hang around a bit longer.
I wonder in the scheme of things though if using oil and coal as sources of energy isn't a much larger problem. I don't really know. I just always assumed it was.
But, I have always thought that computers are somewhat wasteful in how often they are replaced. A school will at once replace hundreds of computers. And I as a consumer will replace a computer and iPod every couple of years.
On the other hand, things like televisions hang around a bit longer.
I wonder in the scheme of things though if using oil and coal as sources of energy isn't a much larger problem. I don't really know. I just always assumed it was.
TwinCities Dan
Apr 8, 10:38 PM
Apple will buy Nintendo eventually.
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
That is an interesting idea, but Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) has survived 122 years of business... ;)
It's over for Nintendo.
Get ready for the iwii
That is an interesting idea, but Nintendo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo) has survived 122 years of business... ;)
Dippo
Mar 18, 03:15 PM
Personally I think this is great! Any sort of DRM sucks, even if it is rather "liberal". That's like giving all your customers in your shop a pair of handcuffs to prevent theft, and saying "but these cuffs are really comfortable".
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
I can't see anything really wrong with this program.
You still have to buy the music!
The labels need to get over trying to shove this DRM crap down our throats.
It will never work! This has been demostrated time and time again.
Of course Apple will shut it down soon.
dguisinger
Mar 19, 04:37 PM
Actually the reason why it isn't encoded with DRM on the server is that if they did that they would need a copy of every song for every customer they have on the server.
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
They don't care how you put songs on the iPod anyway... just that you buy an iPod to put the songs on. iTMS is there to sell iPods after all. Therefore if someone breaks the DRM and allows you to put the downloaded songs on ANY MP3 player it most DEFINATELY will not please Apple. The DRM isn't just there to appease the RIAA, it is there to make sure we keep buying iPods.
Not really, with any web-based programming language you can process the output of a file in real time. The server can insert water marks into images, provide different content on a URL based on who is accessing; oh yes, and encrypt the file stream with the users encription and not have to store a byte of it....
BenRoethig
Oct 26, 09:04 AM
I wonder if the current MacPro will finally be the first Mac where we could swap out the actual processor for the new quad. Didn't Barefeats or somebody do a test on that already?
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
The intel machines use intel standard parts. No proprietary CPU riser cards or what have you. If you can get to the CPU, that is.
Huntn
Mar 13, 07:30 PM
We don't all have scrubland... or reliable sunshine! Can't see solar power taking off in the UK, I'm afraid. The same goes for most of Northern Europe.
I agree with you, it's not an option for some countries, but there are lots of deserts on this planet, apparently some by our own making. :(
I agree with you, it's not an option for some countries, but there are lots of deserts on this planet, apparently some by our own making. :(
No comments:
Post a Comment