Don't panic
May 4, 10:50 AM
The other downside is we have half our health and action points. I'm not sure how big of a trap we can see early in a game, but if it has 3 or more that wipes out a whole team possibly.
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
if we explore, we automatically disable any traps, no matter how big, so there is no damage sustained by us.
but if the group that goes ahead in the room encounters a monster, then you are right: our AP are split so it would be harder to kill the monster, and all the damage would be only sustained by the entering party.
on the other hand i don't see any risk to the party that follows.
that's why i had proposed an asymmetric split, with a stronger party going in the other room (to face a possible monster) and one or two people remaining behind to explore, including you who are likely an essential asset (for now ;)), so we need to avoid that you become damaged goods.
right now this is moot, though, as i have already communicated turn 1 officially, and we are all searching this darned room.
so get back to exploring your side! i don't care about the spider. as far as i am concerned they are just another form of proteins!
well? did anyone find anything interesting?
onetoescape
Mar 29, 09:40 AM
Just remember part of this is that if you buy Amazon digital products they are added to cloud service and they not counted towards the limit. That for me makes the 5gb or 20gb less to worry about. Same price itunes and amazon but free hosting in the cloud as a backup who would you choose?
This is a very exciting prospect. You want 2 dogs fighting it out to make each other better.
This is a very exciting prospect. You want 2 dogs fighting it out to make each other better.
cube
May 6, 02:33 AM
The headline is wrong.
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
JRM PowerPod
Aug 5, 09:49 AM
Whats the normal run of events?
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
3 split up segments and then one more thing
Here is what i reckon
1) Intel transition
blah blah blah, it has been quick, painless developers, developers developers. Everyone has been receptive except $#%#@@! Adobe
Intel keep giving us the chips
today we update MBP and iMac to core 2 duo
2)Talking about tranistion there are 2 products which haven't yet been transistioned
PowerMac > Mac Pro
Xserve > Xserve? Mac Serve?
Mac Pro has 3 configs
Best - Dual Xeon, 1GB 500GB 256X1800 $3299
Better - Core 2 Duo 2.93ghz 1GB 500gb 256mb X1600 $2499
Good - Core 2 Duo 2.6 1GB 250gb 256mb X1600 $1999
Xserves - All Xeons, dah
3) Leopard talk
4) One more thing
Candidates: iPhone, iPod, New Screens (may be intro'd with Mac Pro's) what ever else there could be
arnizzlewhizzle
Jul 30, 07:59 PM
i think cingular would be their best bet as a serious partner. their sim cards would be ideal for this.
Wondercow
Apr 18, 03:16 PM
as John Rubinstein said - imitation is the sincerest form of flattery.
Imitation is the sincerest of flattery
Charles Caleb Colton Lacon: or, Many things in few words, 1820
Many other examples of the same thought�though not as eloquent or quotable�antedate even this.
Imitation is the sincerest of flattery
Charles Caleb Colton Lacon: or, Many things in few words, 1820
Many other examples of the same thought�though not as eloquent or quotable�antedate even this.
yfile
Apr 24, 04:04 AM
Retina 27'' LCD should be 7200x4080 pixels. I think we can't expect it in near future... but i'd love to see it :)
Amdahl
Nov 2, 09:23 PM
We (the Mac community) should not let the security industry get a toe hold in OSX.
Then get Apple to release security updates for longer than 24 months.
The availability of these products is good news for anybody who is getting tired of paying Steve.
Then get Apple to release security updates for longer than 24 months.
The availability of these products is good news for anybody who is getting tired of paying Steve.
cherrypop
Nov 22, 09:15 AM
Herein will lie yet another concrete example of the difference between Steve Jobs and everyone else.
I'm not saying that the iPhone will be a sure-fire hit. In fact, I fully expect a lot of Apple fans to be disappointed with the first revision.
But Apple gets IT and won't have a failure on its hands simply by combining a phone and an iPod. Hell, that's why I use my Sony Ericsson W810i over my iPods: one device in my pocket.
I'm not saying that the iPhone will be a sure-fire hit. In fact, I fully expect a lot of Apple fans to be disappointed with the first revision.
But Apple gets IT and won't have a failure on its hands simply by combining a phone and an iPod. Hell, that's why I use my Sony Ericsson W810i over my iPods: one device in my pocket.
Sydde
Apr 14, 06:31 PM
I'd try to take the time to find it.
There are people who specialize in that.
Let them loose. See what they find.
We had a president a few years back who strode into the oval on the declaration that he was going to dive in and slice away at the massive gobs of waste, fraud and abuse that was plaguing the government! We all know what happened to him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Public_image).
There are people who specialize in that.
Let them loose. See what they find.
We had a president a few years back who strode into the oval on the declaration that he was going to dive in and slice away at the massive gobs of waste, fraud and abuse that was plaguing the government! We all know what happened to him (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jimmy_Carter#Public_image).
Silentwave
Sep 11, 12:26 AM
IF that TiVo rumor is true, it will be a dream come to life!
Proud owner of a Mac....and a Tivo w/DVD burner.
Proud owner of a Mac....and a Tivo w/DVD burner.
Jbrumz85
Apr 20, 12:35 AM
More interested in iOS 5 but faster processor, upgraded camera(s) and hopefully more memory will be a nice little upgrade
foureyedsoul
Jul 30, 07:45 PM
But then the acronym would iPP :D
True - but in order to make long-time Mac users feel like they're the "in-crowd", they could call it the "Wild iPP" (pronounced: "eep")!:D
All it would take for me to become seriously interested in an Apple-branded phone would be for it to have an easy way to sync iCal and Address Book with my Mac, although if they're actually making one I assume they'll put some nano-sized music storage on it to keep it in line with the iPods.
Apple's all over "ease-of-use" strategy implies that they could definitely be the first company to make something that's a PDA, phone, and music player in one that doesn't look like a prop from an old cyberpunk B-movie - and is priced for consumers rather than business users, of course.
True - but in order to make long-time Mac users feel like they're the "in-crowd", they could call it the "Wild iPP" (pronounced: "eep")!:D
All it would take for me to become seriously interested in an Apple-branded phone would be for it to have an easy way to sync iCal and Address Book with my Mac, although if they're actually making one I assume they'll put some nano-sized music storage on it to keep it in line with the iPods.
Apple's all over "ease-of-use" strategy implies that they could definitely be the first company to make something that's a PDA, phone, and music player in one that doesn't look like a prop from an old cyberpunk B-movie - and is priced for consumers rather than business users, of course.
nastebu
Mar 29, 03:54 PM
Here is a good overviewnfor the extremely inefficient Japanese agricultural industry:
http://www.japan-101.com/government/rice_trade_policy.htm
There are strong parallels between this and other Japanese markets.
Unlike Americans, the Japanese would rather build everything in Japan and pay a higher cost for it (= inefficiency). (I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese)
Well, the US spends 20 billion a year on agriculture subsidies as well, so we're in about the same boat. At least Japan uses agriculture subsidies to support small farmers. We use them to support DelMonte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
And as for the reason why Japanese spend more on Japanese products--that they are higher quality--if Japanese companies can convince Japanese consumers to spend more on domestically made products, why can't American companies do the same?
In general, Japanese made products *are* better. That's not inefficiency, that's good marketing and an educated consumer.
http://www.japan-101.com/government/rice_trade_policy.htm
There are strong parallels between this and other Japanese markets.
Unlike Americans, the Japanese would rather build everything in Japan and pay a higher cost for it (= inefficiency). (I live in Japan and am fluent in Japanese)
Well, the US spends 20 billion a year on agriculture subsidies as well, so we're in about the same boat. At least Japan uses agriculture subsidies to support small farmers. We use them to support DelMonte.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agricultural_subsidy
And as for the reason why Japanese spend more on Japanese products--that they are higher quality--if Japanese companies can convince Japanese consumers to spend more on domestically made products, why can't American companies do the same?
In general, Japanese made products *are* better. That's not inefficiency, that's good marketing and an educated consumer.
Snowcat001
May 7, 01:07 PM
It's free if you think giving Google all of your privacy and identity is worth the 'price' :p
I'm not giving anything, all names etc. can be fake, no real info is needed.
The only thing they really know is the IP-adress I most often use to get on the net. :-)
I'm not giving anything, all names etc. can be fake, no real info is needed.
The only thing they really know is the IP-adress I most often use to get on the net. :-)
mcrain
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
wildmac
Sep 15, 07:07 PM
LOL.
I absolutely love the phrase: "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday".
It will certainly become a classic remark to us MacRumor's folk. Like Cold Fusion, or Time Travel, it will stand for "the unreachable, the unproducable, never to be achieved by mankind". :D
So, let's not ban this phrase, it should be imprinted in a tombstone with golden letters. We know Apple tried... but they couldn't achieve it... now that is something not often heard.
It's only banned for 2 years for overuse. After that it can be used, just properly.
I absolutely love the phrase: "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday".
It will certainly become a classic remark to us MacRumor's folk. Like Cold Fusion, or Time Travel, it will stand for "the unreachable, the unproducable, never to be achieved by mankind". :D
So, let's not ban this phrase, it should be imprinted in a tombstone with golden letters. We know Apple tried... but they couldn't achieve it... now that is something not often heard.
It's only banned for 2 years for overuse. After that it can be used, just properly.
SandynJosh
Nov 23, 12:57 PM
In looking over all the ideas generated in this thread and all the trends going on in the world, I'm lead to wonder if a consumer iPhone makes as much sense as it would seem to at first blush. Sure, the numbers can be great, but the profit potential is nearly nil.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
Hasn't the consumer iPhone by now become a commodity product? More features are being tucked in rather then reducing the cost further and the base cost of contracts are at an all time low. I don't think it would be wise for Apple or anyone else to enter a relatively mature commodity market.
RIM has mapped out a good chunk of the business market, but it still is vulnerable. But is the business market alone worth the risk at this point?
I suspect that Apple's stragegy is to leverage off the iPod market base in such a way that it becomes an easy choice to buy the new iPhone. For example, many of the newest cars will have a place to integrate the iPod into the sound system. Aircraft companies are making a similar provision for the audio AND the video. Tons of other manufacturers have made in-home equipment to hold and access the information stored in the iPod.
Imagine, if you will, the new iPhone nesting in all them iPod-friendly ports. In the car, it becomes a hands free cell phone with voice recognition dialing and a high-quality speakerphone (aka, the car's sound system). Now imagine either a business person using the system as he cruises between appointments, or a group of teens using it as they cruise the streets on a Friday night. Both productive for one and way cool for the other group.
All of the above done without adding much at all to a basic phone/iPod, just the pure iPod base being leveraged. Now add a few user interface features and a couple of bells and whistles to appeal to a broad range of users and you hit the ground running.
It's the more specific user related want list that next needs to be addressed and that's where it gets dicey. That might be best marketed as additional features that could be added as needed.
For example, not everyone needs GPS. However, let's go back to the automobile with the iPod port in the dash. Now using the new iPhone with the GPS option, a person can travel to an unfamiliar place with ease. They may not have bought the GPS option in the beginning, but they bought the ability to add the option when they made their decision. It's similar to computers in this regard. Oftem a computer isn't purchased with the full load of RAM but a computer that can't be expanded has a harder go of it even if it is superior... i.e. the history of the early Mac.
A good camera phone with some image stabilization would serve a lot of people. Would it be better as an option that might bulk up the phone a little but could be slipped on and off as needed?
However apple does the iPhone it will need to integrate it into the existing iPod port structure for maximum penetration right out of the gate. And then, let's not forget the soon-to-be-released iTV. How might that integrate a phone's utility?
I hinestly can't imagine a good answer to that last question, but my mind is still reeling with the unanswered question of why Steve would pre-announce a product after not doing so since 1983.
i hate phones
Mar 29, 01:20 PM
Am I the only one who thinks that the fact that you can't use this service on iOS has more to do with Apple than it does with Amazon? (Remember lala.com?)
no you're not the only one. for android you need an app right? maybe it just doesn't work well on mobile browsers? i can actually play the music i purchased on amazon on my iphone through safari using the cloud player, but the download/upload music links don't work and you do get a message that says browser not supported but it still kinda works, but you can't really download music on to an iphone anyway unless through itunes right? so in that case amazon would HAVE to make an iphone app to have it work.. that would require apple approving one and amazon giving them 30%. don't see how amazon's the bad guy here.
no you're not the only one. for android you need an app right? maybe it just doesn't work well on mobile browsers? i can actually play the music i purchased on amazon on my iphone through safari using the cloud player, but the download/upload music links don't work and you do get a message that says browser not supported but it still kinda works, but you can't really download music on to an iphone anyway unless through itunes right? so in that case amazon would HAVE to make an iphone app to have it work.. that would require apple approving one and amazon giving them 30%. don't see how amazon's the bad guy here.
0010101
Nov 25, 10:14 PM
Apple could very easily set up their 'own' cell network.. the same way Virgin Mobile, TracPhone, and several other cell phone companies have done.
Not by building towers and cell sites.. but by buying blocks of numbers from an existing large carrier and rebranding it as their own.
Of course, for voice and text usage, this gets expensive for the customer.. but for things like downloads of video and music files, they could simply tack on a 'wireless' surcharge.
For instance, a particular iTunes song could cost say.. $2 if downloaded with a computer.. but $2.50 if downloaded 'direct to iPod'.
It would work very simular to the way those 'pre-paid' cell phones work. You buy the iPod from the store, no contract to sign, no comitments. Take it home and 'activate' it for wireless access, then pay for what you download, and pay nothing if you never use the wireless features.
iPod wireless. Don't talk. Listen.
Send me a free 17" MacBook Pro and you can have that slogan, Steve!
That makes perfect sense to me. Especially since the data center Apple just bought would be the perfect rig of the increased download demand, as well as billing for such a service.
Not by building towers and cell sites.. but by buying blocks of numbers from an existing large carrier and rebranding it as their own.
Of course, for voice and text usage, this gets expensive for the customer.. but for things like downloads of video and music files, they could simply tack on a 'wireless' surcharge.
For instance, a particular iTunes song could cost say.. $2 if downloaded with a computer.. but $2.50 if downloaded 'direct to iPod'.
It would work very simular to the way those 'pre-paid' cell phones work. You buy the iPod from the store, no contract to sign, no comitments. Take it home and 'activate' it for wireless access, then pay for what you download, and pay nothing if you never use the wireless features.
iPod wireless. Don't talk. Listen.
Send me a free 17" MacBook Pro and you can have that slogan, Steve!
That makes perfect sense to me. Especially since the data center Apple just bought would be the perfect rig of the increased download demand, as well as billing for such a service.
iStudentUK
Apr 18, 03:00 PM
All of these companies are interconnected. They support each other when it's beneficial, they attack when it's beneficial. The "wars" between game consoles, HD discs, and other competitions make strange bedfellows...
They know it is just business, not personal.
They know it is just business, not personal.
kenypowa
Mar 29, 11:06 AM
I don't blame any company who looks at what Apple has done to people who are trying to create services for the iOS platform and decides that they don't want to go there.
They hold up Google Voice and other apps in endless app review purgatories, embarrassing the companies that spent valuable resources developing them. They look at companies that have created amazing magazine apps or streaming media apps, and now they say that they demand the opportunity to market subscriptions to those services and take a 30% cut.
Amazon looks at the situation and knows that Apple will very likely either hold up their app or demand a 30% cut of their subscription fees, and either case is unacceptable. This is especially likely to happen since this new Amazon service seems to compete directly with the cloud services that Apple is gearing up to offer.
Couldn't say it better myself.
They hold up Google Voice and other apps in endless app review purgatories, embarrassing the companies that spent valuable resources developing them. They look at companies that have created amazing magazine apps or streaming media apps, and now they say that they demand the opportunity to market subscriptions to those services and take a 30% cut.
Amazon looks at the situation and knows that Apple will very likely either hold up their app or demand a 30% cut of their subscription fees, and either case is unacceptable. This is especially likely to happen since this new Amazon service seems to compete directly with the cloud services that Apple is gearing up to offer.
Couldn't say it better myself.
kainjow
Nov 26, 10:27 AM
If I could just have a Mac tablet that I could type and write notes on for class, I'd be in heaven :)
k2k koos
Nov 26, 01:24 PM
I don't know what the rest of you are thinking, but I think this may tie in nicely with the iTV, control it from this new device, plus a whole lot more, and could even be the iPod for home use, streaming your music to the wireless speakers or anywhere else in the house.
Dim the lights, light up the fire, open the wine, put on the music, heck perhaps it even does the housework for you :-)
Dim the lights, light up the fire, open the wine, put on the music, heck perhaps it even does the housework for you :-)