hyperpasta
Sep 5, 09:07 AM
Store is back up. Can't see anything new
Same here. False alarm! :(
Same here. False alarm! :(
EagerDragon
Sep 10, 08:22 PM
Please stop these chip rumors, it will only spawn new "MacBooks this Tuesday" threads:(
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
No, PowerBook G7 on Monday's keynote
CorvusCamenarum
Apr 19, 10:52 PM
Those who believe in making children obese should be put up against a wall and shot in the head...
That would leave an awful lot of parents dead.
That would leave an awful lot of parents dead.
EricNau
Sep 13, 09:16 PM
I am not really crazy about this design. Having to slide the click-wheel down every time I need to use my phone doesn't sound like fun (plus, what would this thing look like open? ...what I'm picturing is ugly).
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
I was hoping for an iPod Nano form factor with a numerical keypad... nice an simple.
Rigby
Apr 20, 11:52 AM
Unless I'm missing it in the thread, I didn't see anything on this particular question. Does anyone know if this database on the iPhone is accessible by apps? ie. can you download some app that then scans the database and uploads your information elsewhere behind the scenes?Only if the device is jailbroken. Normally, there is a "sandbox" in place that prevents apps from accessing system files (and files belonging to other apps). Jailbreaking effectively disables this sandbox.
teme
Oct 13, 02:47 AM
I think the red color is so much better than the other current Nano colors (pink, blue, green). It looks great... if they release a red MacBook, I might buy it. I don't need a red Nano right now.
iJawn108
Sep 14, 05:09 PM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
BornAgainMac
Sep 9, 06:36 AM
It wouldn't have been worth it to wait for these unless you wanted the 24 inch display (and Firewire 800) with your iMac. The iMac really looks like a good switcher machine that gives Pro performance to the masses.
samiwas
Apr 18, 03:52 PM
The very fact that people think they "deserve" vacation days is mind-boggling. Why should you "Deserve" to get paid a single dime you did not earn?
I work about 60% self-employed free lance, and 40% at my old "day job". Guess what. Neither one offers me "vacation days". Am I miserable? Hardly!
If I want a vacation day, I simply do not work. That also means I do not get paid. It would seem mighty pretentious of me to be expect pay for work not done.
If you want a job with more vacation days, FIND ONE! no one owes you a darn thing, certainly not pay for days off.
The very fact that employers think that employees "should" work even one minute more than what they are paid to is mind-boggling. Why should they "expect" that the employee will give his time willingly for no extra?
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
I work about 60% self-employed free lance, and 40% at my old "day job". Guess what. Neither one offers me "vacation days". Am I miserable? Hardly!
If I want a vacation day, I simply do not work. That also means I do not get paid. It would seem mighty pretentious of me to be expect pay for work not done.
If you want a job with more vacation days, FIND ONE! no one owes you a darn thing, certainly not pay for days off.
The very fact that employers think that employees "should" work even one minute more than what they are paid to is mind-boggling. Why should they "expect" that the employee will give his time willingly for no extra?
If they want the project manager to work past 5pm, they simply must pay. if they need him to come in on Saturday to work on that new addition to the project, they must pay. It would seem mighty pretentious of them to expect to not pay for work done.
If they want employees to work non-stop, PAY FOR IT. No one owes their employer a darn thing except exactly what is required in the job during the hours agreed upon.
See how that works?
edit: funny that the US is pretty much the ONLY developed country on earth where benefits are seen as egregious handouts if you are a typical rank and file worker. But, we're #1, right?
peharri
Sep 14, 09:27 AM
Does this option in the iTunes7 intaller hint at the imminent release of the iPhone?
http://idisk.mac.com/rnks/Public/iPhone-option.jpg
No, it doesn't. This is for phones like the ROKR and some other recent Motorolas that run a version of iTunes.
BTW this probably explains the nano firmware "revelation" too, we're probably looking at several applications (iPod, nano, ROKR, and other firmware) built from the same code base.
http://idisk.mac.com/rnks/Public/iPhone-option.jpg
No, it doesn't. This is for phones like the ROKR and some other recent Motorolas that run a version of iTunes.
BTW this probably explains the nano firmware "revelation" too, we're probably looking at several applications (iPod, nano, ROKR, and other firmware) built from the same code base.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
macsnjets
Sep 12, 02:18 PM
Now what do I do, I've been waiting since Christmas and this is what I get..UGGGHHHH ? Where is my widescreen iPod Steve ?
Zwhaler
Sep 5, 05:54 PM
Strange, the movie store is the thing that I am least excited about :confused: But I still hope for new imac and/or mbp.
balamw
Sep 1, 12:55 AM
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Canon is far more than just a camera company, even tough that is their core business.
In the consumer area, their scanners and printers are usually quite decent.
However, I too just don't see the synergy.
B
Canon is far more than just a camera company, even tough that is their core business.
In the consumer area, their scanners and printers are usually quite decent.
However, I too just don't see the synergy.
B
Eidorian
Sep 9, 01:09 PM
The biggest advantage is that you get quad cores without having to pay for Xeon chipsets and memory.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.
It's also big for the Windows/Linux side of the world. Much of the software is licensed per socket.
- XP Home - 1 socket
- XP Pro - 2 sockets
- Win2k3 Server - 4 sockets
With a quad core, you can run an 8 CPU XP Pro system without forking over the bucks for Windows Server. Add to that per-socket licensing for many software packages, and it's a huge cost savings.
Careful here - it's almost as good as the current Mac Pro quad configuration. There you have two dies communicating over the FSB and Northbridge...Oh yeah, I forgot about the Windows socket limitations. I know it'll be a great performer but a "better" chip will always come out later. Kentsfield appears to be an Extreme Edition chip until quad core trickles down to more normal desktops. Still, I can see some new Mac Pro running off a single Kentsfield.
skunk
Apr 11, 01:22 PM
So does a centipede. :oThey would if they had a hundred legs...
edifyingGerbil
Apr 18, 01:27 PM
i wonder if this all started because of the damned "green revolution" which increased crop yields dramatically using petroleum based fertilisers and of course caused the population to explode globally?
it makes sense in a perverse way. job growth can't keep up with population growth...
now, another awful thing is a lot of western societies have this strange sense of entitlement... that certain jobs are beneath them, so they all strive to be white collar professionals but that's completely unsustainable... this explains, in the UK at least, the gross number of students who go to university and have degrees but the poor employment prospects for graduates.
so far so bad, right?
add consumerism to the mix and it's little wonder that people are placated by taking out loans to buy things they can't afford normally. but to have these things the companies which produce them need a cheap source of labour, so they outsource, so areas which were traditionally big on manufacturing decay and shrink, the people moving to already congested mega cities.
they should teach buddhism in primary schools, it might stem the consumerist tide.
ugh, it's enough to drive anyone to suicide.
it makes sense in a perverse way. job growth can't keep up with population growth...
now, another awful thing is a lot of western societies have this strange sense of entitlement... that certain jobs are beneath them, so they all strive to be white collar professionals but that's completely unsustainable... this explains, in the UK at least, the gross number of students who go to university and have degrees but the poor employment prospects for graduates.
so far so bad, right?
add consumerism to the mix and it's little wonder that people are placated by taking out loans to buy things they can't afford normally. but to have these things the companies which produce them need a cheap source of labour, so they outsource, so areas which were traditionally big on manufacturing decay and shrink, the people moving to already congested mega cities.
they should teach buddhism in primary schools, it might stem the consumerist tide.
ugh, it's enough to drive anyone to suicide.
jofarmer
Sep 12, 03:43 PM
Well Folks, you all seem to be concerned about if your iPod 5G is outdated..
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
ever thought about that?
If I got Steve right, no iPod that was sold prior to this very day will be able to play videos from the iTMS sold from this day on - not if Apple hasn't been lying VERY much about the H.264 decoding capabilities of the "old" iPod 5G.
I'd love to be corrected, though...You're wrong. Older 5g iPods can play the new tv shows and movies from the iTunes store. Lets not get ridiculous here.
Ahem. I was told that the iPod 5G can play H.264 with a resolution up to 320x240 and 768 kbps. Now the resolution gets quadrupled, and you suggest that it is ridiculous to assume that this does make a difference?
Aeolius
Sep 13, 09:41 PM
No thanks. I loathe the candybar design. I have a Treo which I keep in an aluminum case. I did this after having a Treo for a week and destroying the thing, even though it was in my pocket. I have no place in my life for a delicate cell phone. :D
HiRez
Sep 19, 03:45 PM
Here's the things I need to see before I even get into this whole dowloading movies thing:
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
1. A lot more than 75 movies, 1,000 would be a good start.
2. Current quality is probably ok for video-based tv shows such as The Amazing Race or Curb Your Enthusiasm. But, I want at least 720p quality for film-based shows tv shows and movies. Didn't Apple declare last year "The Year of HD"?
3. Faster internet connection into my house to handle all this bandwidth. DSL just doesn't cut it. For video to truly be "on-demand", you can't have to wait overnight for it. It may be slightly more inconvenient, but I can go get a DVD at the store and be back with coffee/beer in under 15 minutes.
4. Ability to start streaming a partial download over iTV, and have the computer know (or give a good estimate) when you can start playing it so it finishes without interruption (as QuickTime streaming movies can).
5. Some sort of buffering in the iTV box so your movie doesn't start stuttering while someone is checking their email on the computer.
6. Multichannel digital surround sound. This should be considered a must for watching movies now, shame on you, Apple. QuickTime already supports it too, and it doesn't take a lot of extra bandwidth compared to the video anyway.
7. EyeTV integration...although this gets a little weird because I'd want my computer in another room, yet the EyeTV would have to be near the tv to accept the input, so it'd have to be connected directly to the iTV box. Is the USB connection going to be adequate to handle that HD bandwidth?
danielwsmithee
Apr 25, 02:44 PM
But I fear what Apple has in mind is basically an entire range of Macbook Air laptops. The Air is a fine computer, no doubt, but it's not the portable desktop I want and never can be without supporting two drives and discrete graphics in one way or another.That is exactly what I envision for the next Mac Book Pro. Take a MacBook Air make it just thick enough to handle an additional 2.5" Hard Drive, dedicated graphics, and a high performance processor. Ditch the optical drive, make SSD+HD the standard configuration.
jafd
Apr 25, 03:02 PM
Those having glossy screens sure will need an automated screen wiper to go with their new laptops. They've got no touch screens and we take care to not touch them, but eventually the screens get dusted and/or fingerprinted all over.
Look at this iPad. Isn't it disgusting?
http://www.tema.ru/jjj/apple-2.jpg
Sure it's not how it looks in ads. It's a real thing in real use.
I also expect a screen wiper in iPad 3, by the way. Screw the liquid metal and gimme the ol' good wiper, please. Or make it matte/Pixel Qi, for heaven's sake.
Look at this iPad. Isn't it disgusting?
http://www.tema.ru/jjj/apple-2.jpg
Sure it's not how it looks in ads. It's a real thing in real use.
I also expect a screen wiper in iPad 3, by the way. Screw the liquid metal and gimme the ol' good wiper, please. Or make it matte/Pixel Qi, for heaven's sake.
rmhop81
Apr 22, 09:40 AM
And the other 14-16 hours of the day where I'm not at home, but at work, traveling, at coffee shops, walking, relaxing, jogging, etc.?
You do realize iPods are portable music players right? Meaning they likely get most use outside of the home.
you won't have access to it like pandora so you wont' have to worrry.....
again, if you are unlimited or bigger data cap it won't matter.
plus my work has wifi...i'm sure a lot of other people have the same.
You do realize iPods are portable music players right? Meaning they likely get most use outside of the home.
you won't have access to it like pandora so you wont' have to worrry.....
again, if you are unlimited or bigger data cap it won't matter.
plus my work has wifi...i'm sure a lot of other people have the same.
Some_Big_Spoon
Sep 11, 12:10 AM
I hear that again and again, but I just can't believe it.. was it just him? How could someone so far ahead drop the ball like that? I know, Palm and BeOS...
Macnealy's ego got in the way....
Macnealy's ego got in the way....
No comments:
Post a Comment