KnightWRX
Apr 25, 07:26 AM
You deserve a bad rap:rolleyes: There is nothing illegal going 5 under.
I don't know about your state, but here in Quebec, it is illegal to ride in the left lane if you're not passing. The left lane is a passing lane. A lot of idiots just roll there, doing the "limit" and then you have to pass them on the right, which is also illegal and dangerous or wait behind them.
The fact that the kid road raged a bit doesn't change the fact of this thread : There are a lot of people who still think "left = fast lane" which is completely wrong. "left = passing lane". If you're not passing, move over to the right.
A little curtesy prevents road rage episodes. On both sides. The OP might not have been right in his behavior, but to say the lady wasn't doing anything illegal is also wrong and shows that you are as a bad a driver as the OP if you fail to recognize it.
The fault doesn't just lie with the OP and everyone defending the lady and bashing the OP is wrong. You should be bashing both equally.
I don't know about your state, but here in Quebec, it is illegal to ride in the left lane if you're not passing. The left lane is a passing lane. A lot of idiots just roll there, doing the "limit" and then you have to pass them on the right, which is also illegal and dangerous or wait behind them.
The fact that the kid road raged a bit doesn't change the fact of this thread : There are a lot of people who still think "left = fast lane" which is completely wrong. "left = passing lane". If you're not passing, move over to the right.
A little curtesy prevents road rage episodes. On both sides. The OP might not have been right in his behavior, but to say the lady wasn't doing anything illegal is also wrong and shows that you are as a bad a driver as the OP if you fail to recognize it.
The fault doesn't just lie with the OP and everyone defending the lady and bashing the OP is wrong. You should be bashing both equally.
macintel4me
Sep 4, 09:51 PM
who knows they might release a mini mac style media centre with OSX that will be used to download the movies and allow you to burn it straight to DVD/Blueray lol :cool:
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
Okay, a FrontRow/AirPort Express/iTunes-downloadable Media Center device is SWEET!! I bet that is EXACTLY what we see Apple delivering!!
sinisterdesign
Aug 23, 10:52 PM
Creative found a way to make money. good for them.
PhatBoyG
May 3, 11:54 AM
Surely I'm not the only one who's noticed that the i7 is slower than the i5, and that the Radeon HD 6970M is slower than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
Whaaaaa? :confused:
The baselines are different when you click the different models. The 6970M is most definitely faster than the 6750M.
iEvolution
Apr 22, 03:29 PM
apple is not the first ones to do this so not sure about your last comment. if you USE itunes, do you REALLY own anything???
why is there a limit to how many computers you can play a song on? hmmm yeah u don't really own it now do you?
Look at netflix and hulu plus. if you can get access to TONS of content through a subscription what is the point of owning an actual physical copy if you can watch it from your queue online on your device?
This isn't the content of music on iTunes isn't DRM protected, furthermore I still own the content (even the DRM) as I can do exactly what I want with it. I can back it up, move it between devices, and have absolutely no dependence on sustainable bandwidth, company's servers, and policy changes revolving around the use of the server.
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
why is there a limit to how many computers you can play a song on? hmmm yeah u don't really own it now do you?
Look at netflix and hulu plus. if you can get access to TONS of content through a subscription what is the point of owning an actual physical copy if you can watch it from your queue online on your device?
This isn't the content of music on iTunes isn't DRM protected, furthermore I still own the content (even the DRM) as I can do exactly what I want with it. I can back it up, move it between devices, and have absolutely no dependence on sustainable bandwidth, company's servers, and policy changes revolving around the use of the server.
As for your netflix comment, there have been plenty of times that Netflix has removed content from their servers that was previously available, if I actually own the content I don't even have to worry about the company removing availability of item <x>.
Streaming content is inferior to downloaded content, it depends on a reliable connection, it depends on your bandwidth not being capped or being regulated to a lower setting because you went over (it'd be pretty easy to stream videos and go over your limit especially in HD).
With the recent iPhone privacy fiasco, APPLE would be the LAST company on earth that I would want to depend on.
As a backup option I think its great, as a primary service that eliminates the concept of downloading and owning your content, its complete bull. I'm not paying money for content that essentially stays in someone else's computer that they could do what they want with it at ANY time. Forget it.
speed, quality and reliability through internet connections is absolutely INFERIOR than when it is run from a hard drive (avg transfer for a hard drive in 2007 was 1030 MBits (128MB/sec) or flash memory (even the lowest class runs at 2MB/sec, which is more than most people can get in their internet connection).
If it goes further to where computers start using cloud services just to run and store their computer it becomes a) a privacy issue, b) a security issue. People like their privacy and like to own stuff they pay for.
deputy_doofy
Aug 28, 03:30 PM
there will ALWAYS be updates, if you keep waiting for the next one you'll be waiting forever. Santa rosa isn't going to be THAT amazing of an upgrade. I'd just buy the core duo 2 when they release and then upgrade to leopard later. But that's just me.
Agreed. That would have been like waiting for the 167MHz bus on the old Powerbooks because the 133MHz wasn't cutting it.... :p
Agreed. That would have been like waiting for the 167MHz bus on the old Powerbooks because the 133MHz wasn't cutting it.... :p
Marx55
Sep 26, 03:48 PM
HERE ARE THE PICTURES:
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=1
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=2
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=3
MORE INFO:
http://www.t3.co.uk/news/247/communications/mobile_phone/evidence_mounts_for_january_iphone
Now, imagine it as the ultimate wireless computerless presentation remote:
1. Make your Keynote or PowerPoint presentations on your Mac or PC-Windows.
2. Save them to the SMART iPhone.
3. Carry the iPhone with you and use it as a wireless computerless presentation remote.
WITH A HUGE HALO EFFECT on all corporate, education and domestic markets!!!
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=1
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=2
http://www.t3.co.uk/nested_content/gallery_assetlisting_navigation?root=633162&result_page=3
MORE INFO:
http://www.t3.co.uk/news/247/communications/mobile_phone/evidence_mounts_for_january_iphone
Now, imagine it as the ultimate wireless computerless presentation remote:
1. Make your Keynote or PowerPoint presentations on your Mac or PC-Windows.
2. Save them to the SMART iPhone.
3. Carry the iPhone with you and use it as a wireless computerless presentation remote.
WITH A HUGE HALO EFFECT on all corporate, education and domestic markets!!!
Lollypop
Sep 10, 01:09 PM
1024 CPUs??? WOW... and I thought I had nasty simulations. :o
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
It is a terrible waste to have unused CPU power, especially when the application is CPU intense, there are entire fields of research dedicated to optimizing certain types of calculations.... Ive said it before, the core wars will also stop eventually...
Whats wrong with having two dual core processors on one chip? I can understand that the FSB might become a bottleneck but thats not only a issue related to the number of cores/processors is it?
Still, dont you think that it is a terrible waste of computing power if the app doesnt take advantage of multiple processors, eventhough it might be very hard to write such an app? This is really not my field and I know far too little to have an opinion, so take it for what it is worth.
It is a terrible waste to have unused CPU power, especially when the application is CPU intense, there are entire fields of research dedicated to optimizing certain types of calculations.... Ive said it before, the core wars will also stop eventually...
Whats wrong with having two dual core processors on one chip? I can understand that the FSB might become a bottleneck but thats not only a issue related to the number of cores/processors is it?
the_ki
Sep 26, 08:55 AM
Lame.
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
I'm with you. As a MVNO, Apple could kick Helio's ass. Maybe they are becoming an MVNO and they're leasing their network time from Cingular? That makes sense, don't it?
Think about it...
.Mac mobile
The cellphone connects to your .Mac mail, your iCal calendar, and your Address Book.
iChat and text messaging would become one and the same. I could use iChat to talk with a friend on his iPhone, and vice versa. The iPhone has a camera, right? Video conference from the train, anyone?
Buy ringtones at the iTunes store, or just use any song in your library as your ringtone, or write your own ringtone in Garageband.
Download your podcasts from anywhere.
The photos you shoot automatically go into your iPhoto photocast. Your videos sync up with an iTunes playlist. Everything automatically appears on your dynamically-powered iWeb. It's moblogging for the masses.
And since they'll need to sell them to Windows users, lots of folks will have .Mac mobile accounts, but they can't really use them to their full advantage unless they use iLife on a Mac, which they'll just have to buy.
Yes, this is all conjecture, but it's the only thing that really makes a full-fledged Apple iPhone make sense to me in their overall plan for world domination.
Your thoughts?
The only way the iPhone market even makes sense is via an Apple MVNO.
Since when does Apple NOT want to "control the whole widget"? I don't want Apple controlled by the nutjob mobile providers.
As much of an Apple fanboy as I am, I would never use Cingular. But beyond that, it signals that the Apple iPhone will be incredibly lame -- just another music phone (basically an Apple ROKR/SLVR), because that is pretty much all that Cingular trades in.
I'm with you. As a MVNO, Apple could kick Helio's ass. Maybe they are becoming an MVNO and they're leasing their network time from Cingular? That makes sense, don't it?
Think about it...
.Mac mobile
The cellphone connects to your .Mac mail, your iCal calendar, and your Address Book.
iChat and text messaging would become one and the same. I could use iChat to talk with a friend on his iPhone, and vice versa. The iPhone has a camera, right? Video conference from the train, anyone?
Buy ringtones at the iTunes store, or just use any song in your library as your ringtone, or write your own ringtone in Garageband.
Download your podcasts from anywhere.
The photos you shoot automatically go into your iPhoto photocast. Your videos sync up with an iTunes playlist. Everything automatically appears on your dynamically-powered iWeb. It's moblogging for the masses.
And since they'll need to sell them to Windows users, lots of folks will have .Mac mobile accounts, but they can't really use them to their full advantage unless they use iLife on a Mac, which they'll just have to buy.
Yes, this is all conjecture, but it's the only thing that really makes a full-fledged Apple iPhone make sense to me in their overall plan for world domination.
Your thoughts?
johnnyrb
Mar 23, 04:47 PM
Only a member of congress can imagine someone who is drunk logging in to Trapster to determine where the cops are located or notify others users where the cops are located.
MADD needs to come out with an application that makes it easier for citizens to notify the cops of reckless and drunk drivers instead of having congress pull these apps!!!
MADD needs to come out with an application that makes it easier for citizens to notify the cops of reckless and drunk drivers instead of having congress pull these apps!!!
Mr.damien
Apr 19, 06:54 AM
Of course, Samsung's Android phone has many additional items such as their pulldown notification shade with built-in radio and orientation lock controls... which many people would love for Apple to copy.
No ... YOU want.
No ... YOU want.
cube
May 3, 12:46 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 06:31 PM
but itunes selling movie?! silly idea...
Why is it silly? iTunes has proven that millions will pay to download music, videos, and TV shows. I don't see why people won't download movies as well, especially considering millions of others download movies, at questionable quality, illegally all the time.
Why is it silly? iTunes has proven that millions will pay to download music, videos, and TV shows. I don't see why people won't download movies as well, especially considering millions of others download movies, at questionable quality, illegally all the time.
cere
Apr 14, 12:20 PM
Err... no.
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Same reply as previous quote. Exactly what do you think that article is telling you?
http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2380954,00.asp
Same reply as previous quote. Exactly what do you think that article is telling you?
milo
Sep 5, 04:35 PM
ok, just made a quick mockup of what i would like to see announced next week :cool:
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
http://users.pandora.be/blackbox/airport_video.png
and make shure it also works with video_ts folders and avi/divx files (maybe via an front row API for third party developers like VLC?) ;)
this would perfectly complement that itunes movie store
You nailed it, that would be perfect. That's EXACTLY what they should do.
unobtainium
Apr 22, 02:25 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
Silentwave
Sep 18, 06:44 PM
A 10megapixel phone will record more clearly the low quality picture that comes from these tiny lenses.
It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.
There IS a limit as to what can be done at a given price point. Eventually the cost of a good lens for it will outweigh the benefits.
Sticking a 10mp sensor in a phone to me is ridiculous. Very few people ever need 10mp, and if they do they get a real camera instead. Not only does the phone have a very limited set of potential lens features, but the lens will generally be low quality and poorly corrected unless you spend a significant amount of money for a good one. Even then size will become an issue.
All a 10mp phone will do is be unusable in anything but superb light. It'll probably have even worse dynamic range than existing phones, record murky detail, and have the poorest signal to noise ratio on the planet.
It will be a much larger file, and won't look much better than a 3MP. Still, as the lenses improve this will change.
There IS a limit as to what can be done at a given price point. Eventually the cost of a good lens for it will outweigh the benefits.
Sticking a 10mp sensor in a phone to me is ridiculous. Very few people ever need 10mp, and if they do they get a real camera instead. Not only does the phone have a very limited set of potential lens features, but the lens will generally be low quality and poorly corrected unless you spend a significant amount of money for a good one. Even then size will become an issue.
All a 10mp phone will do is be unusable in anything but superb light. It'll probably have even worse dynamic range than existing phones, record murky detail, and have the poorest signal to noise ratio on the planet.
thworple
Oct 27, 10:07 AM
What kind of leverage would they have to charge for premium or larger floorspace, if vendors could just get the smallest booth possible, but then flood the convention floor with people handing out brochures? Even though Greenpeace is not a vendor and probably received their booth space pro-bono, they should still stick to the convention floor rules.
In that case I would love to know what happened to other half-dozen or so companies that handed out leaflets outside of their allotted "zone", or the chaps that went around spotting people who had red badges on, and handing out free USB Flash-drives to whoever they found! :D
In that case I would love to know what happened to other half-dozen or so companies that handed out leaflets outside of their allotted "zone", or the chaps that went around spotting people who had red badges on, and handing out free USB Flash-drives to whoever they found! :D
emaja
Mar 29, 12:48 PM
Apple has one phone while the other manufacturers have dozens each. Would this really a surprise if it came about?
EagerDragon
Sep 16, 04:47 PM
Who in their right mind would want a microsoft phone :eek: :eek:
Microsoft is an expert at that. All their software phones home, so why not got the distance? LOL:eek:
Microsoft is an expert at that. All their software phones home, so why not got the distance? LOL:eek:
jason221
Apr 25, 05:28 PM
I wish they would release it before September 28... I'd rather wait for the new design but college starts this fall so that's not an option. Oh well.
Lesser Evets
Apr 22, 05:07 AM
How does streaming music to my iPhone help me, when O2 cap my Internet usage, and then charge when you use more.
This is one of the many scenarios that make me wonder why "cloud based" services are so pursued. Lack of signal, in any way, means your device is useless.
Coupled with the probability that within a decade there will be cheap memory to hold everything the vast majority of users wants/possesses, this cloud-based stuff seems more like a control issue than a service provided.
This is one of the many scenarios that make me wonder why "cloud based" services are so pursued. Lack of signal, in any way, means your device is useless.
Coupled with the probability that within a decade there will be cheap memory to hold everything the vast majority of users wants/possesses, this cloud-based stuff seems more like a control issue than a service provided.
danbolling
Aug 31, 12:49 PM
Some things are coming together that are not pointed out in the post about the upcoming new iTMS (iTunes Media Store)
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
1) If the movies are only available in the US (at least initially), then this explains why Apple would not announce it at Paris Expo.
2) Movies will be larger resolution, of course. This now makes the "Advance -> Convert Video for iPod" command make a lot more sense. This will be the easy way to get downloaded movies onto old (smaller resolution) video iPods. And, maybe new iPod nanos which will do video with smaller screens.
3) And, of course, an updated video iPod is no surprise at this point. The details and the specs may be, but the update is not.
wnurse
Aug 24, 08:48 AM
I think you are seriously underestimating how expensive these type of patent battles can be. Check out the following story:
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
http://www.internetnews.com/bus-news/article.php/3402321
So SCO obviously expected its legal costs to spiral beyond $31 million to make a special deal with its law firm to cap costs. The fact they are willing to give as much as 33% of any potential winnings with the legal firm indicates that the final tally could easily approach $100 million if not for the cap.
It is quite clear that Apple would have made life very, very expensive and excruciating for Creative's legal team. $100 million in legal costs is not unrealistic considering that you not only had the original suit, but countersuits by Apple involving 4 bonafide patents.
What would creative legal cost have been. I seriously doubt apple legal cost would have approached 100 million but for the sake of argument, lets say it did, would creative cost also have approached 100 million. Could creative have paid that much?. If apple legal cost could escalate to that amount, creative would have dropped the case long before the cost approached that amount. Creative does not have 100 mil to blow on lawyers. Either way you look at it, apple legal cost would not have approached 100 mil. The point of the settlement was not to avoid legal cost (as many of you fondly point out, apple has 10 billion in cash, why should legal cost even worry them?). No, the problem was that creative might have won. Then apple would have had a problem.
