Macaroony
Mar 4, 03:53 AM
CaoCao, could you please elaborate as to how gays could cause the collapse of society? I keep hearing that but I don't understand the sentiment behind it. And please, do not skirt around the answer, I always try to be as clear as day with mine.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
The only explanation I can come up with as to why you would see being gay and giving gays the same civil rights as the collapse of society is that it differs so much from your worldview, it causes your world to collapse to the point where you feel nothing but uncomfortable to live in such a society. In other words; if gays are treated equal under every law under the sun, your society would collapse.
I often hear that same-sex marriage devalues marriage and threatens those that are already married. I wonder why and how. I doubt that your straight neighbor's happy marriage affects you at all unless you're so jealous, you want their marriage to be annulled - a happy same-sex couple must be killing you inside. I have said it here and in another thread before, marriage is nothing but a contract between two members of two families and the state to secure their fortune and legacy. Every attorney will tell you the same.
I have to say, it's very exhausting coming up with a defense convincing enough for those that don't seem to follow the world by logic. I'm glad I'm not a lawyer because if law is like that all the time, I'd rather give up on it and live in exile.
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 11:35 AM
I pointed out the Grid layout many times in the other thread and was told that wasn't part of the lawsuit. If it is than Apple isn't just stretching... they are being idiotic.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
According to the analysis, it is in the suit, as part of the trade dress claims.
Thomas Veil
Apr 27, 06:41 PM
The whole birther thing just confirms my belief that these people are born with a total lack of a sense of shame. This "layers" nonsense is stupid enough, but we all know it's going to continue (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/42786288/ns/politics-decision_2012/) far beyond even that.
The publisher of an upcoming book questioning the circumstances of President Barack Obama�s birth took credit Wednesday for fueling conspiracy theories about the president�s origins, saying he paid for an army of private detectives in Hawaii and provided information about the issue to Donald Trump.
Joseph Farah, the founder and chief executive officer of World Net Daily, a conspiracy-mongering website with its own publishing arm, also said he has no intention of standing down despite the White House�s release of the so-called long form birth certificate showing that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, as he always has said.
�I�m not apologizing for nothing,� a defiant Farah said in a telephone interview with NBC News, insisting there are still questions about Obama�s citizenship aside from where he was born.
The comments by Farah underscore Obama�s observation Wednesday that hard-core birthers are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence, no matter how compelling....
Farah, who still believes there was foul play associated with the death of Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster, would seem to be a perfect example....
In fact, Farah said, Obama�s citizenship, not his birth, is actually the principal theme of World Net Daily�s upcoming book by Jerome Corsi titled, �Where�s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.� Corsi first garnered headlines in 2004 as one of the architects of the so-called �Swift Boat� attacks on John Kerry�s war record....
(Farah) insisted the document must still be more fully analyzed before he accepts it as authentic. �I think it will take us a little while to examine this and determine if it�s legitimate....�What a rube. And paired with Jerome "Of" Corsi, yet. :D Now there's a beacon of light and truth.
The publisher of an upcoming book questioning the circumstances of President Barack Obama�s birth took credit Wednesday for fueling conspiracy theories about the president�s origins, saying he paid for an army of private detectives in Hawaii and provided information about the issue to Donald Trump.
Joseph Farah, the founder and chief executive officer of World Net Daily, a conspiracy-mongering website with its own publishing arm, also said he has no intention of standing down despite the White House�s release of the so-called long form birth certificate showing that Obama was born in the state of Hawaii on Aug. 4, 1961, as he always has said.
�I�m not apologizing for nothing,� a defiant Farah said in a telephone interview with NBC News, insisting there are still questions about Obama�s citizenship aside from where he was born.
The comments by Farah underscore Obama�s observation Wednesday that hard-core birthers are unlikely to be persuaded by any evidence, no matter how compelling....
Farah, who still believes there was foul play associated with the death of Clinton White House lawyer Vince Foster, would seem to be a perfect example....
In fact, Farah said, Obama�s citizenship, not his birth, is actually the principal theme of World Net Daily�s upcoming book by Jerome Corsi titled, �Where�s the Birth Certificate? The Case that Barack Obama is not Eligible to be President.� Corsi first garnered headlines in 2004 as one of the architects of the so-called �Swift Boat� attacks on John Kerry�s war record....
(Farah) insisted the document must still be more fully analyzed before he accepts it as authentic. �I think it will take us a little while to examine this and determine if it�s legitimate....�What a rube. And paired with Jerome "Of" Corsi, yet. :D Now there's a beacon of light and truth.
phatpat88
Jul 15, 12:40 AM
Burn two DVD's at once and DVD copying.
Burning a DVD while watching another?
Dude, there is totally a use for the power user!
Burning a DVD while watching another?
Dude, there is totally a use for the power user!
DotCom2
Apr 25, 02:17 PM
Regardless of how acurate the info is and how far it is from any given cell tower or whatever, can someone just explain why this information is stored on the device as well as the backup in the first place?
I mean what is the purpose of this data?
I mean what is the purpose of this data?
Bill McEnaney
Apr 30, 08:24 PM
Doesn't mean its a good idea or helpful to the nation, but its not libel/slander if its true.
Fair enough, but I think many are willing to make hasty public comments about others. On Chopped, a program on the Food Network, a judge accused a competitor of lying when the competitor said that before the show, he had already used an ingredient that he used incorrectly on the program. Maybe the contestant's other dish came out poorly when he first used that ingredient. I've written some programs in IBM 370 assembly language. So I've that language. But I've forgotten what I learned about it.
On other message board some posters accused others of homophobia, sounding as though they couldn't have cared less about whether or how much they harmed the reputations of the accused. On other boards, some posters accused me of homophobia, too. Unfortunately, I doubt that the accuser even wonder whether it would have been better to send me a private message instead.
I know that some people here believe that I'm too socially conservative. Although they may be right, I prefer too much caution to too little caution.
To their credit, everyone here has treated me politely, even when I've said things that offended them. Compared to posters I've met at some other boards, people here, including Lee Kohler, control themselves admirably. But if I, and I do mean I, calumniate someone politely publicly, privately, or both, polite wording doesn't make up for the harm I do to the calumniated person's reputation.
But its clear what you are implying
I didn't intend to imply anything.
Fair enough, but I think many are willing to make hasty public comments about others. On Chopped, a program on the Food Network, a judge accused a competitor of lying when the competitor said that before the show, he had already used an ingredient that he used incorrectly on the program. Maybe the contestant's other dish came out poorly when he first used that ingredient. I've written some programs in IBM 370 assembly language. So I've that language. But I've forgotten what I learned about it.
On other message board some posters accused others of homophobia, sounding as though they couldn't have cared less about whether or how much they harmed the reputations of the accused. On other boards, some posters accused me of homophobia, too. Unfortunately, I doubt that the accuser even wonder whether it would have been better to send me a private message instead.
I know that some people here believe that I'm too socially conservative. Although they may be right, I prefer too much caution to too little caution.
To their credit, everyone here has treated me politely, even when I've said things that offended them. Compared to posters I've met at some other boards, people here, including Lee Kohler, control themselves admirably. But if I, and I do mean I, calumniate someone politely publicly, privately, or both, polite wording doesn't make up for the harm I do to the calumniated person's reputation.
But its clear what you are implying
I didn't intend to imply anything.
BaldiMac
Apr 19, 04:34 PM
I'm speaking about estimated Q1/11 to Q4/10 numbers (the est. Q1/11 numbers is what that news was about...). And what about reading the graphs I posted yourself? :rolleyes:
I like how you completely ignored the part of my post that proved your claim to be wrong. :rolleyes:
I like how you completely ignored the part of my post that proved your claim to be wrong. :rolleyes:
mlayer
Mar 22, 05:29 PM
The tablet market is going to be large, with estimates of 50 million units or more this year. Apple may get 35 million of those sales, which puts the iPad at 70%. Add to the high number of hand-downs and secondhand sales and that further reduces the number of available customers for everyone else.
Let's say that the tablet market explodes and total sold is 60 million, with Apple getting 36 million. That's 60%, and it leaves 24 million for the others. One of the key market drivers for Motorola, Samsung, and the various Android manufacturers is the pace of iteration. Every quarter there's a new phone on one or more carriers. These manufacturers can't afford to iterate as quickly with tablets (maybe twice a year), and they don't have the subsidy model or 2-for-1's to help them while they are selling. That puts HP and RIM on much better footing compared to the Android manufacturers, and HP and RIM are leveraging their enterprise reach to get a foothold. Both HP and RIM could sell 2-3 million (5%) each.
Samsung/Motorola/LG/Acer/HTC will have what should be a growing number of Honeycomb tablet apps, but they're all priced the same making it difficult to differentiate. Motorola tried to be a first mover with Honeycomb. Samsung is throwing various sizes against the wall to see what sticks. LG's best claim is the first to 3D. Acer has its previous experience with Windows. HTC hasn't really played in the tablet market before. In the end it looks like they'll end up competing with each other, not Apple, for that 10-20% of the market. Whoever loses will be heavily discounted on Black Friday, and the market will settle by the next CES.
For Apple this isn't the iPod or the iPhone due to external factors. It's too early and the market is still figuring itself out. As long as Apple is setting trends and everyone else is responding, the iPad is in the catbird seat.
Let's say that the tablet market explodes and total sold is 60 million, with Apple getting 36 million. That's 60%, and it leaves 24 million for the others. One of the key market drivers for Motorola, Samsung, and the various Android manufacturers is the pace of iteration. Every quarter there's a new phone on one or more carriers. These manufacturers can't afford to iterate as quickly with tablets (maybe twice a year), and they don't have the subsidy model or 2-for-1's to help them while they are selling. That puts HP and RIM on much better footing compared to the Android manufacturers, and HP and RIM are leveraging their enterprise reach to get a foothold. Both HP and RIM could sell 2-3 million (5%) each.
Samsung/Motorola/LG/Acer/HTC will have what should be a growing number of Honeycomb tablet apps, but they're all priced the same making it difficult to differentiate. Motorola tried to be a first mover with Honeycomb. Samsung is throwing various sizes against the wall to see what sticks. LG's best claim is the first to 3D. Acer has its previous experience with Windows. HTC hasn't really played in the tablet market before. In the end it looks like they'll end up competing with each other, not Apple, for that 10-20% of the market. Whoever loses will be heavily discounted on Black Friday, and the market will settle by the next CES.
For Apple this isn't the iPod or the iPhone due to external factors. It's too early and the market is still figuring itself out. As long as Apple is setting trends and everyone else is responding, the iPad is in the catbird seat.
superfula
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
Since you have no clue how the sandy bridge airs will perform, I'll take your statement as FUD.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
Of course we do. The integrated graphics card will perform just as poorly as every other Sandy Bridge processor because it's the same.
HyperZboy
Apr 7, 11:36 PM
This notion that Best Buy is the only one hoarding stock is typical of the stereotypical Apple fan. And once again, I've never bought Apple or Mac products at Best Buy because the staff are not knowledgeable in most cases, the same way I never bought a Mac at Circuit City for the short period they carried Macs.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
But which stores are well stocked the best with iPads?
See if you can guess. I'll give you a hint, it begins with an A.
Sure you can say, those are Apple's rules, deal with it, but that doesn't make it right.
The truth probably is that some Best Buys are probably near Walmarts and Targets so they don't want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks while Apple hoards stock at its stores. I'm sure none of them want to be out of stock for 2-3 weeks and suspect that Best Buy is the not the only offender of conserving stock due to Apple's inability to meet demand.
Not one of these chains wants to be known as the chain that didn't have iPads for 2-3 weeks giving consumers the impression they don't carry it anymore!
The only difference is Best Buy got CAUGHT!
I would bet that this directive came from corporate and applied to a limited number of stores that were faced with the possibility of being out of stock for an extended period of time.
People can conjecture here all they want, but no one really knows the details of Apple's supply promises vs. what it delivered with any of these chains.
Object-X
Sep 19, 12:31 AM
1. It's Merom. Not Memrom, Menron, Memron or even L. Ron.
You forgot Mormon.
You forgot Mormon.
DavidLeblond
Jul 27, 11:24 AM
Considering some of the rumors I'm thinking all the marbles would be:
MacPro
MBP, MB, iMac, Mini processor update
Leopard Preview
iTunes Movie Store
Larger capacity nanos
True Video iPod
So, you're right. Not a chance we're getting all of that (one can only dream).
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
MacPro
MBP, MB, iMac, Mini processor update
Leopard Preview
iTunes Movie Store
Larger capacity nanos
True Video iPod
So, you're right. Not a chance we're getting all of that (one can only dream).
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
torbjoern
Mar 1, 04:22 AM
Isn't it all hormonal mishaps in the womb? Does your God control that? If so, he is predisposing people to sin, and isn't that unfair that not all are exposed to that disposition?
AFAIK, Christians have this idea of "inherited sin". The predisposal to sin doesn't come from God, but from Adam.
AFAIK, Christians have this idea of "inherited sin". The predisposal to sin doesn't come from God, but from Adam.
samcraig
Apr 27, 08:39 AM
if any of you are concerned about being tracked - why on earth would you buy any product that has a GPS in it (all computers cash info) and why on earth would you buy a cell phone - the towers know almost exactly when (which apple doesn't know) and where you are? The reaction to this news is stupid.
Your type of apathy in the long term will do more harm than good.
There is a big difference between voluntarily and involuntarily giving out personal information and that's what was at stake here.
Apple admitted error - it's ok - you can admit it might not have been in the best interest of consumers too. Apple won't come and take your iPhone away.
Your type of apathy in the long term will do more harm than good.
There is a big difference between voluntarily and involuntarily giving out personal information and that's what was at stake here.
Apple admitted error - it's ok - you can admit it might not have been in the best interest of consumers too. Apple won't come and take your iPhone away.
kdarling
Mar 22, 07:38 PM
It runs Android. Pretty sure that's what he meant. So, Google, Android developers, Android marketplace.
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
Ah, I thought perhaps he knew something I didn't.
True, they don't have to spend a lot of time or money on core OS improvements.
Nor do they have to worry about maintaining an app market (or getting bad publicity because they approved baby-killer or gay-fixer apps). OTOH, they don't directly profit from app sales.
Samsung, HTC and others do have staff for third party developer relations, and all maintain R&D labs for their Android porting and customization.
That doesn't change the accounting. Cost is still the same, and they are pricing theirs very low. The first Tab came out at what, $800, and then dropped immediately on entrance to Costco and other retailers. Last I saw it was $400, I haven't been paying close attention, though.
It came out at $600, which many thought made some sense (http://www.engadget.com/2010/10/20/editorial-why-the-galaxy-tabs-price-makes-sense/) considering it had 3G and GPS. I bought one myself.
I think you're right, now it's as low as $400 on contract. (Heck, it's only $250 right now on T-Mobile (http://www.samsung.com/us/mobile/galaxy-tab/SGH-T849ZKATMB).)
Porchland
Aug 7, 03:30 PM
The side menu in the Mail (at least in the Quicktime demo on Apple) shows Notes and To Do. Wouldn't it make sense to finally bring Address Book and iCal into Mail along with these new options?
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
I know that would make it very Outlook but Outlook 2003 is one of the (few) things Microsoft has managed to get right.
I just don't see the need for Address Book and iCal to exist separately from Mail if they're going to be even more integrated with Mail.
daneoni
Aug 27, 05:12 PM
Again, come on now...... it's not a question of whether people grasp it. It's question of who finds it funny and who doesn't. It's possible to "grasp" a joke and still not find it funny once it has been done to death. Just because someone doesn't think it is funny doesn't mean you have to insult their intelligence by saying they just don't "grasp" it.
No, you're putting words in my mouth. People can be intelligent and still not get the essence of a reoccuring joke.
No, you're putting words in my mouth. People can be intelligent and still not get the essence of a reoccuring joke.
hulugu
Mar 22, 04:13 PM
No he did not. It was a mistake then, it is a mistake now. The only difference is, I oppose it in all circumstances, regardless of who's president. You only oppose it when it's a Republican in office....
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
And, there's absolute silence from the New York Times on Libya. Well, silence in the sense that you're obviously not actually reading the New York Times.
There are nine articles in today's issue, including an op-ed, four centerpiece articles, and an article about the four captured New York Times reporters.
Headlines:
Multimedia
Sep 13, 11:20 PM
Well if the content is crap, who cares to watch? Content of TV is more important to me. I'd rather see a fascinating news show or program over rabbit ears than watch the Today Show in HD.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...This is NEW because it is on a 3 hour weekday morning telecast. That makes it NEW and NEWS. Nothing about content. I NEVER watch American Idol. You are judgemental.
Millions watch that crap so your opinion of it is irrelevant to the market forces.
This wasn't clear the first time. You sounded like a crazed American Idol fan with your original post. And HD broadcasts are nothing new...This is NEW because it is on a 3 hour weekday morning telecast. That makes it NEW and NEWS. Nothing about content. I NEVER watch American Idol. You are judgemental.
Millions watch that crap so your opinion of it is irrelevant to the market forces.
filmguy
Aug 17, 07:16 PM
From now on, whatever processor Apple has, Windows has, and the differences will come down mostly on the OS.
I agree with your post and I'm also a PC-TO-MAC CONVERT. :)
The difference is going to come down to OS, as well as, the overall design of a machine and how well it's engineered. Apple seem to engineer machines of high quality, from the mere fact that their machines stand the test of time e.g. the other day I was working on a G4, on FCP 5.1, editing and rendering HDV footage in its native format, HDV1080i50 (Australian Sony camera). Although it wasn't the quickest performance, it held its own.
Also, I'm an I.T. guy transitioning to film (pre-prod, shoot, and post-prod) and the whole Mac experience is different from a PC, from a creative workflow point-of-view. I bought MY FIRST MAC this week - Mac Pro, 3 Ghz, 2 Gig RAM, 250 Gig HD, standard video card, and previously owned 2 x 300 Gig Ext Maxtor 7200 RPM. I also bought AE 7, Adobe Web Bundle and FCP Studio 5.1. I shoot with the Sony Z1P and will soon have some sample work on the web.
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
I agree with your post and I'm also a PC-TO-MAC CONVERT. :)
The difference is going to come down to OS, as well as, the overall design of a machine and how well it's engineered. Apple seem to engineer machines of high quality, from the mere fact that their machines stand the test of time e.g. the other day I was working on a G4, on FCP 5.1, editing and rendering HDV footage in its native format, HDV1080i50 (Australian Sony camera). Although it wasn't the quickest performance, it held its own.
Also, I'm an I.T. guy transitioning to film (pre-prod, shoot, and post-prod) and the whole Mac experience is different from a PC, from a creative workflow point-of-view. I bought MY FIRST MAC this week - Mac Pro, 3 Ghz, 2 Gig RAM, 250 Gig HD, standard video card, and previously owned 2 x 300 Gig Ext Maxtor 7200 RPM. I also bought AE 7, Adobe Web Bundle and FCP Studio 5.1. I shoot with the Sony Z1P and will soon have some sample work on the web.
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
cgmpowers
Aug 7, 04:23 PM
Microsoft officially CANNED Virtual PC... Apple's been giving accolades to Boot Camp and Paralles.. The 'ribbing of so-called "Vista 2.0" on the banner'..
It's obviously not such a secret after all that MS apps will eventually be allowed to run ontop of OS X withouth ever installing a Windows operating system..
My bets are on some kind of Boot Camp-ish feature that will allow for native installation of Windows applications -- without Windows -- right into OS X. It would obliterate the need for applications to be written for both Windows and Mac.
<ducks and waits for flamers to whine about how impossible this is>
It's obviously not such a secret after all that MS apps will eventually be allowed to run ontop of OS X withouth ever installing a Windows operating system..
My bets are on some kind of Boot Camp-ish feature that will allow for native installation of Windows applications -- without Windows -- right into OS X. It would obliterate the need for applications to be written for both Windows and Mac.
<ducks and waits for flamers to whine about how impossible this is>
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 6, 07:54 PM
Let me be clear - FCS needs a robust blu-ray authoring feature.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
Useless without error correcting reference hardware/software. No one has seen this reference hardware or drivers for it in the Apple environment. Only a few specialized companies use the expensive reference hardware for true BD-authoring. It is the same situation as on the Audio-CD market.
Btw, Sonys BluPrint 6 (http://www.sonycreativesoftware.com/bluprint) software costs 80.000 US$. And this is just the software. I do not think we will see similar features in FCP or FCS.
Macinbest
Aug 28, 01:50 AM
They are indeed having support problems...
I sent my iMac in for repairs at a service center on July 24th (they changed the power supply, HD, superdrive), and I didn't have the computer back until August 25th!!!! 32 days! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Called the store many times and they were waiting for apple to ship the parts... called Apple and I was forwarded to their Dispatch dept. and indeed nothing had been sent.. :mad:
I wonder... could I possibly complain enough to get my AppleCare reimbursed or something as a compensation.. I mean 32 days without my main computer... coding on a 12" ibook 600 has been rather aggravating.
I sent my iMac in for repairs at a service center on July 24th (they changed the power supply, HD, superdrive), and I didn't have the computer back until August 25th!!!! 32 days! :eek: :eek: :eek:
Called the store many times and they were waiting for apple to ship the parts... called Apple and I was forwarded to their Dispatch dept. and indeed nothing had been sent.. :mad:
I wonder... could I possibly complain enough to get my AppleCare reimbursed or something as a compensation.. I mean 32 days without my main computer... coding on a 12" ibook 600 has been rather aggravating.
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق