Micjose
Apr 25, 01:45 PM
lol, i think the people are just cashing in ;)
antic
Mar 22, 01:18 PM
Why are you even giving these product the time of day. I come on here to read about apple products. If I were interested in samsung or blackberry products I'd be looking elsewhere. Your just giving them free advertising.
dpMacsmith
Jul 14, 03:54 PM
Amen to that. Especially when you look at the dell site and see that their tower with that same CPU costs about $2400.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
This makes a nice discussion piece. But, I don't think that Apple will undercut the Dell price. My personal opinion is that the configurations are about right. But, the prices are too low. The table is bogus.
vand0576
Aug 11, 01:46 PM
...There's no way in the world Apple would make as much money off of this as if they got in with one of the big guys. Just ask Disney - ESPN mobile is bombing as is Disney mobile....
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
They are failing because they believe media content is what is important to people. Pumping their phones full of media and "services" which only are really advertisements that don't help anyone but Disney and ESPN. They are phones with superficial artificial sustainance.
Technology wouldn't be such a boom if people couldn't advertise with it some way. Apple will only succeed if it can avoid this and make a product that is functional and serves a true purpose in the consumer's life without the bullcrap content.
daneoni
Sep 19, 09:29 AM
why does anyone need to justify to you why they want 64-bit computing?
I was just gonna say that. All you people trying to tell people want they need and dont need are just wasting your time. At the end of the day people are gonna buy what they want regardless of what you preach to them.
I was just gonna say that. All you people trying to tell people want they need and dont need are just wasting your time. At the end of the day people are gonna buy what they want regardless of what you preach to them.
thatisme
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Pot, meet kettle.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 07:08 PM
sadly I cant by any more letters to complete a better signature.!
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
You should at least "by" a "u"... (and maybe an apostrophe) :D
realitymonkey
Apr 6, 09:52 AM
You must have pretty limited experience.
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
It's the only logistical way to deliver high-bitrate 1080p material to clients.
Really what sort of clients ?
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:56 AM
yes, its known as reverse hyper threading. AMD are working on it
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
http://www.dvhardware.net/article10901.html
Reverse hyperthreading? Um, no. (http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060713-7263.html)
(also note that the article you link even notes that it was a "hoax")
braddouglass
Apr 6, 01:07 PM
Awesome, can't wait.
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
Picking up the 11" soon as they are out.
RICH B!tch! hahaha
I'm referring to his iMac and MBP and Iphone and Ipad and soon to be MBA
Eriamjh1138@DAN
Mar 26, 06:12 PM
No Rosetta, no sale for me. Not ready to move on.
wizard
Apr 7, 11:05 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
Guys Apple is not to blame for this one. Well other than doing business with a sleazy business like Best Buy.
Honestly it has been like eight years since I've entered a Best Buy, everything about the place just feels undesirable and corrupt. The fact that many here are surprised at this non-sense highlights a marginal expectation for ethical behavior. No one really needs to shop at Best Buy, there are plenty of alternatives.
mightymike107
Aug 26, 09:06 PM
when will the Apple retail stores reflect the changes to the product line?
-mike
-mike
toddybody
Apr 19, 01:55 PM
BREAKING NEWS --- 1979 --
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
Awww...old TV's. :o *tear
http://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/3_ab121w.jpghttp://www.thetelemediagroup.com/images/monitors/pg5/4_gebw.jpg
RCA Launches Suit Against General Electric for infringement of 9" b&w television interface and "look and feel."
Spokesmen for RCA maintain that GE's misappropriation of the LīfLīk� Trūwūd� woodgrain finish, leading consumers to confuse the GE imitation with the RCA original.
Also note GE's nearly identical VHF and UHF controllers ... placed in the same location on the chassis as the RCA original. Even the speaker is located in the same way.
RCA patented the use of separate VHF and UHF knobs in 1958, the click-stop UHF knob in 1972, and the ergonomically efficient upper right location of tuner knobs in 1952. The characteristics are innovations that help the consumer recognize an RCA television, and any use of these unique features without RCA's explicit permission is a breach of patent, trademark and copyright.
Awww...old TV's. :o *tear
ninjadex
Mar 31, 02:44 PM
What so many fail to realize is iOS was made for the iPad from the get-go. It's been mentioned many times that what became the iPad was in development longer than the original iPhone.
This goes to show that iOS conceptualization is light years ahead of Android. It's so obvious Google is scrambling, and seems to be making this stuff as they go along, without any sense of a master design guiding the way.
This goes to show that iOS conceptualization is light years ahead of Android. It's so obvious Google is scrambling, and seems to be making this stuff as they go along, without any sense of a master design guiding the way.
boncellis
Jul 20, 12:07 PM
Ah I see ... thought it was about WWDC 2006 my bad.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.
Yeah I don't think we will see 10.5 released at MWSF '07 (thinking CQ2 2007) but after I get back from WWDC I may have a different understanding of the current state of 10.5.
Can't wait to hear your take on it, shawnce. I have to admit that I enjoy your rejoinders whenever the trolls show up, so your take is particularly refreshing in my opinion.
NoSmokingBandit
Aug 16, 02:18 PM
Shift was good, but i thought it was really easy. Its also very forgiving, you dont need to have a lot of driving skill to finish the top races because drifting is really easy to control, you can enter turns quite a bit faster than you should, and you'll have more money than you know what to do with.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I drive a Focus, so... no :D
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
are you rich then? :p
i only hope that GT5 is more realistic then simulated this time..
I drive a Focus, so... no :D
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
Iconoclysm
Apr 19, 08:24 PM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Actually, you're WRONG!!!! to say he's wrong. You're trying to say that every GUI element was created at Xerox? EVERY one of them? Sorry, but your argument here is akin to something Fox News would air.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
Actually, you're WRONG!!!! to say he's wrong. You're trying to say that every GUI element was created at Xerox? EVERY one of them? Sorry, but your argument here is akin to something Fox News would air.
andrewm
Aug 23, 11:07 AM
I did...:D
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
DIE POWER PC...DIE!!!
Most agreed. I'm using an iBook G4 right now, but I'd practically sell my kidneys (both of 'em!) to convert it to a MacBook Pro.
Let us continue to pray for a speedy death to the Macintosh PowerPC computer.
dukebound85
Aug 4, 10:17 PM
i thought this game was vaporware
DEE9299
Jun 15, 08:39 PM
i got 2 pins from radio shack today.....one 22000...... and the other 25000......
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 3, 05:00 PM
I got a prize car for getting all golds in Beginner and Amateur categories. I dont remember what it was, but i recall that when i got my last gold in each bracket they gave me a car for completing the whole thing.
I've started rally a bit today while i save up for a car with a bit more balls. Rally is completely sublime. I am loving every second of it. I had no problem with the dirt and snow tracks, but the tarmac rally is giving me some trouble. I use an 06 Focus ST that is around 215hp, so i can bump up the HP and still compete in the series. I might just have to do that.
I've started rally a bit today while i save up for a car with a bit more balls. Rally is completely sublime. I am loving every second of it. I had no problem with the dirt and snow tracks, but the tarmac rally is giving me some trouble. I use an 06 Focus ST that is around 215hp, so i can bump up the HP and still compete in the series. I might just have to do that.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
calderone
Mar 25, 10:47 PM
This is known as a release candidate. No reason to be throwing around "Golden Master" at this point, it is clearly just confusing people.
