ten-oak-druid
Apr 4, 12:45 PM
And that is precisely why people who have concealed weapon permits are trained in the legal ramifications of carrying a firearm in the public arena. We don't carry firearms to "save the day". We carry firearms to save our lives. Legally, I cannot get involved in a shooting that doesn't directly involve me.. I have no idea what is going on and could just as easily be shooting an undercover cop as a miscreant.
I'm not a gun control advocate. I own a gun. But I laugh at the absurd notion of being a hero when threatened. These glorified stories of what would have happened in situation X if someone had had a gun are laughable. It doesn't work like that.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
And most of the time when you hear that in situation X, if only someone had a had a gun...
When that right to life guy walked into the church and shot up the congregation, people said if the church goers had carried guns for instance. No way. He opened fire without warning.
Or take the incident in Tucson with the congress woman. No one would have stopped that with a gun either. It doesn't work like that. Yes you may stop a crime but it is usually a criminal who never intends to actually kill. If someone intends to kill or doesn't care about killing, then forget it.
I'm not a gun control advocate. I own a gun. But I laugh at the absurd notion of being a hero when threatened. These glorified stories of what would have happened in situation X if someone had had a gun are laughable. It doesn't work like that.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
And most of the time when you hear that in situation X, if only someone had a had a gun...
When that right to life guy walked into the church and shot up the congregation, people said if the church goers had carried guns for instance. No way. He opened fire without warning.
Or take the incident in Tucson with the congress woman. No one would have stopped that with a gun either. It doesn't work like that. Yes you may stop a crime but it is usually a criminal who never intends to actually kill. If someone intends to kill or doesn't care about killing, then forget it.
technicolor
Sep 12, 03:15 PM
why are you confused??? video play got extended, what do you expect more than that??
i'm just glad that my 5gen didn't get outdated so fast
Because they use the same battery, how can videos play longer and not music?
i'm just glad that my 5gen didn't get outdated so fast
Because they use the same battery, how can videos play longer and not music?
Piggie
Apr 14, 12:04 PM
There is no way Apple would deliberately block/not support USB3 on Mac's is there, to force Apple uses to have to buy Thunderbolt only peripherals and not be able to use cheaper USB3 items?
They would never do that would they?
They would never do that would they?
pmbooks
Sep 14, 09:33 AM
I agree that this is a whole lotta waiting for godot. Still, can I ask those of you with some knowledge on this: Apple is replacing my MBP in the next week...they say. My question is: in the event they release some sort of upgrade, can I return it unopened for a swap within 14 days of receiving it?
wnurse
Aug 23, 10:08 PM
So, in summary...
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Apple pays Creative a one time fee of $100M to licence their patents.
Creative joins the 'Made for iPod' program making accessories for their competitor, Apple, who gets money for 'Made for iPod'.
Creative still HAS to defend it's patent against other competitors - that's the nature of patents - or licence it to them. If they do, Apple takes some of that money too. In a round-a-bout way, Apple is getting money back from it's competitors. Nice.
Creative have a much better case because Apple settled.
Creative still owns a valid patent. If Apple had won, there would be no patent so anyone could copy the Creative/Apple style interface.
Apple continues on as if nothing has happened. No long court case delaying sales. No injunctions to halt imports.
Explain to me why people think Apple lost here?
Creative knew it was about to get reamed by Microsoft's Zune which it's players aren't compatible with. They knew to get out of the market. Instead of legitimising Microsoft's offering, they've tied up with Apple. It might bug us that Apple have legitimised a bogus patent but it's otherwise very, very smart.
Interesting, I did not know so many apple fans were lawyers and patent experts. Some call the patent bogus, some claim apple really didn't infringe but felt like being santa claus to creative and some even claim that the lawsuit would have cost apple 100 million (like it would have cost creative 0. Why not slug it out and see how much creative have in the coffers to pay their lawyers?). You guys would all make excellent attorneys!!!.
I'll summarize.
1. Apple infringed on the patent
2. Apple paid license for use of the patent
3. Go watch TV.. show over folks.
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Actually, creative won, regardless of whether apple destroys them in the market or not. Man, even Steven (jobs) is not as pissed as you all are. I think he's lying comfortable in his bed right now, probably watching the news. Chill out. Companies infringe on other companies patents all the time. Companies settle all the time. This is not an abnormal event.
Piggie
Apr 22, 07:56 AM
Clean your glasses.
I take it, you do not see this ahead?
A world without Books, CD's or DVD's for sale in charity shops to help fund services in need.
A world there you cannot give a CD, DVD, Book etc that you no longer want to a family friend as a gift.
A world where you cannot sell on a Book, CD, DVD, Game to get a little bit of money back, perhaps to buy a new thing you want.
This to me seems where the industry wants to take us.
Everything is purchased by the individual, can only be used by the individual and locked totally to them, so it can never be passed on, given away, or sold by yourself to anyone else.
Can no one else see this is where it COULD go if we all just "go along with it"
I take it, you do not see this ahead?
A world without Books, CD's or DVD's for sale in charity shops to help fund services in need.
A world there you cannot give a CD, DVD, Book etc that you no longer want to a family friend as a gift.
A world where you cannot sell on a Book, CD, DVD, Game to get a little bit of money back, perhaps to buy a new thing you want.
This to me seems where the industry wants to take us.
Everything is purchased by the individual, can only be used by the individual and locked totally to them, so it can never be passed on, given away, or sold by yourself to anyone else.
Can no one else see this is where it COULD go if we all just "go along with it"
CalBoy
Apr 25, 01:54 AM
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
IngerMan
Apr 30, 07:05 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.
I beg to differ, My iMac 7,1 looks like the new ones. I have had it for over 3 years.
In 10/20/09 the released the 21.5" and 27" models with aluminum backing, wireless keyboard and Magic Mouse.
I beg to differ, My iMac 7,1 looks like the new ones. I have had it for over 3 years.
IJ Reilly
Aug 23, 11:09 PM
Apple could blow a hundred million in legal expenses. It's less of an instance of throwing in the towel, and more of an instance of, "You know, the way idiot judges/juries hand out settlements these days, let's just give them a paltry sum, let them think they've won, and still destroy them in the MP3 market."
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
Not in 20 years, they couldn't. And no matter how often it's said to the contrary, $100 million is still very serious money.
Reminds me of 1997, when Microsoft was forced to invest $150 million in Apple as part of a settlement of a patent lawsuit, a lot of people couldn't wrap their minds around the idea that Microsoft had actually lost. They did then. Apple did today.
ezekielrage_99
Sep 5, 05:20 PM
I'm more interested in the 23" iMac Core 2 Duos and new metal iPods, I hope Apple does release them on the 12th of September.
IJ Reilly
Aug 24, 05:04 PM
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
ChrisTX
Apr 30, 07:04 PM
Great, now can someone please release a product that actually uses Thunderbolt so I can get it for my MBP?
+1 I know theres, an external hard drive available, but I'm curious myself to see what get's released.
+1 I know theres, an external hard drive available, but I'm curious myself to see what get's released.
donbadman
Sep 26, 06:58 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
mashinhead
Sep 9, 05:48 PM
I want to see some unpacking pics of that 24inch model compared with the 20in. Soon enough I suppose.
yeah that 24 incher is a very tempting deal.
I have a Dual Core 2.0 G5 and a 20 inch monitor. I'm considering selling just the G5 and Getting a Low End Mac Pro. Or selling both and getting the iMac. I know that MacPro is better, but the price compared to what you get with the iMac is just too good. So torn.:rolleyes:
But also looking at My 20 inch ACD right now, I can't help but think how F*#king huge that iMac must be. If they made an all black one thouth it would be over. I wish they made black ACD's and MacPro's too now that i think bout it.
yeah that 24 incher is a very tempting deal.
I have a Dual Core 2.0 G5 and a 20 inch monitor. I'm considering selling just the G5 and Getting a Low End Mac Pro. Or selling both and getting the iMac. I know that MacPro is better, but the price compared to what you get with the iMac is just too good. So torn.:rolleyes:
But also looking at My 20 inch ACD right now, I can't help but think how F*#king huge that iMac must be. If they made an all black one thouth it would be over. I wish they made black ACD's and MacPro's too now that i think bout it.
OneMammoth
Mar 8, 11:51 AM
I am constantly amazed at the number of people who buy into this crap!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
Safari!
Here, I'll try to spell it out for you:
Apple has no antivirus for IOS because it would be completely useless. In order for a virus to get through to an IOS device it has to get past Apple's reviewers. That's the only way to install software of any kind on IOS, including malware.
Safari!
Lershac
Apr 22, 05:41 PM
Backlit keyboard on it and I am in. Perfect form factor and feature set for what I do all day every day. And less weight in my bag
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
cybrscot
Mar 29, 01:11 PM
Why would anybody want a windows phone? We've been there done that. Apple has so many applications and developers too. How will MSFT compete on content?
Unspeaked
Sep 14, 10:06 AM
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
The same thing could have been said of the Aperture software...
Plus, what's to stop Apple from teaming with a "true" camera manufacturer and co-branding something?
(I'm not saying it will happen, or that I'm expecting it, but I'm just surprised it's so easily dismissed by people who comment daily on how Apple should enter the cell phone market, DVR arena, PDA front, etc and - for the most part - scoffed at the intro of a consumer music player...)
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 12:25 PM
Looks like MacCentral forgot to mention the fact that no matter how few cores an application can use - even if it's only ONE, the fact that more can be run at full speed SIMULTANEOUSLY is the whole reason for wanting-having-needing more cores - not wiether or not what you normally run can use 2, 3 or even all 4 cores at this time. OS X automatically delegates work to however many cores are vacant or underused so the user gets immediate benefit from 4 cores they will never get from 2. And I am 100% certain that tthe benefit is radically more than 20-30%.
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
It's an old think I always do only one thing at a time mentality that overlooks this otherwise obvious reason - a new way of working and a new way of thinking about how to do work - for going with more cores if you can afford it.
Maybe they should have run all their benchmarks at the same time!
ezekielrage_99
Sep 10, 08:38 PM
Face it the Conroe Mac is coming.
iMac 24" - $1999
Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198
That is a $1k price gap.
A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!
Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.
Sounds kind of feasible for a single CPU "Mac" Conroe system and it would fit nicely into the Apple product line up. I think a Conroe system would appeal nicely to prosumers and gamers.
iMac 24" - $1999
Mac Pro (downgraded to 2.0 Ghz) + 23" - 3198
That is a $1k price gap.
A high quality midtower would fit perfectly. They have another chip to differentiate the product matrix. It is coming!
Mac Mini - Core Duo (yonah) - base entry machine. 2 RAM slots
iMac - Core 2 Duo (Merom) - All in one basic to prosumer models, quiet operation and powerful. 2 RAM Slots
"Mac" - Core 2 Duo (Conroe) - mini tower 1 optical, 2 drives, 2 PCIe, 4 RAM Slots - prosumer to low end workstation.
Mac Pro - Xeon (Woodcrest) - Full tower 2 processors, 8 RAM slots, 4 PCIe, 2 optical, 4 drive bays. - Mid to high end workstation.
Sounds kind of feasible for a single CPU "Mac" Conroe system and it would fit nicely into the Apple product line up. I think a Conroe system would appeal nicely to prosumers and gamers.
djrobsd
Apr 14, 12:43 PM
This is seriously bad news for Thunderbolt. This is just like Intel supporting both USB 2.0 and Firewire in the past... Thunderbolt will be a specialized gig for the Macs, just like Firewire was, and most PC users will end up using USB...
Intel should have stood their ground on Thunderbolt... Would have pushed component manufacturers to make more Thunderbolt devices, now we're going to have a mish mash, and those of us with Macs are getting the shaft because we won't get USB 3.0 from Apple...
Hopefully there will be adapters and converters.. And hopefully Apple will get their heads out of their asses on the next refresh and add BOTH USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to give us consumers maximum flexibility.
Intel should have stood their ground on Thunderbolt... Would have pushed component manufacturers to make more Thunderbolt devices, now we're going to have a mish mash, and those of us with Macs are getting the shaft because we won't get USB 3.0 from Apple...
Hopefully there will be adapters and converters.. And hopefully Apple will get their heads out of their asses on the next refresh and add BOTH USB 3.0 and Thunderbolt to give us consumers maximum flexibility.
Anonymous Freak
Sep 29, 10:05 PM
Sorry if the question has been answered before, but here goes:
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
Is any of the film content in iTunes Store in 16x9 encoded? In other words, is it enhanced for widescreen displays (commonly known as anamorphically encoded)?
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
Chundles
Apr 22, 02:22 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
Just another option. Might not be a solution for you (nor me) but I can see the advantage for some people.
Just another option. Might not be a solution for you (nor me) but I can see the advantage for some people.
dubAdub
Apr 14, 11:59 AM
I'll have to seriously considering delaying getting a new iMac until 2012 now. I don't want to be caught having to buy more expensive Thunderbolt external drives. Thunderbolt is great only if the drives are no more expensive than USB 3.0 drives.
No comments:
Post a Comment