PhantomPumpkin
Feb 14, 10:27 AM
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
You do realize with that it's essentially an additional if/then statement, versus coding something from the ground up. They're not changing their code to include the iOS, they're changing their code to include a new output if it detects the iOS/Mac OS tag. It's really not that hard to do.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
You do realize with that it's essentially an additional if/then statement, versus coding something from the ground up. They're not changing their code to include the iOS, they're changing their code to include a new output if it detects the iOS/Mac OS tag. It's really not that hard to do.
GyroFX
Apr 25, 04:08 PM
carbon fiber?
cube
Apr 22, 01:43 PM
http://www.zdnet.com/blog/gadgetreviews/new-asus-eee-pc-netbook-with-optical-drive/2658
The MBA looks bad as an ultraportable? L.O.L.
The MBP is for people who want a powerful notebook. People who want a laptop capable of using parts that equal 85-watts or higher.
I don't want a MacBook Air. I want a MacBook Pro without an optical drive that is slightly thinner than the current MacBook Pro.
If you think the only thing that separates the MacBook Air from the Pro is an optical drive then I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Clearly someone that thinks a 15" Zacate notebook with an optical drive makes a 15" MacBook Pro with a quad core 45 watt CPU and a 25W+ GPU without an optical drive look bad is someone that knows little about what they're talking about.
I don't see HP Envy owners complaining about their lack of an optical drive inside their machines nor do I see people knock that particular fact about the Envy.
So, ONE netbook which has an optical drive. Which makes the MBA look bad because it doesn't have one.
Actually, most netbooks make the MBA look bad because it doesn't have gigabit ethernet.
And a 15" Zacate which is not a notebook because the CPU is too weak, it's not a netbook, and it's not an ultraportable because it's too big would make an MBP without optical disk look bad because of the price, even if it has little reason to exist (unclassifiable in a bad way).
The MBA looks bad as an ultraportable? L.O.L.
The MBP is for people who want a powerful notebook. People who want a laptop capable of using parts that equal 85-watts or higher.
I don't want a MacBook Air. I want a MacBook Pro without an optical drive that is slightly thinner than the current MacBook Pro.
If you think the only thing that separates the MacBook Air from the Pro is an optical drive then I'm wasting my time arguing with you. Clearly someone that thinks a 15" Zacate notebook with an optical drive makes a 15" MacBook Pro with a quad core 45 watt CPU and a 25W+ GPU without an optical drive look bad is someone that knows little about what they're talking about.
I don't see HP Envy owners complaining about their lack of an optical drive inside their machines nor do I see people knock that particular fact about the Envy.
So, ONE netbook which has an optical drive. Which makes the MBA look bad because it doesn't have one.
Actually, most netbooks make the MBA look bad because it doesn't have gigabit ethernet.
And a 15" Zacate which is not a notebook because the CPU is too weak, it's not a netbook, and it's not an ultraportable because it's too big would make an MBP without optical disk look bad because of the price, even if it has little reason to exist (unclassifiable in a bad way).
jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 12, 01:10 AM
And is the alleged attack proceeding through the Mac community? No.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
Once again, targeting and successfully attacking are worlds apart.
Oh, and the "time" needed to identify that you're on an Apple (or other) operating system is essentially zero. All you have to do is look at the user agent (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_agent) header.
Thanks for reminding me to put you on ignore. I know how easy it is to identify an operating system, but if they bothered to make a message just for Mac users it stands to reason they made malware for Mac users too. Or would they just make the message for fun? We all know what funny guys malware writers are.
It doesn't matter if it hasn't propagated, it never even would have happened in the past. The more malware attacks there are on the Mac, the greater the chance of one of them actually becoming a widespread nuisance.
Thunderhawks
Apr 14, 12:17 PM
Talk about an ugly logo for USB3!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Take their Crayolas away, please!
Willis
Sep 20, 06:15 AM
You do know that all this talk of Wal-Mart only applies to the US? They mean nothing out in the rest of the world, which is where Apple is taking this service.
Wal-Mart of big, but they are not that big.
Apple can still make a lot of money with Disney for the moment, they have the hearts of minds of children everywhere and parents are inclined sometimes to do things for their children, including downloading movies.
Then there is art house movies and independent movie companies which probably never see the light of day in a Wal-Mart store. There is to much going on that could be stopped by Wal-Mart.
Sucks to be them but they are not exactly the nicest company around.
Actually. Wal-Mart has a big stand in the UK. It owns ASDA which offers ALOT of crap for cheap prices. However, the cost of Cd's there are about the same as everywhere else even though it was cheaper at ASDA first.
Wal-Mart of big, but they are not that big.
Apple can still make a lot of money with Disney for the moment, they have the hearts of minds of children everywhere and parents are inclined sometimes to do things for their children, including downloading movies.
Then there is art house movies and independent movie companies which probably never see the light of day in a Wal-Mart store. There is to much going on that could be stopped by Wal-Mart.
Sucks to be them but they are not exactly the nicest company around.
Actually. Wal-Mart has a big stand in the UK. It owns ASDA which offers ALOT of crap for cheap prices. However, the cost of Cd's there are about the same as everywhere else even though it was cheaper at ASDA first.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
bearcatrp
Apr 20, 01:02 PM
Section 4b of the software license agreement explains it all:
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
Interesting read. Except it only mentions the iPhone. Doesn't say anything about the iPad.
Apple isn't the only one doing this though. If you have a cell phone, your tracked. But everyone should know this anyway. I peaked at some of the data on my backup (listed earlier). According to the agreement about, states as long as your device is not identifiably, they can do this. Am pretty sure somewhere in all that data your device is identified. Example: plug your iPhone, iPod or iPad in another Mac, you get the warning your device IS synced with another computer.
Will be interesting how this plays out.
http://images.apple.com/legal/sla/docs/iphone.pdf
Interesting read. Except it only mentions the iPhone. Doesn't say anything about the iPad.
Apple isn't the only one doing this though. If you have a cell phone, your tracked. But everyone should know this anyway. I peaked at some of the data on my backup (listed earlier). According to the agreement about, states as long as your device is not identifiably, they can do this. Am pretty sure somewhere in all that data your device is identified. Example: plug your iPhone, iPod or iPad in another Mac, you get the warning your device IS synced with another computer.
Will be interesting how this plays out.
wordoflife
Apr 4, 12:34 PM
Was It really necessary to kill him?
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
No
They shot at the cops as well.
It's sad, but reality.
Can't do the time, don't do the crime.
Mitch1984
Sep 14, 12:01 PM
I just hope they don't stick iSights in all the displays.
I know, it would be nice, but have you ever worked in a government installation before? No photographic devices of any kind. Co-workers at my last job are stuck with PowerBooks because they can't bring a MacBook (Pro) into any area that contains classified material, and many of them have their offices in such locations. If they couldn't buy new Cinema display I'm sure they'd be even more annoyed.
Sucked for some that had to find cell phones without a camera, too.
I work in a government building. With ours there is a rule about cameras but it isn't strict.
Basically they say there is a difference between holding your phone as if you're going to take a picture and holding your camera when your texting, which we're supposed to at break (unless you're a manager and you have a work phone)
I know, it would be nice, but have you ever worked in a government installation before? No photographic devices of any kind. Co-workers at my last job are stuck with PowerBooks because they can't bring a MacBook (Pro) into any area that contains classified material, and many of them have their offices in such locations. If they couldn't buy new Cinema display I'm sure they'd be even more annoyed.
Sucked for some that had to find cell phones without a camera, too.
I work in a government building. With ours there is a rule about cameras but it isn't strict.
Basically they say there is a difference between holding your phone as if you're going to take a picture and holding your camera when your texting, which we're supposed to at break (unless you're a manager and you have a work phone)
MovieCutter
Sep 5, 04:33 PM
I'm going to venture a guess and say we'll see something named the iPod Showtime or Showtime as a product name.
lkrupp
Apr 20, 11:16 AM
Not good. I need an explanation.
What? You think GM's OnStar, and the other car manufacturer's systems, don't keep a record of exactly where your automobile has been? All cars have black boxes these days. You think your bank doesn't know where you've been and what you've bought? You think the government, and most companies, don't already know more about you than you do yourself, like where you go, what you buy, who your friends are, what political persuasion you are?
What? You think GM's OnStar, and the other car manufacturer's systems, don't keep a record of exactly where your automobile has been? All cars have black boxes these days. You think your bank doesn't know where you've been and what you've bought? You think the government, and most companies, don't already know more about you than you do yourself, like where you go, what you buy, who your friends are, what political persuasion you are?
bassfingers
Apr 17, 01:06 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
OR we can take away every incentive to be productive (France) and have a GDP smaller than the interest payments on the national debt (France in 2020)
I'd say since the high point of post WWII, we as a society in the U.S. have done our best to eradicate The New Deal and move back to reaching for magnificant wealth while screwing each other over.?
really? we've been getting LESS progressive since the new deal? I was under the impression that our government is GIGANTIC and tries to babysit us at every turn while simultaneously urinating on the constitution
No kidding right?
My buddy and I went boarding 2 days ago and he dislocated his finger (looked bad as it was all bent funny)
Anyways, took him to the clinic and was charged 1300 bucks to put it back into place and he doesnt have health insurance
Heaven forbid one needs surgery or broke a leg or anything more than dislocating a finger....would need a few million stashed away
Or perhaps a steady job mingled in with some tort reform, or a private charity willing to foot the bill if he were unemployed.
However, I don't know if boarding is the best option when you're unemployed
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
US government regulations for increasing gas efficiency has resulted in car companies making vehicles lighter at rate beyond evolving the technology to maintain safety, which has resulted in an average of 10,000 avoidable deaths per year since the early 70's
But hey, maybe that fraction of environmental impact we have that's causing that fraction of a global degree change might have been marginally altered. Maybe. And it's only cost us ~300,000 lives so far. Thank you government! Just tack that onto the millions you killed by restricting DDT use, and you can further brag about your death toll
What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Ridiculous? Not quite, from the parent's perspective.
In Canada we have 12 months maternity leave, which can be taken by either spouse, or split, 6 months/6 months.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
Or maybe in that transaction I'll get to use the government as a middle man via taxes, and I'll end up spending %30 more in order to maintain its inefficiency
Hellhammer
Apr 22, 12:14 PM
Make sure your homeowner's polices are up to date. I predict this new MBA will burst into flames when Turbo Boost kicks in.
The TDPs are around the same as with previous gen, or possibly even less (the TDP of 320M is unknown). Also, Turbo Boost will only be activated if the thermals allow that. If your CPU is already running at 90�C, then Turbo most likely won't kick in.
I doubt SB will make MBA run noticeably hotter.
The TDPs are around the same as with previous gen, or possibly even less (the TDP of 320M is unknown). Also, Turbo Boost will only be activated if the thermals allow that. If your CPU is already running at 90�C, then Turbo most likely won't kick in.
I doubt SB will make MBA run noticeably hotter.
Proud Liberal
Sep 12, 02:57 PM
Updated my 5G iPod to 1.2, loaded Quadrophenia, and yes, there is FINALLY gapless. :D
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
so you have to re-rip any albums that are affected by the gapless feature?
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
Wilz
Oct 27, 04:44 PM
hahaha, Greenpeace kicked out
I was at that expo all day today and they didn't turn up
I got free google t-shirt :)
I was at that expo all day today and they didn't turn up
I got free google t-shirt :)
adamfilip
Aug 28, 02:07 PM
from what ive read the difference between Core Duo and Core 2 Duo isnt much
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
its not like P4 and Core 2 Duo
the Core 2 Duo are -10-15% faster at the same clock speed but use more power
noservice2001
Sep 4, 07:34 PM
go apple!
Multimedia
Sep 9, 02:16 PM
Heh, that's pretty funny. I have quite a few applications that'll hit one core at 100%. (Q emulator is the best example) Luckily, even though it's not multi-threaded a have another core free to do my work while Q eats up 100% of one.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.
I run Windows 98 in Q for laughs. I liked Windows 98...Exactly. A perfect example where one application topping out on only one core leaves the entire other one for other stuff. Probably a good thing to have that limit.
In fact, in future, I could see where application developers let the user in preferences tell the application how many cores to be allowed to use. Give the user a choice of how many cores he/she wants a particular process to use. That would be a way cool improvement in all application preferences. Would prevent any one applicaiton from hosing the computer due to core hogging.
Blue Velvet
Apr 11, 01:20 PM
I use metric feet.
So does a centipede. :o
So does a centipede. :o
b0x
Sep 9, 02:57 AM
I'm thinking Apple might also dump the price of the good old iPod Shuffle to $29 for a 512... They'll sell like hot cakes at that price!
balamw
Sep 6, 01:18 AM
If they can put the menu logic into iTunes, all the "Airport Express A/V" would have do do is add an H264 decoder chip and video DAC to the current Airport Express, that would be a pretty cheap solution.
Just note that the H.264 decoder chip in the 5G iPod is what sets the resolution and bitrate limits for current iTMS videos to no more than 320x240 and under 768 kbps. Any more powerful chip would put out more heat and require a larger box to dissipate it. If they went with MPEG-4 they could already handle 2Mbps 480x480 files which is competitive with current digital satellite offerings.
B
Just note that the H.264 decoder chip in the 5G iPod is what sets the resolution and bitrate limits for current iTMS videos to no more than 320x240 and under 768 kbps. Any more powerful chip would put out more heat and require a larger box to dissipate it. If they went with MPEG-4 they could already handle 2Mbps 480x480 files which is competitive with current digital satellite offerings.
B
sinsin07
Mar 23, 06:17 PM
you don't think a web app will pop up for this the second these apps are removed from the store?
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
Point not relevant. Apple runs the biggest app store in the world with the most desired devices on the planet, as evidences by 200 people standing in line at the Fifth Ave store at 5:55 AM in the rain this morning,, 12 days after the release of the iPad2.
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
Point not relevant. Apple runs the biggest app store in the world with the most desired devices on the planet, as evidences by 200 people standing in line at the Fifth Ave store at 5:55 AM in the rain this morning,, 12 days after the release of the iPad2.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder