Wild-Bill
Apr 30, 03:54 PM
Apple really needs to get on the SATA-3 bandwagon. There are already plenty of SSD choices that can utilize the higher throughput, and more drives are on the way.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
Not to mention the fact that most motherboards out there today all have SATA-3 and have for a while now.
Machead III
Aug 29, 05:04 AM
You make it sound like companies have an obligation of going public. And what you may say MIGHT be true, you are also forgetting that most of the crummy companies in existence are public. Enron was public, Microsoft is public, Exxon is public, Chiquita is public. The list goes on. And you are forgetting that while in theory investors might force changes in the company, usually they don't. Only time they force changes are when the company is not delivering "enough" ROI for the investors. Investors are the primary reason why we have "quarter-capitalism", where long-term benefits are sacrificed for short-term profits.
Personally I believe all companies not only have an obligation to go public, but have an obligation to surrender the entire control held by the board of directors to the state which is controled absolutely by the public, thereby allowing for the involvement of interests other than those financial and allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
Not that I think Apple is particularly one of the companies creating that trend, it's fairly good in that regard, and I hope to see them make a real effort to improve conditions in the iPod City.
Microsoft on the other hand, regardless of how piss poor their software is, is notoriously ruthless towards workers, other businesses, even public serivces, and definately contributes to the overall erosion of both democracy and any kind of "Wealth of Nations" free market capitalism that remains the only partially benevolent flavour of said economic system.
It's very true, investors rarely act upon non-financial interests, but occasionally. Still, this is what happens when the only method of interaction with a coroporation is through the buying and selling of stocks and products.
Such is the success of neo-liberalism; it's impossible to express social human concerns with the language of GDP and quarter profits imposed by the unanimous corporate landscape of the modern world.
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
Morality over Mhz!
Personally I believe all companies not only have an obligation to go public, but have an obligation to surrender the entire control held by the board of directors to the state which is controled absolutely by the public, thereby allowing for the involvement of interests other than those financial and allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
Not that I think Apple is particularly one of the companies creating that trend, it's fairly good in that regard, and I hope to see them make a real effort to improve conditions in the iPod City.
Microsoft on the other hand, regardless of how piss poor their software is, is notoriously ruthless towards workers, other businesses, even public serivces, and definately contributes to the overall erosion of both democracy and any kind of "Wealth of Nations" free market capitalism that remains the only partially benevolent flavour of said economic system.
It's very true, investors rarely act upon non-financial interests, but occasionally. Still, this is what happens when the only method of interaction with a coroporation is through the buying and selling of stocks and products.
Such is the success of neo-liberalism; it's impossible to express social human concerns with the language of GDP and quarter profits imposed by the unanimous corporate landscape of the modern world.
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
Morality over Mhz!
oTaRu
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
Are they going to launch it soon? June/July period?
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
whooleytoo
Mar 30, 12:45 PM
If Apple wins this argument, obviously that would prevent MS from calling theirs the "App Store" - but can they still use the phrase descriptively? I.e. "Welcome to App Market, Microsoft's app store."
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
SilianRail
Apr 14, 04:58 PM
Using the 3.0 drive, the 10-gigabyte folder transferred to the U.S.B. 3.0 drive in 6 minutes, 31 seconds (write speed). The U.S.B. 2.0 drive took 22 minutes, 14 seconds to copy the same 10-gig folder.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
In other words, the U.S.B. 3.0 drive copied the data roughly 3.5 times faster than the U.S.B. 2.0 drive. That�s far short of the touted 10X performance gains, but it�s an improvement that you�ll definitely notice.
In my informal tests, the difference in read speeds was not so dramatic. The USB 3.0 drive transferred the 10-gigabyte folder to the desktop in 4 minutes, 13 seconds, while the USB 2.0 drive transferred the same folder in 5 minutes, 14 seconds.http://gadgetwise.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/07/06/testing-real-world-speed-of-usb-3-0-hard-drives/
That is horrible scaling given that USB 2.0 lasted 10 years.
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 11, 02:27 AM
I can only imagine Steve Jobs hunched over his desk like in 'Pirates of Silicon Valley" and screaming "YOUR STEALING FROM ME!!!!" lol.
Otherwise awesome news.
Otherwise awesome news.
Vol7ron
Apr 4, 12:35 PM
this is crazy....we as a society have become too politically correct. Someone breaks into your house and gets injured, he can sue you for injuries....you trip and fall on a slippery surface in a mall or restaurant, you can sue, despite the clear sign that says, "caution, slippery surface", Or the famous one, suing because your cup of coffee was hot and you spilled it on yourself. My goodness....Here we have a robbery attempt. The robbers were armed. Now this private security guard see's what is happening, and steps in to stop them. What is he suppose to do, pretend to be like Obama and try to open up negotiations with them? "please robbers, stop what you are doing, it is against the law?" Meanwhile, the robbers are shooting at him...So what if a robber got shot in the head. It is one less criminal to deal with. And what is to say that he was aiming for his head? It might have just been a lucky shot. Will he have to live with that? Of course, but at the end of the day, he was just doing his job. It would be like joining the military not expecting to ever go to war or see combat...
Chase R
May 3, 05:18 PM
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
Yeah... All 13 of you :rolleyes: JK.
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably be a little upset if I were you, but this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; you are a VERY small percentage of the market.
Yeah... All 13 of you :rolleyes: JK.
Don't get me wrong, I'd probably be a little upset if I were you, but this shouldn't come as too much of a surprise; you are a VERY small percentage of the market.
HiRez
Sep 19, 04:08 PM
I don't think Apple is aiming for the uber-geek with $25k worth of home entertainment equipment. IMHO, they will never be able to compete in that market.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.I disagree. Dolby Digital is no longer reserved for rich �ber-geeks. Many "regular Joes" have a Dolby Digital setup now, and you can get a Dolby Digital receiver (all 5 normal channels powered) for under $100.
I think they are reaching for the average joe blow that has a servicable $400 TV that he bought at Wal-mart, and maybe, just maybe, has a stereo hooked up to it. The average Joe doesn't care, and can't tell, that it's Dolby Surround and not Dolby Digital.I disagree. Dolby Digital is no longer reserved for rich �ber-geeks. Many "regular Joes" have a Dolby Digital setup now, and you can get a Dolby Digital receiver (all 5 normal channels powered) for under $100.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 16, 03:27 AM
in all seriousness people, this thing http://snowulf.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/USB-3-Mini-B-Connector.jpg is going to scare people off...
what is that. The usb 3.0 port on my PC looks nothing like that
what is that. The usb 3.0 port on my PC looks nothing like that
dime21
Apr 20, 08:12 AM
So, you're against personal responsibility then?
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
most leftists usually are. government programs and pointless legislation have taken the place of personal responsibility, at least in their eyes. :rolleyes:
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 07:32 PM
Sorry [/puts on apple shades] WHOA! I see now! Steve Jobs is actually GOD!!!!
Now you're getting it!
Would you guys get a room already?
(The trolling grows tiresome.)
Now you're getting it!
Would you guys get a room already?
(The trolling grows tiresome.)
*LTD*
Apr 28, 10:22 PM
Did you forget that Microsoft is what got the pc world to where it is today?
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
!� V �!
Apr 30, 06:43 PM
It has been only 19 months since they changed the look of the iMac.
In 10/20/09 the released the 21.5" and 27" models with aluminum backing, wireless keyboard and Magic Mouse.
There is a difference between a revision and a dramatic change. They have not really touch the computer bolted to the back of an LCD screen for a long long time. I loved the look of the Luxo iMac, the BondiBlue would be my second. The slim iMac seems cold and heartless, lack of emotion.
Disband the the ACD and MacMini and produce an ACD display iMac with a ThunderBolt connector for a MacMini docking station on the base. This will allow for easy upgradability for components, cost and a great deal of other CO2 emissions for production and shipping.
In 10/20/09 the released the 21.5" and 27" models with aluminum backing, wireless keyboard and Magic Mouse.
There is a difference between a revision and a dramatic change. They have not really touch the computer bolted to the back of an LCD screen for a long long time. I loved the look of the Luxo iMac, the BondiBlue would be my second. The slim iMac seems cold and heartless, lack of emotion.
Disband the the ACD and MacMini and produce an ACD display iMac with a ThunderBolt connector for a MacMini docking station on the base. This will allow for easy upgradability for components, cost and a great deal of other CO2 emissions for production and shipping.
Silencio
Oct 12, 01:18 PM
I'll probably come of sounding like a jerk and opening a HUGE can of worms with this, BUT...
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help. People who don't need help shouldn't complain about it. As much as I want it to happen, "equality" is never going to happen in this world, at least the way it's currently structured.
"Empathy" is a four-letter word in America, sadly.
I'm glad somebody else was thinking what I was thinking! Why do we constantly have to place a line between men and women, black and white, American and everyone else. If we actually want equality and unity and all those wonderful things, I think it's about time we stop dilineating between groups of people.
It can't be both ways... if women/minorities want equality in the work place, or government, or in society as a whole, there can't also be inequality in the world when it comes to things like this... men and women, black and white, straight and gay - they have to be equal across the board, or not at all. We can't have it both ways.
Maybe because all across the globe, women and children are hugely disadvantaged economically and socially in comparison to men? People who need more help should get more help. People who don't need help shouldn't complain about it. As much as I want it to happen, "equality" is never going to happen in this world, at least the way it's currently structured.
"Empathy" is a four-letter word in America, sadly.
Reverendrun
May 3, 10:44 AM
I've just finish chatting with a person on the apple website. She told me that I can use the new imac (21 and 27") thunderbold input to use the imac as an external display. Only if it comes from a thunderbolt output (like an macbook pro for exemple).
Huh, wonder if that means that they wouldn't work as external displays with my late 2008 MBP mini-display port.
Huh, wonder if that means that they wouldn't work as external displays with my late 2008 MBP mini-display port.
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 12:02 PM
The resolution stayed the same on the 13" Pro. The 13" Air has a higher resolution, but perhaps that's to preserve a selling point. I don't think the Sandy Bridge IGP would have any difficulty driving the 1440x900 display.
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
You don't think ? Seriously people, we had 1440x900 displays 10 years ago, on GPUs that had about 1% the graphics processing power of today and about a tenth of the RAM.
Heck, the 9400M could power external 30" monitors at their native resolution of 2560x1600 at the same time it powered in the laptop's internal display of 1280x800 without breaking a sweet.
What's so hard to grasp that the MBP's resolution staying at 1280x800 has nothing to do with the GPU in SB ? :confused:
Have you guys never used computers 10 years ago ? CRT monitors at 1600x1200 ring a bell to anyone but me here ?
mcmlxix
Apr 20, 11:37 AM
This is a huge concern because of the use by law enforcement (http://news.cnet.com/8301-17938_105-20055431-1.html) of the Cellebrite device to download and scrutinize the data in cell phones. Apparently, police departments in Michigan are using this device when pulling drivers on traffic violations. Here (http://www.thenewspaper.com/news/34/3458.asp) is another article on the use in Michigan.
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
Cellebrite's widget is apparently able to download and scrutinize (http://www.cellebrite.com/news-and-events/press-releases/190-cellebrite-releases-ufed-physical-analyzer-version-20-the-new-standard-for-mobile-phone-forensics-.html) the data from a vast variety of mobile devices, including Blackberry phones and the iPhone.
Isn't this illegal search and seizure?
cmaier
Nov 13, 11:51 PM
Which law firm please. We'd all like to know for future reference, who to not trust our cases with. While most law has to do with the letter of the law, jury trials often are won or lost based on what the jury believes to be the intent or spirit of the law.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
The british common law legal system was never intended to be like this. The lawyers have destroyed and twisted it beyond all recognition. It was originally supposed to be based on judeo-christian morals and ethics. There is not supposed to be a grey area. You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not. The original intent was to have a court case as the last resort where parties would first try to solve the problem by talking to each other, then go to arbitration and then court as a last resort.
Wow. That's quite a diatribe. Historically inaccurate, too. English common law descends from the Roman system of laws that predates christianity (and which was not based on judaism) and from Saxon law, which also has nothing to do with judeo-christian ethics.
And juries are given instructions to follow the letter of the law as explained to them by the judge. Further, in the U.S. system, only matters at law, not equity, are subject to jury trial, and, in many cases, only if the defendant demands a jury trial.
You say:
"You are either deliberately infringing on the rights of others or you are not."
Ok. So when your third grader copies a few quotes from a book for his book report, he is infringing the copyright statute. But, of course, you complain that it's not the letter of the law that matters - it's the spirit. That's why judges came up with the fair use defense (later codified into the statute).
But what if the third grader copies 10 quotes? Still okay? A chapter? How about now? Where's the dividing line? What if instead of a third grader, it's another author who copies a few of the best quotes and competes with the first author? How about then? Gets more complicated, huh?
And that's why the fair use defense has evolved into a complicated legal test involving multiple factors. Among the factors:
the purpose and character of your use
the nature of the copyrighted work
the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
the effect of the use upon the potential market.
Let's look at these.
1) the purpose and character of your use
This is often called the transformative test. Am I creating something new and different and worthwhile to society, involving my own creativity? Many people say that the use in this case was pretty creative and useful, but let's assume no. So this factor weighs against fair use.
2) the nature of the copyrighted work
Published works, such as these icons, are entitled to less protection than unpublished. Also, factual or representative works, such as icons, are entitled to less protection than creative works like novels. So this factor weighs for fair use.
3) the amount and substantiality of the portion taken, and
A handful of icons out of an entire operating system? Seems small to me. Weighs for fair use.
4) the effect of the use upon the potential market.
By using these icons, is the "infringer" somehow preventing Apple from selling this sort of software, or preventing Apple from selling these icons? No. Again, weighs for fair use.
You simultaneously argue that things are black and white (you either infringe or you don't) and then you argue that the spirit of the law matters, not the letter. You argue for a bright line test, then for shades of gray.
Well, the answer is a little of both, but men and women far smarter than you have come up with the best tests they can to figure out how to deal with these fuzzy situations.
You can go to church and pray instead of going to court, if you'd like, but for those of us that believe in the legal system, we take solace in the fact that things really aren't black and white, and yet there is a framework in place that let's us try and figure these things out.
laidbackliam
Oct 13, 01:59 AM
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
true, but there is a parralel could be drawn between audiophiles and mac "zealots".
and its fiber optic vs copper plated. its the rca connectors taht would be gold or silver plated, and yes, gold sounds better, transfers signal better.
my two cents :)
true, but there is a parralel could be drawn between audiophiles and mac "zealots".
and its fiber optic vs copper plated. its the rca connectors taht would be gold or silver plated, and yes, gold sounds better, transfers signal better.
my two cents :)
lokey
Sep 26, 07:46 AM
This would be great. My Cingular contract ends in November so I'll be able to choose any provider at that time, but an iPhone will keep me with Cingular. Also, my current phone is on it's last leg... exciting news!
nsayer
Mar 23, 04:46 PM
They are couching this as a fight against drunk driving, but Trapster primarily is about alerting you to speed traps, red light cameras and other purely revenue generating tools used by local cops and insurance companies to take your money from you using the fig leaf of allegedly improving traffic safety.
pro-tip: You want to reduce red light crashes? Make the yellow light longer. Oh but that won't make you more money in traffic fines. Oops. In actual fact, many communities that have put in red light cameras have been caught cheating - REDUCING the length of the yellow lights beyond the minimums in the MUTCD.
If they ban Trapster from the store I solemnly swear that I will make it my life's work to build a web-based replacement that they can't ban.
pro-tip: You want to reduce red light crashes? Make the yellow light longer. Oh but that won't make you more money in traffic fines. Oops. In actual fact, many communities that have put in red light cameras have been caught cheating - REDUCING the length of the yellow lights beyond the minimums in the MUTCD.
If they ban Trapster from the store I solemnly swear that I will make it my life's work to build a web-based replacement that they can't ban.
Much Ado
Sep 8, 01:40 PM
I remember that SNL skit too. That was great.
Introducing, and i'm thrilled about this- the new iPod invisa.
:)
Introducing, and i'm thrilled about this- the new iPod invisa.
:)
rstansby
Apr 19, 11:17 PM
Yeah Apple has never done that.
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
NeXT, you mean the computer company founded by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs?
Except for NeXT, Motion, Final Cut Pro, Color, Aperture, the list goes on...
NeXT, you mean the computer company founded by Apple co-founder Steve Jobs?
0 comments:
Post a Comment