sisyphus
Jul 14, 02:34 PM
That's nice...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
They'd better have something in between this and the iMac...
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:19 PM
hmmm... the funny part is that it's been done to death.* that's the bit.* i guess you don't see it as funny.* ever heard of a reoccuring joke with a little aphormism mixed in?
But that's the problem. The joke was that it was done to death...... but THAT part has been done to death too, which is why most people no longer find it to be all that funny.
I'm happy that some people still seem to be able to find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that the people who no longer find it to be funny just don't "get it". It just means that the lifespan of this joke has long since passed for many people.
But that's the problem. The joke was that it was done to death...... but THAT part has been done to death too, which is why most people no longer find it to be all that funny.
I'm happy that some people still seem to be able to find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that the people who no longer find it to be funny just don't "get it". It just means that the lifespan of this joke has long since passed for many people.
mwswami
Jul 23, 05:22 PM
At those prices, sign me up for a Quad 2.3!!!! I'll buy that along with a newly designed 23" ACD for $699. :D
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.
Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.
Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
A Quad 2.3 for $1999 ... not going to happen.
Even the cheapest configuration of Dell Precision 490 Workstartion (http://catalog.us.dell.com/CS1/cs1page2.aspx?br=6&c=us&cs=04&fm=11456&kc=6W463&l=en&s=bsd) with dual 2.3 Woodcrests comes out to $2348. This includes 1GB RAM, 80GB SATA drive, and 128MB nVidia Quadro NVS 285 2D graphics.
Apple prices are typically a few hundred $ higher. I am guessing it will be more like $2699 with a larger hard drive and better graphics.
GuitarDTO
Mar 31, 07:47 PM
Polished like the pure Google, "optimized from the ground up for tablets" Honeycomb running on the XOOM right now?
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
Yikes.
No...polished like Android 2.2 vs. 1.0. I think my Droid had 2.0 when I got it, and just going from 2.0 to 2.1 to 2.2 they made huge strides. Google will get it right, and this is just another step towards that. Has iOS always had the polish that it has currently? (Asking honestly, I'm new to iPhone).
catchbar
Aug 6, 03:23 PM
thats amazing!!!
Erasmus
Jul 22, 03:59 AM
I agree with your point on never saying a computer is too powerful, although living in computers is probably not going to happen. Sounds a bit too Matrix-like for me.
:D You never know, you never know.
Ye of little faith in technology!
Never mind.
I think its more along the lines of whether the public will let it happen without turning it into a big moral/ethical/religeous dilemma.
Well, anyway, I am going to stop, because this is way, way, way off topic. I shouldn't have brought it up to begin with.
:D You never know, you never know.
Ye of little faith in technology!
Never mind.
I think its more along the lines of whether the public will let it happen without turning it into a big moral/ethical/religeous dilemma.
Well, anyway, I am going to stop, because this is way, way, way off topic. I shouldn't have brought it up to begin with.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
Though, for what it's worth, I'd much rather we returned to the constitutional practice of getting approval from congress before committing ourselves to military intervention.
I agree with the sentiment, though I wonder how much difference it would make - Bush managed to lie, cheat and steal a vote out of congress in favor of the Iraq invasion. Plenty of congress members were either duped or cowed into voting in favor. It wasn't a declared war, it was even better - he had congressional sanction without being restrained by a declared war.
I agree with the sentiment, though I wonder how much difference it would make - Bush managed to lie, cheat and steal a vote out of congress in favor of the Iraq invasion. Plenty of congress members were either duped or cowed into voting in favor. It wasn't a declared war, it was even better - he had congressional sanction without being restrained by a declared war.
diamond.g
Mar 22, 02:53 PM
Rand didn't trip on the Civil Rights Act? Ok, only if you agree with him that entire towns in the South should have the right to discriminate like they used to. The free market will sort it out... just like it did before the civil rights act.
At some point all the discriminated folks would have started their own businesses and everything would have been a-ok right? Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? :D
At some point all the discriminated folks would have started their own businesses and everything would have been a-ok right? Isn't that how the free market is supposed to work? :D
ccrandall77
Aug 11, 02:21 PM
OK. let us just cut to the chase. The keyword here is hand-over. CDMA2000 doesnt support it from GSM. GSM has 81%. Hence cdma is and will always be a small local network that can be used in small pockets on this planet. Furthermore, I seriously doubt ITU/FOMA will change anything in the standard to allow any compability for CDMA2000 since it is not in their interest.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I wouldn't call over 50% of the N American market a small, local network. Time will tell whether GSM or CDMA will win out. I agree in the long run WCDMA has more upside, but who knows what'll come out in the next few years.
VZW doesn't bill me. I hate VZW for crippling phones and expensive service. I have good service from Sprint, similar capabilities, and the plans are very reasonable... and they are CDMA.
The faster cdam/CDMA2000 moves to oblivion the better.
We would all benefit from one standard, cheaper phones, worldwide access, lower minute rates (from higher competition) Just look at how Vz bills you.
Having multiple standard on cellphones is just as clever as having two incompatible internet.
I wouldn't call over 50% of the N American market a small, local network. Time will tell whether GSM or CDMA will win out. I agree in the long run WCDMA has more upside, but who knows what'll come out in the next few years.
VZW doesn't bill me. I hate VZW for crippling phones and expensive service. I have good service from Sprint, similar capabilities, and the plans are very reasonable... and they are CDMA.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:19 PM
hmmm... the funny part is that it's been done to death.* that's the bit.* i guess you don't see it as funny.* ever heard of a reoccuring joke with a little aphormism mixed in?
But that's the problem. The joke was that it was done to death...... but THAT part has been done to death too, which is why most people no longer find it to be all that funny.
I'm happy that some people still seem to be able to find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that the people who no longer find it to be funny just don't "get it". It just means that the lifespan of this joke has long since passed for many people.
But that's the problem. The joke was that it was done to death...... but THAT part has been done to death too, which is why most people no longer find it to be all that funny.
I'm happy that some people still seem to be able to find humor in it, but that doesn't mean that the people who no longer find it to be funny just don't "get it". It just means that the lifespan of this joke has long since passed for many people.
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
arkitect
Mar 4, 03:41 AM
There is no risk of destroying society.
I never realised we had such power�
Earthquakes when we have sex and now getting married destroys whole societies.
;)
We are SO screwed!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kysrpgpMw31qzkf1ao1_500.jpg
I never realised we had such power�
Earthquakes when we have sex and now getting married destroys whole societies.
;)
We are SO screwed!
http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_kysrpgpMw31qzkf1ao1_500.jpg
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 2, 04:30 PM
I love that i won a mini in the mini-only race. I'll never touch either of my minis again.
j26
Nov 29, 06:26 AM
My initial reservations about this story (the Zune/Universal payment) was much like eveybody's elses on these forums - very bad for us and screw 'em. But now that I've had time to think it through I actually think it's a fantastic idea.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Fantastic for the consumer and the artist, and potentially catastrophic for Universal Music.
Allow me to explain! Somebody buys a Zune or iPod that has had the 'Universal Tax' applied to it and then fills it with 30GB of stolen Universal music. It goes to court and the 'Pirate' successfully argues that he/she has already compensated UMG by buying the iPod/Zune. The judge agrees and piracy of Universal music becomes legal so long as it's for the 'UMG taxed' iPod or Zune. UMG collapses overnight and the artists get to release music on their terms and get more of the money that they deserve, not the faceless corporations and shareholders.
Why is this good for us? Because every entertainment company would become very wary of labelling us all 'pirates' and might actually realise that digital distribution at a fair price is their future.
D'oh somebody has already written something to this effect whilst I was typing!!
But do you really think a court will decide that way. Not likely, especially if it's a judge from the wealth maximisation school of thought.
Bakey
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
Im guessing hopefully by the years end for the G5.... :) :)
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
What by the years end? That we stop reading the same "PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!" non-starting done-to-death joke?? :rolleyes: :p
l4t13
Oct 15, 01:02 PM
still very good news for high performance users
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 04:14 PM
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
Copying is not copying when you don't even know about what was done before...and we know the story about what influenced Apple, the alphabet. And the logo isn't even the same - it's the name that the suit was over, not the logo. Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Copying is not copying when you don't even know about what was done before...and we know the story about what influenced Apple, the alphabet. And the logo isn't even the same - it's the name that the suit was over, not the logo. Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
TheQuestion
Mar 26, 12:22 AM
Can't believe it's anywhere near GM time. Way too many bugs and inconsistencies in behavior. New networking tools in Server have to be implemented now that SMB is being canned - that's not a minor addition. Calling it a release candidate is a stretch, but calling it GM is just plain crazy.
michaelflynn
Apr 6, 02:53 PM
Constant crashes on a Windows machine, eh? I don't see that from feedback I've been hearing. I'm wondering about the specs of those Windows machines you are speaking of (unsupported video card, or not enough RAM perhaps?). Drop by our forum with your issues. Let's see if we can help you troubleshoot your issues: http://forums.adobe.com/community/premiere/premierepro_current
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
Yes, many of the crashes I've experienced have to do with Matrox cards, but not all of them. My boss is on the Abode and Matrox beta teams, so I will let him deal with the feedback. I think the machines are primarily i7's with 8+GB RAM on Windows 7 64-bit...I don't know for sure though, I'm not well versed in Windows based machines.
ergle2
Sep 19, 12:56 PM
thx for your reply,
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
i will go for the mac pro quad know (i'm updating my home computer wich is a G3, but i'm used to work on a dual G5 for my projects) and yeah i will allways be able then to update later, but how about ram, when DDR3 comes out, i read that its going to replace FB-DIMMs so will that be upgradeble too???
cause these FB-DIMMS are so ********** expensive :) thx
DDR and FB aren't mutually exclusive technologies. Current FB-DIMMs use DDR2 chips. Newer FB-DIMMs will use DDR3 chips but due to the way FB-DIMMs work -- the buffer and control hardware essentially sit between the memory and the MCH -- you should still be able to use them in a Mac Pro. Note, should, not will.
You won't be able to use regular DDR3 DIMMs just like you can't use regular DDR2 DIMMs tho'. That's something that'd require a major design change to the motherboard.
So, memory will still be damn' expensive compared to that found in the cheap desktops...
0815
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
Maybe this will stop the large daily 1am data chunks being sent on 3G??? My most active time on 3G data always happens when I am asleep....:eek:
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Sleep walking a lot lately?
NoSmokingBandit
Dec 7, 05:43 PM
Keep that Lotus, you can use it for the British Lightweight race.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
I've already done it with a....
300 kW TVR
:D
I love my TVR and my B-Spec driver actually knows how to handle it, so i've been using it as often as appropriate.
I try not to sell any cars unless they are junk (like a 97 Civic or whatever it is. Worst beginner's prize car ever) or if i have two of the same kind.
Hastings101
Apr 6, 05:01 PM
I'm an Apple mobile device user, and I have never ever been on an Android-centric forum. Not one time! Why would I care what people who have such an obvious difference in taste think about what I have?
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
At least go have your Android orgy, where it may be appreciated by others who care to watch that type of thing...wait...there are such things as Android forums, right?
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
It never ceases to amaze me at how many Android users have to flock to a site called "MacRumors" because they feel then need to lead us poor blinded Apple "fanboys" to the bright shining city on a hill that is Android paradise.
At least go have your Android orgy, where it may be appreciated by others who care to watch that type of thing...wait...there are such things as Android forums, right?
An orgy of Androids? That sounds scary. Almost as scary as a bunch of Apples having an orgy.
CaoCao
Mar 3, 11:03 PM
If that's what you want to believe, fine. Respect my belief that it's perfectly fine, and stop making laws against me.
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Surely. Why do you believe you have any right or authority to dictate what two consulting adults should do or not?
And, if you do believe you (or a religious book) have that authority, then may I make the following statement to be equally as valid as yours:
Bill McEnaney should only engage in homosexual, sexually active relationships, and should never be engaged in heterosexual relationships, much less any that are anything but platonic.
Do you believe in the validity of my statement. Why or why not?
I look forward to your response.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
No comments:
Post a Comment