Play Ultimate
Sep 11, 08:30 AM
Re: movie store - Whatever the final product is, Apple's engineers have spent a lot more time thinking about it than we have in these forums.
More than anything, Apple focuses much more the on the customer's experience so I have faith that the final result will be elegant and work.
More than anything, Apple focuses much more the on the customer's experience so I have faith that the final result will be elegant and work.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:18 AM
how many of those apps sell music and movies for use on portable devices?
%IMG_DESC_3%
%IMG_DESC_4%
%IMG_DESC_5%
%IMG_DESC_6%
%IMG_DESC_7%
%IMG_DESC_8%
%IMG_DESC_9%
%IMG_DESC_10%
%IMG_DESC_11%
%IMG_DESC_12%
%IMG_DESC_13%
%IMG_DESC_14%
%IMG_DESC_15%
%IMG_DESC_16%
%IMG_DESC_17%
%IMG_DESC_18%
%IMG_DESC_19%
Consultant
Apr 21, 02:33 PM
OMG it's xServe ProBook G5!
0815
Apr 7, 10:15 AM
I wonder if this affects HP's Touchpad. HP has deep pockets as well though.
Deep pockets alone are not enough ... you also need some strategic planing to know ahead what you need and make sure that you get it.
Deep pockets alone are not enough ... you also need some strategic planing to know ahead what you need and make sure that you get it.
andythursby
Apr 18, 05:04 PM
Do you really think the Galaxy tab and iPhone 3g/3gs aer<sic> "identical"?
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
The galaxy tab looks like a cheap knockoff of the 3G, look at the pics comparing them in the article. As I stated, at first look my mum thought the samsung was an iPhone. To the general public they look extremely similar, thus why this is happening.
scottparker999
May 8, 09:41 AM
One of the main bonuses of a paid service is that it limits the number of users so they can get an email such as joe.blogs@me.com. When services become free, more people sign up until people have to settle for Joe.M.blogs5739@me.com, and then the service looses its upper-market feel.
I would much prefer to apply for a job using the first address for instance.
I would much prefer to apply for a job using the first address for instance.
Moyank24
May 5, 01:52 AM
I'm going to go wayyyyyy out on the proverbial limb here and suggest that since mscriv knows the full map at the outset of the game, that he's going to pretty much lay traps or monsters in each or every other room we enter- especially the ones where there is only one door for us to enter into another room.
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
The only trepidation I have against splitting up so soon is that we'll be weaker apart. But, on the other hand the longer we wait the chances of the monsters being stronger are better.
And my darling husband, I'm just in it for the alimony. ;)
Perhaps we should reconsider the splitting up or else we will be picked off one at a time.
Thoughts? I'm just musing out loud. I'm sure my darling Beatrice will correct me or tell me what my thoughts should be anyhow. :p
The only trepidation I have against splitting up so soon is that we'll be weaker apart. But, on the other hand the longer we wait the chances of the monsters being stronger are better.
And my darling husband, I'm just in it for the alimony. ;)
itcheroni
Apr 16, 11:37 AM
Sounds like a good reason to avoid it.
Why focus your perspective on gaining wealth?
Aren't there more important things than that in our brief lives?
I guess it's the same reason creationists prefer to study their own creation science rather than anything that challenges their already held beliefs.
It's just my own personal point of view, but I don't think it's good to avoid learning something new because it might change your opinion about it.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
I doubt you can even explain what it is I'm doing. Can you explain how I'm not creating anything? Or contributing anything? Or what flow I'm siphoning off? You're making conclusions off complete ignorance.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) –adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
If you take a single word out of a context, it's going to be...out of context. In that sense, I was using primarily, in the sense that my primary strategy is using time rather than up or down movements.
I understand the prejudice people have against financial people, because I used to have them too. I face a lot of ignorance in a lot of other activities I enjoy too. I make money off what I do, just like you do in your field. But what I do is understand economics and the mechanism of options. If I didn't understand economics, I would lose money. That's not something I would primarily want to do.
Why focus your perspective on gaining wealth?
Aren't there more important things than that in our brief lives?
I guess it's the same reason creationists prefer to study their own creation science rather than anything that challenges their already held beliefs.
It's just my own personal point of view, but I don't think it's good to avoid learning something new because it might change your opinion about it.
Now I don't mean to be cruel, but he isn't making anything, creating anything or contributing anything to society through this livelihood. He's merely siphoning off the flow. And he wants to talk about perspective? It seems to me that making a living that way is guaranteed to give you a warped perspective.
It's a perspective I'm glad I don't share.
I doubt you can even explain what it is I'm doing. Can you explain how I'm not creating anything? Or contributing anything? Or what flow I'm siphoning off? You're making conclusions off complete ignorance.
I didn't miss it, you did. here, I'll bold it, underline it and put it in red so it's easier for you to catch ...
Then I'll refer to the definition so you might know what that word means ...
pri�ma�ri�ly (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/primarily) –adverb
1. essentially; mostly; chiefly; principally
Then I'll give you an example that demonstrates a different perspective on wealth ...
I am a graphic designer. My primary focus is on creating print and web solutions for my clients. While I do get paid, money is neither the source of my production and creativity, nor the material with which I work. It is a by-product of my labors, not the sole focus of them.
Thus I have a different perspective on money and wealth than itcheroni.
I hope that clarifies that for you.
If you take a single word out of a context, it's going to be...out of context. In that sense, I was using primarily, in the sense that my primary strategy is using time rather than up or down movements.
I understand the prejudice people have against financial people, because I used to have them too. I face a lot of ignorance in a lot of other activities I enjoy too. I make money off what I do, just like you do in your field. But what I do is understand economics and the mechanism of options. If I didn't understand economics, I would lose money. That's not something I would primarily want to do.
caspersoong
Apr 8, 07:05 AM
The idea here is that NO ONE else was even considering making a tablet until Apple, and the iPad. They didn't want to be left behind like they were with the iPhone, so now everyone's jumping on board. It's RIM'S fault for not coming to market sooner with a tablet. You can thank Apple for creating the current modern day tablet. Everyone says apple needs competition to keep them from getting stagnant as a company, but they didn't need it when producing the iPod, or the iPhone, and they certainly didn't need it for the iPad. No ones fault but their own that they aren't smart enough to innovate like Apple.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
codeus
Apr 21, 04:40 PM
quite right... no xserve is FUBAR.
Tonsko
Jan 5, 09:16 AM
With full respect for your decisions, if you'll pardon me, I think that's a little bit crackers. :D
How do you know if your machine isn't part of a botnet? Have you eschewed only AV and simply subsist on your router f/wall and software firewall? Only run as user not admin? None of the above? Something else?
How do you know if your machine isn't part of a botnet? Have you eschewed only AV and simply subsist on your router f/wall and software firewall? Only run as user not admin? None of the above? Something else?
Jbrumz85
Apr 20, 12:38 AM
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
Probably because it's the 5th iPhone?
Probably because it's the 5th iPhone?
xfiftyfour
Jul 29, 10:11 PM
http://www.devilducky.com/media/46492/
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
i hadn't seen the link before, either, but wow! i know it's a fake, but that is an AMAZING looking phone!
"dear steve, please trash whatever progress you've made on your supposed iPhone and get working on this iTalk. thanks." :p
I haven't seen this before but I guess it's old news?
Looks pretty cool anyway..
i hadn't seen the link before, either, but wow! i know it's a fake, but that is an AMAZING looking phone!
"dear steve, please trash whatever progress you've made on your supposed iPhone and get working on this iTalk. thanks." :p
MacRumors
Sep 10, 10:55 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple is hosting (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905144401.shtml) a media event on Tuesday, September 12th 2006 in San Francisco, CA at 10AM Pacific. The event will also be simulcast to a location in London (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060831122800.shtml) where journalists have also been invited.
The invitation to the media was entitled It's Showtime (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905144401.shtml) -- suggesting Movie-related announcements. Rumors sites had originally expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904073025.shtml) iMac updates during the event, but Apple surprised everyone with iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) and Mac mini updates (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906094056.shtml) last week.
This leaves iPods (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904073025.shtml), a Movie Store (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906185220.shtml) and the possibility of a new streaming Media device (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904194920.shtml) for the Tuesday event.
As usual, a number of anonymous images have been circulating claiming to represent upcoming products, but these are all considered to be fake. Other circumstantial evidence (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/ipods-invisible-in-ads-199610.php) has been reported, but no definitive information on the event.
As always, MacRumors will provide continuing coverage, however, access to these events have become more restricted, so please contact us (http://mailto:webmaster@macrumors.com?Subject=Showtime Coverage) if you are attending.
Apple is hosting (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905144401.shtml) a media event on Tuesday, September 12th 2006 in San Francisco, CA at 10AM Pacific. The event will also be simulcast to a location in London (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060831122800.shtml) where journalists have also been invited.
The invitation to the media was entitled It's Showtime (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060905144401.shtml) -- suggesting Movie-related announcements. Rumors sites had originally expected (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904073025.shtml) iMac updates during the event, but Apple surprised everyone with iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906091309.shtml) and Mac mini updates (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906094056.shtml) last week.
This leaves iPods (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904073025.shtml), a Movie Store (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060906185220.shtml) and the possibility of a new streaming Media device (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060904194920.shtml) for the Tuesday event.
As usual, a number of anonymous images have been circulating claiming to represent upcoming products, but these are all considered to be fake. Other circumstantial evidence (http://www.gizmodo.com/gadgets/gadgets/ipods-invisible-in-ads-199610.php) has been reported, but no definitive information on the event.
As always, MacRumors will provide continuing coverage, however, access to these events have become more restricted, so please contact us (http://mailto:webmaster@macrumors.com?Subject=Showtime Coverage) if you are attending.
hystery
Apr 23, 06:16 PM
Retina Cinema in Summer?
mdriftmeyer
Apr 23, 11:56 PM
They use a lot more CPU time to process though. A JPG can be quickly converted to a bitmap and sent off to the GPU, a vector image has to be rendered before conversion to bitmap. Just imagine moving your mouse over the Dock with magnification on, each icon would need to be re-rendered for every time the mouse moved one pixel. With bitmaps, it's all done by the GPU. When there're hundreds of icons on display at once, that will probably become quite CPU intensive. I'm not surprised KDE supported it, it's open source, and we all know Linux is the king of feature creep.
You said yourself that wallpapers should be vector graphics. And by that, I presumed you meant the background in the subject of the thread. Safari supports SVG, but imo, it's not really a big thing that there's no support for it as a wallpaper. It's not the first thing people think of when they list Snow Leopard's shortcomings :P
What intelligent Developer would use the CPU to convert Vectors -> Bitmaps when they have a GPGPU to do the heavy lifting? Certainly not Apple.
You said yourself that wallpapers should be vector graphics. And by that, I presumed you meant the background in the subject of the thread. Safari supports SVG, but imo, it's not really a big thing that there's no support for it as a wallpaper. It's not the first thing people think of when they list Snow Leopard's shortcomings :P
What intelligent Developer would use the CPU to convert Vectors -> Bitmaps when they have a GPGPU to do the heavy lifting? Certainly not Apple.
GW3
Aug 4, 09:10 PM
If Im not mistaken every KeyNote from Steve Jobs, whether at WWDC, MacWorld or any other event from Apple has been on tuesdays. Why is this one DIFFERENT. Could we see a Movie Store on Tuesday ???????
BlizzardBomb
Aug 11, 10:27 AM
Quad Xeons in the MacBook Pro, pretty please. After all, it is Apple's professional notebook line.
Hehe, that's the funniest thing I've read this week :p :D
Hopefully we'll see the MBP hit 2.33 GHz and the iMac get the 2.4 GHz Conroe.
Hehe, that's the funniest thing I've read this week :p :D
Hopefully we'll see the MBP hit 2.33 GHz and the iMac get the 2.4 GHz Conroe.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 01:34 AM
Lets look at the world's highest growth economy and see what their tax rates are:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#China
So they have a higher rate of capital gains tax than the US.
A little lower down...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_gains_tax#China
So they have a higher rate of capital gains tax than the US.
A little lower down...
Seryph
Mar 31, 04:24 AM
I'm wondering how many people commenting on this thread and saying that Lion is terrible/UI is ****/Apple have failed... have actually used Lion? Hell, I'm sure they'll all claim they have as there's no way to prove it, but I have to be honest it sounds like a lot of these people haven't actually had their hands on the update. I have, and while I doubted Apple a little before it's great once you try it out. Still, isn't it nice that people are allowed opinions... it would just be nice if those opinions were based on an actual personal experience rather than watching videos and reading websites.
:)
:)
jcgarza
Mar 29, 12:48 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?)
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 08:53 AM
I inputed it exactly like this in my calculator and I got 2. So...
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
Edit: I voted 2 because I thought of it as 48 over (/) 2(9+3)
But written as 48�2(9+3) I would say 288...
Strange.
You didn't enter it properly then...
Here
280594
The thing about this question is, whats the point of the parentheses..
Try using a calculator that uses the "/" instead of the divided by sign. You'll get 288. I tried it the way you did it on an old calculator and I got 2. But that's not the way it is in the OP. It's 48/2(9+3)
LOL um... ok? It's a calculator...
For the last time, a simple google search will show you guys that unless the calculator is in scientific mode, it will give you the wrong answer. Hard to believe, I guess, that a machine could be wrong, but it's true.
citizenzen
Apr 16, 01:23 PM
It's spending on investment rather than spending on consumption.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
This is a key point to the growing inequity of wealth in America. The rich have surplus funds that they are able to invest, while the poor, and a growing number of people are spending all of the income on consumption.
In 2007 Zhu Xiao Di wrote a report for the Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies title, Growing Wealth, Inequity, and Housing in the United States [PDF] (http://www.jchs.harvard.edu/publications/markets/w07-1.pdf)
Abstract
The rapid growth of household wealth in the United States has been accompanied by drastic growing inequality. This paper discusses both wealth and inequality growth, examines demographic factors behind the growth, and analyzes housing�s role in it, using the Survey of Consumer Finances data collected by the Federal Reserve Bank. While aggregate household net wealth grew from $25.9 trillion in 1995 to $50.1 trillion in 2004 (both in 2004 dollars), nearly 90 percent of the net gains occurred only among the top quartile of households in the wealth distribution. Although housing wealth (both home equity and housing value) was still more evenly distributed than other types of wealth, it largely served to widen the wealth gap rather than to narrow it during the last decade.
In this report, he clearly illustrates the difference between household net wealth and household income.
Wealth Inequality and Household Net Wealth Growth
It is well known that the distribution of household net wealth is even more unbalanced than that of household income. Net wealth is defined as all assets net out all debts. In the top quartile of the household net wealth distribution held the lion�s share�87 percent (or $43.6 trillion) while the bottom quartile of households had nothing. The upper and lower middle quartiles combined held $6.5 trillion, or 13 percent of total household net wealth (see Chart 1).
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/members/citizenzen-albums-album-picture1305-screen-shot-2011-04-16.png
As he says in the report, "In other words, the bottom 28 million of American households in 2004 had nothing once their debt is netted out ..."
The difference between inequalities in wealth and income is quite natural, as one is from a stock perspective and the other is from a flow perspective. Low income households have to spend most or all of their incomes on life necessities with little capability of saving and investment so they can hardly accumulate any household net wealth. Thus they often remain in the bottom distribution of household wealth with nothing; the exception is the group of low income senior households who recently fell into the low-income category due to retirement and the loss of income. In short, while the bottom quartile of income distribution still has income, the bottom quartile of wealth distribution does not have any wealth net of debt.
Fukui
May 6, 03:58 AM
I can't think of a worse idea!
I can. Going back to PowerPC!! lol....
I can. Going back to PowerPC!! lol....