Joshuarocks
Apr 25, 03:27 AM
If this is true, I'd be a little pissed lol. I just traded up from my two 23" ACD's for two 24" LED LCD's.
Hopefully this means with the Mac Pro rumors refresh and Final Cut release that Apple is refocusing on their neglected pro-line. Maybe we'll see a full line of dedicated displays instead of one stripped down iMac panel.
Don't bet on it!
Apple is clearly a consumer based company now.. it could care less about the small niche of the mac pro. iMac? Yes, mac mini? Yes, the laptops? Yes, mac pro? NO.
Hopefully this means with the Mac Pro rumors refresh and Final Cut release that Apple is refocusing on their neglected pro-line. Maybe we'll see a full line of dedicated displays instead of one stripped down iMac panel.
Don't bet on it!
Apple is clearly a consumer based company now.. it could care less about the small niche of the mac pro. iMac? Yes, mac mini? Yes, the laptops? Yes, mac pro? NO.
macman4291
Jul 23, 10:57 PM
If the new macbook pros are only different in the chips, will there be a way to upgrade to core 2 duo if you have a previous macbook pros?
floatingspirit
Jul 30, 11:25 PM
i think i'll buy a Macbook instead
Here! Here! I second that! :)
Here! Here! I second that! :)
kalsta
May 6, 11:15 PM
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
Daily necessity? Is measuring your foot a daily necessity? I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Some defenders of the Imperial system tell us it's handy to measure in body parts, presumably because you all have them. But what percentage of US citizens honestly have foot-long feet? Perhaps half a foot should be called a penis? (Credit to rdowns for that idea.)
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
Can't you concede that there is a benefit to having a single 'standard'? The two are only compatible in the sense that you can convert between them if you know the conversion factors. Every time someone has to do this, they are wasting time. Multiply that over 311 million people and you have an awful lot of wasted time!
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10 �
You multiply or divide by a multiple of 10 every time you need to convert from one derivative unit to another. 'Kilo' means a multiple of 1000 over the base unit. So if I need to convert from kilometres to metres, I simply divide by 1000. Now, that happens to be very easy to do. Why? Because our whole system of counting is base 10! It's as easy as moving the decimal point three places.
� or even multiply what you measure?
It doesn't matter what operations you're doing � multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction � it's as easy as manipulating any decimal number. You never, ever have to remember odd conversion factors to convert between different units and fractions thereof.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
I do a bit of carpentry and other work around the house. From time to time I'm buying lengths of timber, so I may be multiplying a required length over the number of lengths required, or adding up different lengths. If you're a cook, no doubt there are times when the recipe serves 4 people, but you need to cook for 6 or 8 or something, so you have to multiply measurements. When I used to go swimming at my local Olympic sized pool (which is 50 metres long) it was easy to calculate how far I swam. 20 laps = 1000 metres = 1 kilometre. I mean, I could go on and on giving you everyday examples if you want me to, but I think you're capable of doing that yourself.
I don't think Tomorrow ever responded to my earlier hypothetical, so let me put the same question to you:
Okay, imagine for a moment that one of the US states wasn't using the decimal system for counting. Instead, they had a system where letters were used to designate certain amounts, similar to Roman numerals, but instead of having a base of 10, it varied. So perhaps A is equal to 12. Then three As is equal to B. Two Bs is equal to C. 22 Bs is equal to a D, and so on with this kind of inconsistency. You have a friend living in this state who claims that the system works just fine � he spent many years studying this system and even more using it in his line of work and can't see why he or anyone else in the state should have to learn this dangfangled decimal system. What would you say to your friend?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
But (1) it's not your first 'language' so to speak, so you're no doubt less comfortable with it, and (2) if no one else around you speaks the same 'language' it doesn't help you communicate with them. This is why we have 'standards'.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
Daily necessity? Is measuring your foot a daily necessity? I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Some defenders of the Imperial system tell us it's handy to measure in body parts, presumably because you all have them. But what percentage of US citizens honestly have foot-long feet? Perhaps half a foot should be called a penis? (Credit to rdowns for that idea.)
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
Can't you concede that there is a benefit to having a single 'standard'? The two are only compatible in the sense that you can convert between them if you know the conversion factors. Every time someone has to do this, they are wasting time. Multiply that over 311 million people and you have an awful lot of wasted time!
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10 �
You multiply or divide by a multiple of 10 every time you need to convert from one derivative unit to another. 'Kilo' means a multiple of 1000 over the base unit. So if I need to convert from kilometres to metres, I simply divide by 1000. Now, that happens to be very easy to do. Why? Because our whole system of counting is base 10! It's as easy as moving the decimal point three places.
� or even multiply what you measure?
It doesn't matter what operations you're doing � multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction � it's as easy as manipulating any decimal number. You never, ever have to remember odd conversion factors to convert between different units and fractions thereof.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
I do a bit of carpentry and other work around the house. From time to time I'm buying lengths of timber, so I may be multiplying a required length over the number of lengths required, or adding up different lengths. If you're a cook, no doubt there are times when the recipe serves 4 people, but you need to cook for 6 or 8 or something, so you have to multiply measurements. When I used to go swimming at my local Olympic sized pool (which is 50 metres long) it was easy to calculate how far I swam. 20 laps = 1000 metres = 1 kilometre. I mean, I could go on and on giving you everyday examples if you want me to, but I think you're capable of doing that yourself.
I don't think Tomorrow ever responded to my earlier hypothetical, so let me put the same question to you:
Okay, imagine for a moment that one of the US states wasn't using the decimal system for counting. Instead, they had a system where letters were used to designate certain amounts, similar to Roman numerals, but instead of having a base of 10, it varied. So perhaps A is equal to 12. Then three As is equal to B. Two Bs is equal to C. 22 Bs is equal to a D, and so on with this kind of inconsistency. You have a friend living in this state who claims that the system works just fine � he spent many years studying this system and even more using it in his line of work and can't see why he or anyone else in the state should have to learn this dangfangled decimal system. What would you say to your friend?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
But (1) it's not your first 'language' so to speak, so you're no doubt less comfortable with it, and (2) if no one else around you speaks the same 'language' it doesn't help you communicate with them. This is why we have 'standards'.
kalsta
May 6, 11:15 PM
I didn't say that at all.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
Daily necessity? Is measuring your foot a daily necessity? I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Some defenders of the Imperial system tell us it's handy to measure in body parts, presumably because you all have them. But what percentage of US citizens honestly have foot-long feet? Perhaps half a foot should be called a penis? (Credit to rdowns for that idea.)
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
Can't you concede that there is a benefit to having a single 'standard'? The two are only compatible in the sense that you can convert between them if you know the conversion factors. Every time someone has to do this, they are wasting time. Multiply that over 311 million people and you have an awful lot of wasted time!
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10 �
You multiply or divide by a multiple of 10 every time you need to convert from one derivative unit to another. 'Kilo' means a multiple of 1000 over the base unit. So if I need to convert from kilometres to metres, I simply divide by 1000. Now, that happens to be very easy to do. Why? Because our whole system of counting is base 10! It's as easy as moving the decimal point three places.
� or even multiply what you measure?
It doesn't matter what operations you're doing � multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction � it's as easy as manipulating any decimal number. You never, ever have to remember odd conversion factors to convert between different units and fractions thereof.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
I do a bit of carpentry and other work around the house. From time to time I'm buying lengths of timber, so I may be multiplying a required length over the number of lengths required, or adding up different lengths. If you're a cook, no doubt there are times when the recipe serves 4 people, but you need to cook for 6 or 8 or something, so you have to multiply measurements. When I used to go swimming at my local Olympic sized pool (which is 50 metres long) it was easy to calculate how far I swam. 20 laps = 1000 metres = 1 kilometre. I mean, I could go on and on giving you everyday examples if you want me to, but I think you're capable of doing that yourself.
I don't think Tomorrow ever responded to my earlier hypothetical, so let me put the same question to you:
Okay, imagine for a moment that one of the US states wasn't using the decimal system for counting. Instead, they had a system where letters were used to designate certain amounts, similar to Roman numerals, but instead of having a base of 10, it varied. So perhaps A is equal to 12. Then three As is equal to B. Two Bs is equal to C. 22 Bs is equal to a D, and so on with this kind of inconsistency. You have a friend living in this state who claims that the system works just fine � he spent many years studying this system and even more using it in his line of work and can't see why he or anyone else in the state should have to learn this dangfangled decimal system. What would you say to your friend?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
But (1) it's not your first 'language' so to speak, so you're no doubt less comfortable with it, and (2) if no one else around you speaks the same 'language' it doesn't help you communicate with them. This is why we have 'standards'.
Certain things are good for one thing but not as good for another. Basing your metrics off of water and light make a lot of sense when you have to measure a great deal of new items and compare them objectively.
On the other hand when you need metrics to be a guide through daily life and nothing else, the system that's born from daily necessity makes a lot more sense.
Daily necessity? Is measuring your foot a daily necessity? I don't get what you're trying to say here.
Some defenders of the Imperial system tell us it's handy to measure in body parts, presumably because you all have them. But what percentage of US citizens honestly have foot-long feet? Perhaps half a foot should be called a penis? (Credit to rdowns for that idea.)
The reasoning gets worse when you'd ask 311 million to make a change because a smaller community of professionals would like their standards to be the standards for all of society. It's not like the two can't coexist; there might be a good argument there if the two were incompatible, but the fact is that they're not.
Can't you concede that there is a benefit to having a single 'standard'? The two are only compatible in the sense that you can convert between them if you know the conversion factors. Every time someone has to do this, they are wasting time. Multiply that over 311 million people and you have an awful lot of wasted time!
A distinction needs to be made here: just because something is easier to multiply by 10 (or 1/10th) doesn't mean that it's easier to use. How many times in your daily life do you need to multiply by 10 �
You multiply or divide by a multiple of 10 every time you need to convert from one derivative unit to another. 'Kilo' means a multiple of 1000 over the base unit. So if I need to convert from kilometres to metres, I simply divide by 1000. Now, that happens to be very easy to do. Why? Because our whole system of counting is base 10! It's as easy as moving the decimal point three places.
� or even multiply what you measure?
It doesn't matter what operations you're doing � multiplication, division, addition, or subtraction � it's as easy as manipulating any decimal number. You never, ever have to remember odd conversion factors to convert between different units and fractions thereof.
How often does that easy arithmetic come up outside of science? Can you think of a real life example?
I do a bit of carpentry and other work around the house. From time to time I'm buying lengths of timber, so I may be multiplying a required length over the number of lengths required, or adding up different lengths. If you're a cook, no doubt there are times when the recipe serves 4 people, but you need to cook for 6 or 8 or something, so you have to multiply measurements. When I used to go swimming at my local Olympic sized pool (which is 50 metres long) it was easy to calculate how far I swam. 20 laps = 1000 metres = 1 kilometre. I mean, I could go on and on giving you everyday examples if you want me to, but I think you're capable of doing that yourself.
I don't think Tomorrow ever responded to my earlier hypothetical, so let me put the same question to you:
Okay, imagine for a moment that one of the US states wasn't using the decimal system for counting. Instead, they had a system where letters were used to designate certain amounts, similar to Roman numerals, but instead of having a base of 10, it varied. So perhaps A is equal to 12. Then three As is equal to B. Two Bs is equal to C. 22 Bs is equal to a D, and so on with this kind of inconsistency. You have a friend living in this state who claims that the system works just fine � he spent many years studying this system and even more using it in his line of work and can't see why he or anyone else in the state should have to learn this dangfangled decimal system. What would you say to your friend?
In any case, I do already have it. It's on every measuring device I have, from my ruler to my bathroom scale. I use it when it's necessary or more effective, but that's rare. Maybe you should accept that people can have a different preference.
But (1) it's not your first 'language' so to speak, so you're no doubt less comfortable with it, and (2) if no one else around you speaks the same 'language' it doesn't help you communicate with them. This is why we have 'standards'.
iliketyla
Apr 18, 04:54 PM
First off the Prada was officially announced by LG on January 18, 2007. The iPhone was announced by Apple on january 9, 2007. The last time that I checked, January 9th came before January 18th. THAT makes the iPhone first, sorry.
Secondly the All of the other copy cats look a ton more like the iPhone than the iPhone looks like the Prada or anything else for that matter.
As far as whether the iPhone and iPad are innovative, I respectfully disagree with you.
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. -
Wikipedia
Secondly the All of the other copy cats look a ton more like the iPhone than the iPhone looks like the Prada or anything else for that matter.
As far as whether the iPhone and iPad are innovative, I respectfully disagree with you.
The LG KE850, also known as the LG Prada,[1] is a touchscreen mobile phone made by LG Electronics. It was first announced on December 12, 2006. -
Wikipedia
snebes
Mar 30, 05:57 PM
Thanks Captain Obvious... I think that is what Apple said at the very beginning ;)
great minds think a like :P
Apple said it would be released in the Summer, but the GM usually comes 3-4 weeks before hand. I know it is splitting hairs with this, as I was referring to the GM.
However, considering that it could be released via App Store first, there could be a much shorter delay from GM to its release date now.
great minds think a like :P
Apple said it would be released in the Summer, but the GM usually comes 3-4 weeks before hand. I know it is splitting hairs with this, as I was referring to the GM.
However, considering that it could be released via App Store first, there could be a much shorter delay from GM to its release date now.
ABernardoJr
Apr 18, 03:23 PM
LG was first (before iPhone) to release smart phone with capacitive screen and UI that looks suspiciously close to iPhone. Here is Prada:
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
Do you honestly think that even strikes anything close to a sufficient resemblance to the iPhone UI?
http://www.itechnews.net/wp-content/uploads/2007/01/PRADA-Phone-LG-KE850-1.jpg
If Apple prevails in court. LG would be stupid not to sue Apple (and they would probably get more money considering iPhone volumes).
Do you honestly think that even strikes anything close to a sufficient resemblance to the iPhone UI?
rpenzinger
Apr 21, 02:48 PM
Not gonna happen
totally gonna happen
totally gonna happen
milozauckerman
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
1. You are going to spend thousands on a Mac PRO and you are going to pitch a fit over adding wireless for less than 80 bucks?
Yes. I bought a work truck for $15000 and made them give me a $100 bedliner free. The amount I'm spending has nothing to do with my desire to extract the most value for myself.
Apple ain't a charity, I want every last penny I can squeeze from our transactions.
Guess what, these are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS, not consumer internet computers. The target demographic of these computers is a wired-network setting. Obviously home users and others may have use for wireless in a Mac Pro, so that's why Apple OFFERS IT.
These are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS that LOOK an awful lot like DESKTOP COMPUTERS shockingly enough.
I hear you can even buy one if you've never worked in an office.
I hear Apple's popular among 'creative types' who might work independently, even from home.
Yes. I bought a work truck for $15000 and made them give me a $100 bedliner free. The amount I'm spending has nothing to do with my desire to extract the most value for myself.
Apple ain't a charity, I want every last penny I can squeeze from our transactions.
Guess what, these are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS, not consumer internet computers. The target demographic of these computers is a wired-network setting. Obviously home users and others may have use for wireless in a Mac Pro, so that's why Apple OFFERS IT.
These are PROFESSIONAL WORKSTATIONS that LOOK an awful lot like DESKTOP COMPUTERS shockingly enough.
I hear you can even buy one if you've never worked in an office.
I hear Apple's popular among 'creative types' who might work independently, even from home.
bushido
Apr 7, 11:05 AM
went to some random iPad 2 retailer here in germany today, no problem getting any ... if only i had the money :-/ student fml
CAWjr
Mar 28, 11:06 AM
I'm still on a 3GS. If I don't get an iPhone 5 this summer, the world won't end. In fact, it will be nice to not hear my wife get in my ear about getting an iPad & an iPhone only months apart from each other.
Plus, if they delay it & get better technology in it, I can wait it out.
Plus, if they delay it & get better technology in it, I can wait it out.
Spoony
Apr 18, 03:44 PM
If the iphones interface was "so obvious" why did my firm give me a Palm Treo for 3 years where I had this stick to push on icons with windows drop down menus?!?
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
I think people have short memories and forget how big of a change the original iphone was.
Also stop bringing up that ridiculous Prada phone. The only similarity is it had no plastic keys. The software on that phone was ridiculous. The iPhone worked b/c the best software company in the world built the underlying software.
Prada was just a fancy phone. The iphone was/is a small computer. That is why it was/is criticized as a phone so much. The phone part almost plays second fiddle.
StyxMaker
Apr 20, 11:44 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; de-de) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
the iOS rly needs a revamp, its getting really boring and dated after owning 3 generations. where r the damn widgets still and what use does lockscreen have if u cant add anything (jailbreak excluded)
oh and get rid of that glass back ... what fool thought its a good idea. mine is sooo scratched but at least not yet shattered like so many others ik
next phone might be a android after all
What are you people doing to scratch your phones so much? I don't use a case with my iPhone 4, carry it in my pocket (sometimes with my car keys) and there's not a noticeable scratch on the front or back.
mrj412
Nov 14, 01:24 PM
Should I continue to use the free Sophos or switch to the ESET paid AV?
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
On a iMac for business and home use.
Thanks for any insight.
I would recommend staying with Sophos. My company is in the process of purchasing Sophos for our Linux file servers on my recommendation. I tested several AV vendors and found Sophos to be best for our environment. Its extremely light on system resources and highly rated in antivirus tests.
The reason you haven't heard of Sophos is that they have been enterprise only. This is their first offering directly to consumers.
Giving the Mac version out free to consumers is very smart on their part. It gives them a larger install base which means they can find new malware faster. This then allows them to provide a better product to their enterprise customers.
Edit: Oh, I didn't see davegoody's post above that said this better until after I posted this.
kpbpsw
Nov 2, 05:55 PM
There is no reason to put anti-virus software on your Mac!
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
It will not protect you from anything that is out there.
Sophos may be a reputable company or it may not be but you do not need this and it can only harm your system and promote a business that feeds on fear.
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
MattSepeta
Apr 14, 04:17 PM
I never thought I'd see the day, but I agree with you. Everyone has to see a tax increase in order to solve the budget problems.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
Spot on. If we are going to raise taxes we should raise them on EVERYBODY. I would gladly take a hit if everyone else was going to.
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
No singling anybody/thing out, no exempting anybody/anything.
The non-tax accountant part of me (the tax accountant part of me wants the tax code as complicated as humanly possible) would love it if the corporate tax code was simplified and the tax rates reduced so that corporations actually paid taxes in line with other nations - we'd still probably see more revenue even with the decreased rates because the base would be broadened and corporations would actually pay. We should probably broaden the tax base for individuals by eliminating deductions and then eliminate the Bush tax cuts for everyone (which will increase tax rates across the board, more so at the upper two brackets). I'm not opposed to adding a VAT with a low rate either.
I'd like to see plenty of spending cuts too - stop the three wasteful and pointless wars we are fighting would be a great start, then cut defense spending. Like it or not, I think we need to acknowledge that social security needs changes - a decrease in benefits and removing the limit on payroll taxes for social security would be a good start.
But then again, I'm a moderate (though I am generally fiscally libertarian) and I understand the urgency with which we need to eliminate our deficit and decrease our national debt. I don't have much hope for any of this happening, since neither side can seem to acknowledge that we need a combo of what they both propose.
Spot on. If we are going to raise taxes we should raise them on EVERYBODY. I would gladly take a hit if everyone else was going to.
We should also cut spending across the board. Cut spending on EVERYTHING.
No singling anybody/thing out, no exempting anybody/anything.
Chundles
Sep 11, 04:08 AM
You have it easy. When I was a kid, in order to download a movie, we had to push two wheelbarrows full of blank paper six miles through the snow to the movie company's headquarters where we had to type the binary codes for the movie file out on a broken typewriter, cart it all home and retype it into the computer which would take 6-8 weeks during which we were allowed no sleep and no rest and only a plate of crusty, stale bread and a glass of filthy water. And when we were done, our dad would beat us around the head and the neck with a rusty railspike... if we were lucky.
(Sorry, couldn't resist carrying on with the Monty Python reference I saw starting up. :D )
Round wheels on those wheelbarrows? You were lucky!
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
(Sorry, couldn't resist carrying on with the Monty Python reference I saw starting up. :D )
Round wheels on those wheelbarrows? You were lucky!
We only 'ad square wheels on our wheelbarrows an' they were made out of lead...
gugy
Aug 2, 01:15 PM
Why is everyone so convinced that there will be significant updates to the Cinema Displays? Remember how long the non-Alu plastic displays were out? It must have been five years, while the Alu displays have been out for less then two years.
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
Wow, I have a 30" monitor and I would not mind to have a 40" + monitor.:eek:
Seriously, I have dual monitors and I think a larger monitor would be welcome. Not maybe for dual monitor set up because it would be too large, but for a single large monitor, it would be great. Plus the use for entertainment display to watch movies and TV would be really cool.
The technology is here. I really expect Apple to come up something bigger for the Pro crowd and WWDC is the perfect event for that. Remember, people never thought the 30" would ever come up.
Regarding the design, I agree that Apple will keep the same enclosure. Is a very nice design and I don't think will change anytime soon.
As for Isight built in, I like the idea, but if you have dual monitors, seems weird to have dual Isight. I rather have the BTO option for an extra price.
I can't see Apple making a bigger screen then 30" for desktop use. And if they were to, it would be for a multimedia center type thing, which not only is unlikely, but would never be released at WWDC. As a 30" display owner, theres no way a screen larger then 30" would be a feasible desktop display. Besides, anything larger then 30" is just too niche of a market.
Regarding a built-in iSight, I think the Pro market is just the wrong market for that. Apple has to be aware of its market, and b/c of security reasons, cameras just aren't feasible at this point.
Hell, who knows, I'm probably 100% wrong :p.
Edit: Perhaps Apple will just bump the display to be HDCP compliant. HDMI is pretty much the same as DVI, for everyone who doesn't know ;).
Wow, I have a 30" monitor and I would not mind to have a 40" + monitor.:eek:
Seriously, I have dual monitors and I think a larger monitor would be welcome. Not maybe for dual monitor set up because it would be too large, but for a single large monitor, it would be great. Plus the use for entertainment display to watch movies and TV would be really cool.
The technology is here. I really expect Apple to come up something bigger for the Pro crowd and WWDC is the perfect event for that. Remember, people never thought the 30" would ever come up.
Regarding the design, I agree that Apple will keep the same enclosure. Is a very nice design and I don't think will change anytime soon.
As for Isight built in, I like the idea, but if you have dual monitors, seems weird to have dual Isight. I rather have the BTO option for an extra price.
ezekielrage_99
Aug 4, 10:23 AM
I think we will see the Core 2 Duo in the iMac, Mac Pro and MacBook Pro line and before Xmas in everything else.
If this does happen it is certainly an excellent turn for Apple and the consumers getting the latest and greatest.
If this does happen it is certainly an excellent turn for Apple and the consumers getting the latest and greatest.
AidenShaw
Sep 10, 11:09 PM
It'll take me over 4 days.
But due to the International Date Line, isn't really only 2 days?
But due to the International Date Line, isn't really only 2 days?
michaelrjohnson
Aug 2, 01:33 PM
finally someone reasonable! so many of you flippin fools don't realize what WWDC stands for...
World wide DEVELOPER'S conference!
this is about professional stuff. in they launched the powermac g5, because developers could then write 64-bit apps. in they discussed tiger (and i think launched new pro displays) so that users could write stuff using core image and all the cool new tiger features. in they announced the transition to intel, because devs could now write stuff for the intel platform (and i don't think they really announced anything else AFAICR...). so in they are going to talk about leopard and how it relates to developers, and maybe release PROFESSIONAL products, like a mac pro or xserve.
you have got to be CRAZY to think that he's going to intro an ipod at WWDC, when MW Paris is right around the corner! MW Paris in september is pretty much ALWAYS when they intro ipods and consumer products this time of year.
edit: last year, they had a special media event around october to intro the imac g5 with isight and video ipod and did not have anything at MW Paris. this will probably be the same this year.
I agree with you on some of these points... however, the release of a new or majorly updated consumer device, would (in most cases) create a new development platform. And that is what this conference is for.
(I'm not predicting any of that stuff, I'm just playing devil's advocate)
World wide DEVELOPER'S conference!
this is about professional stuff. in they launched the powermac g5, because developers could then write 64-bit apps. in they discussed tiger (and i think launched new pro displays) so that users could write stuff using core image and all the cool new tiger features. in they announced the transition to intel, because devs could now write stuff for the intel platform (and i don't think they really announced anything else AFAICR...). so in they are going to talk about leopard and how it relates to developers, and maybe release PROFESSIONAL products, like a mac pro or xserve.
you have got to be CRAZY to think that he's going to intro an ipod at WWDC, when MW Paris is right around the corner! MW Paris in september is pretty much ALWAYS when they intro ipods and consumer products this time of year.
edit: last year, they had a special media event around october to intro the imac g5 with isight and video ipod and did not have anything at MW Paris. this will probably be the same this year.
I agree with you on some of these points... however, the release of a new or majorly updated consumer device, would (in most cases) create a new development platform. And that is what this conference is for.
(I'm not predicting any of that stuff, I'm just playing devil's advocate)
Don't panic
Apr 11, 07:06 AM
are we still debating over this?
if we stay to basic math, it depends on how you read the / sign
if it only refers to the immediately following expression then you'd have
(48/2)*(9+3)=288
if it refers to everything following, then you'd have
48/[2*(9+3)]=2
it is poorly written (or more likely purposely ambiguously written), but in such cases the left-to-right rule should prevail, making it 288. on the other hand, square brackets are way cooler than round brackets, making 2 the cool answer.
if we move to postadvanced math however, it is clear that "/" separates two expressions: 48 and 2(9+3);
- as someone already mentioned above, absence of the operator implies multiplication, so 48=4*8. now, everyone knows that by the reciprocal inversity properties multiplication is the opposite of division, therefore 4 multiplied by 8 must be equal to 8 divided by 4, which is most obviously 2 (on the left part of the expression);
- now to the right part. this is easy. Ignoring the round bracket (which as mentioned are uncool), you have 2*9+3, which gives you a very straightforward 21;
- so now we have 2/21, which as demonstrated above is equal to 21*2, which is (i hope no one disagrees on this) 42.
so please now stop with your earthlingy bickering: the answer is always 42. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
if we stay to basic math, it depends on how you read the / sign
if it only refers to the immediately following expression then you'd have
(48/2)*(9+3)=288
if it refers to everything following, then you'd have
48/[2*(9+3)]=2
it is poorly written (or more likely purposely ambiguously written), but in such cases the left-to-right rule should prevail, making it 288. on the other hand, square brackets are way cooler than round brackets, making 2 the cool answer.
if we move to postadvanced math however, it is clear that "/" separates two expressions: 48 and 2(9+3);
- as someone already mentioned above, absence of the operator implies multiplication, so 48=4*8. now, everyone knows that by the reciprocal inversity properties multiplication is the opposite of division, therefore 4 multiplied by 8 must be equal to 8 divided by 4, which is most obviously 2 (on the left part of the expression);
- now to the right part. this is easy. Ignoring the round bracket (which as mentioned are uncool), you have 2*9+3, which gives you a very straightforward 21;
- so now we have 2/21, which as demonstrated above is equal to 21*2, which is (i hope no one disagrees on this) 42.
so please now stop with your earthlingy bickering: the answer is always 42. :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:
MrWinters
May 4, 05:15 PM
they're probably make it that if your hard drive dies, you need to go to the apple store and have them do it. If you don't have apple care, or if ran out, lol enjoy their high prices.
.
qft
.
qft