DrFrankTM
Sep 16, 12:19 AM
3mps???? :eek: are sure its not supposed to be 1.3?
I don't recall the brand of the phone, but I've seen a cellphone with a 5MP camera here (in South Korea). The phone was rather big, but it'd be an o.k. format if it doubled as an iPod with decent storage space.
EDIT: And I don't follow cell phones all that closely, so there might be higher-res ones that I haven't seen.
I don't recall the brand of the phone, but I've seen a cellphone with a 5MP camera here (in South Korea). The phone was rather big, but it'd be an o.k. format if it doubled as an iPod with decent storage space.
EDIT: And I don't follow cell phones all that closely, so there might be higher-res ones that I haven't seen.
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Casshan
Sep 19, 03:23 PM
I'm not touching it until they offer 5.1 sound. I'm sure its just a matter of time, though.
thedude110
Sep 13, 09:05 PM
At least something to keep the rumor mill buzzing ...
Maybe "one more thing" comes later in the week, then.
Maybe "one more thing" comes later in the week, then.
Peace
Sep 2, 08:53 PM
....but can't find anywhere hard evidence for September 12. Macbidouille is referencing conformation from sources, but don't have a date. Hardmac has a copy of a meeting invite for the 19th. So, will there be a September 12 meeting? I really hope so, as I will be in Vegas that day, and don't mind to pick up some stuff at the Apple store. :)
It's not just you..
I have pointed to the MacNN confirmation of an Apple event on Sept.14th several times.
From MacNN :
"In brief: Apple has confirmed plans to hold a special event on September 14, coinciding with rumors of an Apple movie store launch in that time period...."
This is the ONLY confirmation from Apple to any online site I know of.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/31/boot.camp.mac.gui/
It's not just you..
I have pointed to the MacNN confirmation of an Apple event on Sept.14th several times.
From MacNN :
"In brief: Apple has confirmed plans to hold a special event on September 14, coinciding with rumors of an Apple movie store launch in that time period...."
This is the ONLY confirmation from Apple to any online site I know of.
http://www.macnn.com/articles/06/08/31/boot.camp.mac.gui/
QCassidy352
Jul 14, 10:29 AM
I'm working with Arn on that one... Woodcrest is pretty much slated towards the PowerMacs. We may have to update the story...
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
sorry about that. story updated.
arn
yay, I feel special now. ;) Thanks guys. :)
I really think the iMac should use Conroe now. I think the reason they used the Yonah chip is that they had no desktop "Core" architecture chips available. While using Merom is the easy thing to do, I hope they don't do it. The iMac is supposedly a desktop, it should use a desktop chip.
My thoughts exactly. Now that intel has a real desktop processor, why shouldn't apple's desktop computer use it?
Did anyone pay attention to the power and thermal requirements of Conroe?
The 2.40 and 2.66 (which would be great for the imacs) use 114 Watts at idle and 158-162 at load (http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=7). Here's info on power draw for original G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=32486), early 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=302439), and late 2005 G5s (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303540). I fail to see the problem. I'm not being flip - I really fail to see the problem. They fit G5s in to imacs, and those power draw numbers look worse than conroe's, unless I'm missing something.
TheKrillr
Sep 12, 02:22 PM
so do I, because I bought a game thinking it would work with my 5th generation ipod and it doesn't :(
Make sure your iPod got updated to software revision 1.2, and that you're using iTunes 7.0.
Make sure your iPod got updated to software revision 1.2, and that you're using iTunes 7.0.
dr_lha
Sep 26, 03:49 PM
I for one in disappointed they went with GSM
Well it makes sense, most of the world uses GSM, it's a much larger market for Apple to aim at, combined with the much lower cost of only having to develop one phone.
Plus Verizon are coonts.
HERE ARE THE PICTURES:
You're joking right? You realise these are pipe-dream mock ups right?
Well it makes sense, most of the world uses GSM, it's a much larger market for Apple to aim at, combined with the much lower cost of only having to develop one phone.
Plus Verizon are coonts.
HERE ARE THE PICTURES:
You're joking right? You realise these are pipe-dream mock ups right?
iMacZealot
Sep 15, 09:13 PM
If, for example, someone is using Verizon Wireless, would the Apple Phone work for them? In other words, how "universal" would this phone truly be? Would it be able to compete in international markets?
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
(edited: clarification)
There are two main types of cell phone system: CDMA and GSM. The Global System for Mobile Communications (GSM) was created in France throughout the 80's and the EU endorsed it as their official system, which caused it to spread globally. Meanwhile, across the pond, we were sitting on our little keisters and our brick analog phones and then a company called Quallcomm decided to do something six years after GSM had publically been out and they created a popular version of CDMA. CDMA is currently used by Sprint and Verizon (and I think a few Canadian carriers) and is pretty much only existent here in America. GSM is present in 78% of the world's markets.
With that said, GSM phones will not work on CDMA networks and vice versa. If Apple does make a phone, I think it would be GSM in order to capture most of the international market as well as the US. CDMA is very limited because it is not used anywhere besides a few carriers here in America.
nybe
Sep 13, 10:30 AM
Install Quicktime 7.1.3 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/mac.html) then install iTunes 7 (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/). Connect your 3-5G iPod. Updater will appear in the new iTunes when you highligh the iPod in the left column. Eazy Peezy. :)
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
okay got it!! thank yah sir!
btw, I have beach envy... SC rules!
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
okay got it!! thank yah sir!
btw, I have beach envy... SC rules!
CDCC
Apr 19, 02:45 PM
They have plenty of patents. It wasn't until the 90s that the patent madness really started with software. Google is also leading the bidding for a large portfolio of mobile patents to protect them against Apple and Microsoft.
Google has more copyrights than patents. However, they are still to cheap to buy most copyrights if they can get away with it. They are illegally scanning all books and photos to feed their hungry "big brother" search engines.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5070029/google-pays-125-million-to-writers-and-buys-us-some-free-books
robert e lee surrender at
Google has more copyrights than patents. However, they are still to cheap to buy most copyrights if they can get away with it. They are illegally scanning all books and photos to feed their hungry "big brother" search engines.
http://gizmodo.com/#!5070029/google-pays-125-million-to-writers-and-buys-us-some-free-books
aiqw9182
Apr 16, 11:47 AM
You keep talking about a non-existent adapter that costs $10 and comparing mini-display port adapters that merely convert signal paths isn't even in the same realm as converting to an entirely different interface. In other words your 'adapter' prices are 100% BS and you know it.
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Robert E. Lee#39;s surrender
surrender of Robert E. Lee
Lee, robert e lee at the
Robert E. Lee surrendered the
Robert E. Lee
[Robert E. Lee leaving the
Robert E. Lee#39;s surrender
Did you miss the USB to PS2 ports or are you just avoiding that? Are you also avoiding how I said it's too difficult for you to carry around an inch long adapter?
Don't tase me bro! :eek:
Seriously, you going to compare a demonstration with a professional mass storage array that isn't available to the public yet and which I said at the bottom of my last post is a perfect use for TB (i.e. with professional editing software) with the Lacie consumer grade 5200 RPM SLOW USB3 drive? Dude, you have to compare apples to apples. You're comparing a race car to a Chevette.... That neither proves nor disproves anything about the full capability of USB3. The ad on that box is marketing BS about the "interface" not the drive they're selling (which is a slow 5200 RPM SATA drive which all top out between 40-60MB/sec PERIOD, regardless whether they use SATA, USB3, Firewire 800 or Thunderbolt). Show me a 7200 RPM (or better yet a 10,000+ SCSI rated) drive connected to USB3 AND TB (or even FW800) and then compare their actual speeds. OR find an array that goes fast like the one Intel was using that also has USB3 on it and compare their actual speeds 1 to 1. Showing me Steak Diane on one plate and a hot dog on the other doesn't prove the cook who made the hot dog doesn't know how to cook. It simply proves he was given a hot dog to cook.LOL, the drive he was using WAS 7200-RPM so I'm not even going to bother reading the rest of this paragraph.
http://www.lacie.com/products/product.htm?id=10492
In reality, you need an actual hard drive test that makes sense not comparing a Porsche to a lawn tractor.... :rolleyes:
See above. :rolleyes:
No more than you assuming you're going to get a $10 USB3 adapter. At least my assumption is based on Firewire statistics and early adoption rates. Yours is based on dreaming.Your assumption is based on comparing two different technologies and assuming they will fare the same. My assumption was comparing ADAPTER prices. How expensive do you think adapters are? :rolleyes:
You can get them for super cheap if you know where to look.
I think the 5200 RPM 2.5" drive that came with my MBP capped out around 50MB/sec using a SATA II interface (or 450mbps). Does that prove my SATA chip set SUCKS? NO, IT DOES NOT. When I replaced it with a 7200 RPM Hitachi, it now caps out around 110MB/sec (or 880mbps, well above FW800's theoretical cap even). Even my PPC G4 gets 105MB/sec caps with its 1.5TB 7200 RPM Seagate Barracuda drives (and SATA does eat CPU as well; if I try to run two of them at the same time I still get a total of around 100MB/sec with the CPU pegged at 95-100%. The older PCI bus is also in the way. Thus it's not the SATA interface there that's the problem either, but you might think so if you make assumptions based only on one test number and no idea what's in the computer being used or any statistics about the CPU or Bus while its being used. Your YouTube videos comparisons are absurd in that regard. Cheap mass storage devices (like the Lacie) aren't made for performance. Show me TB making that same drive do over 100MB/sec. It won't happen.Once again, YOU ARE BASING THIS ON PRESENT DAY SPEEDS THAT ARE ACHIEVABLE. This isn't a discussion about current theoretical limits, it's about the limits of the future because that's where these technologies will actually matter. The fact is that when we move to SSD transfer speeds USB 3 will get demolished.
I never said any such thing. I said they won't pay a premium for Thunderbolt for every-day use. If you're just going to lie and change what I said, I won't bother replying anymore.
USB 3 won't be a premium over anything. It's going to be dirt cheap and a simple performance upgrade for everyone. It already is cheap for new computers and a pretty cheap add-on for existing ones; you cannot add TB to existing computers so there's another problem it has to contend with, especially trying to get a large user base in any reasonable length of time. The longer it takes to get a large installed user base, the longer the prices will stay high on any TB products. It's plainly obvious that TB is going to be a high-end niche product just like FW800, at least for the forseeable future. While Intel's demo is totally cool, it doesn't remotely represent the AVERAGE PC user in any shape or form. Most people aren't editing 4 simultaneous streams of 1080p video on a mega-buck professional high-speed drive array.
Tears Apart
Mar 22, 01:57 PM
Sources or not I think such release is to be expected quite soon. Right now Apple sells laptops as powerful as their desktops!
asphalt-proof
Sep 5, 01:10 PM
All I know is, I will be buying whatever it is they have for sale.
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
I want one of each:D
I said that last time and balked at the Leather iPod case and BOOMbox. :rolleyes:
This has to be better. Right? Right?
MacGeek7
Mar 22, 02:31 PM
Finally! I've been waiting for an iMac update for awhile and I'm excited to see the potential of Thunderbolt even though the list of devices is relatively short right now.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
Mogenshu
Oct 12, 02:20 PM
I'm just not understanding two things. One, how is this a negative thing? People are getting money, they would not otherwise get. The other thing I don't get is talking about how apple is only giving 5% and not 10%. Would you rather them give 0% like they currently are? Get off your high horse and stop flaming companies that give money to charities.
vd0t
Sep 9, 11:19 AM
Is one of the 512MB RAM on the iMac soldered on?? :confused:
MacinDoc
Sep 2, 05:26 PM
When do you think C2D will be in MBPs? On the 5th? 12th?
They will be announced and shipping by the 12th. Based on Intel's new pricing, there's no reason to keep Core chips in any of Apple' computers, it will be Core2 across the board.
I too hope there is an user removable HD.
Given that the MB has this, it's a given that the revised MBPs will have it.
What are the odds that they will give us a 12'' option?
I'll leave that one to Multimedia.
They will be announced and shipping by the 12th. Based on Intel's new pricing, there's no reason to keep Core chips in any of Apple' computers, it will be Core2 across the board.
I too hope there is an user removable HD.
Given that the MB has this, it's a given that the revised MBPs will have it.
What are the odds that they will give us a 12'' option?
I'll leave that one to Multimedia.
mi5moav
Aug 31, 01:56 PM
Now it is a definate Apple will be launching Quicktake HD
720p HD Video Scanning (1280 x 854)
7.1 Megapixel Digital Still Photos
H.264 Compression Technology
2.5 Inch OLED Display
6x Optical Zoom Lens / 10x Digital Zoom Lens
Record Over 6 hours of video on 60GB version
Built-in Digital Image Stabilization
Beautiful Design/less clutter(image manipulation within imovie)
SD Memory Card Compatibility
High Quality Stereo Recording (Apple Lossless)
Pre-tag chapter and image settings
USB 2.0, HDMI, Firewire
MAC/PC Compatible
Dimensions: 2.4" x 4.9" x 2.2"
720p HD Video Scanning (1280 x 854)
7.1 Megapixel Digital Still Photos
H.264 Compression Technology
2.5 Inch OLED Display
6x Optical Zoom Lens / 10x Digital Zoom Lens
Record Over 6 hours of video on 60GB version
Built-in Digital Image Stabilization
Beautiful Design/less clutter(image manipulation within imovie)
SD Memory Card Compatibility
High Quality Stereo Recording (Apple Lossless)
Pre-tag chapter and image settings
USB 2.0, HDMI, Firewire
MAC/PC Compatible
Dimensions: 2.4" x 4.9" x 2.2"
dazzer21
Sep 5, 06:47 AM
So what sort of picture and sound quality can we expect from these movie downloads (wireless or otherwise)? Also, as a download, just how big are these files going to be? I wouldn't want to be on the other side of a "your hard disk is now full" prompt 10Mb from the end of a 2Gb download (that's an extreme example - I hope!)
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:05 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/iPhone-3GS.jpg
The Samsung has a flash too. Also, compared to the iPhone 4 the Samsung is ACTUALLY available in White.
http://www.parallelimported.co.nz/media/catalog/product/cache/1/thumbnail/9df78eab33525d08d6e5fb8d27136e95/s/a/samsung_galaxy_tab_white_back.jpg
http://cdn.slashgear.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/08/iPhone-3GS.jpg
The Samsung has a flash too. Also, compared to the iPhone 4 the Samsung is ACTUALLY available in White.
dornoforpyros
Sep 5, 03:37 PM
you know, just to throw some gasoline on the fire, maybe we're finally getting the Mac Mini PVR. That rumors been MIA for a while.
DRewPi
Sep 4, 03:57 AM
How do you feel if the MBP gets a nice upgrade that eventually the MB is going to go down on price ???? The first MB should be selling for 999$ ?? NO?
See yall .... :D
See yall .... :D