kiljoy616
May 4, 06:21 AM
very. powerful. ad.
So, is it magical? Nah... ok sometimes, almost... check out the new (free) "Planetary" app for browsing your iTunes library... that's pretty magical! :)
Well said, that app is magical for sure. Can't believe they did it for free, its just such a fun app to use. :)
So, is it magical? Nah... ok sometimes, almost... check out the new (free) "Planetary" app for browsing your iTunes library... that's pretty magical! :)
Well said, that app is magical for sure. Can't believe they did it for free, its just such a fun app to use. :)
benjayman2
Apr 9, 01:40 AM
Probably knockoffs. Or as many here would say, the owner just wanted to get rid of them because no one wanted to purchase them :p
It's really easy to spot fake beats when your scrutinizing them and especially if you have the box and accessories that come with it from the factory.
Well it was kind of the second situation. My buddy was going to return these and I told him jokingly "Man I would so get those if they were $80." Next thing I know he said yes and gave me the bb receipt just in case I needed to exchange it (he just got it a week ago). We're good friends and he just wanted to try them out. He is pretty fiscally obese so he didn't mind letting him go for that price (he said it was a late bday gift lol. I couldn't pass it up.
It's really easy to spot fake beats when your scrutinizing them and especially if you have the box and accessories that come with it from the factory.
Well it was kind of the second situation. My buddy was going to return these and I told him jokingly "Man I would so get those if they were $80." Next thing I know he said yes and gave me the bb receipt just in case I needed to exchange it (he just got it a week ago). We're good friends and he just wanted to try them out. He is pretty fiscally obese so he didn't mind letting him go for that price (he said it was a late bday gift lol. I couldn't pass it up.
Charlie Sheen
Mar 24, 03:22 PM
and the birthday present is lion :D
Glideslope
Apr 15, 04:49 PM
Good.
How is the new office Eric? What goes around comes around. The walls are starting to lean.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM. :apple:
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
Do more research on Tim. Steve picks the target. Tim delivers the system.:apple:
How is the new office Eric? What goes around comes around. The walls are starting to lean.
The future is WIN7, iOS, and RIMM. :apple:
I am more curious how the labels are going to try to renegotiate contracts with Apple once Steve moves on.
I am not too sure Tim Cook or anyone of his pay grade is as tough as Steve is when it comes to these label execs.
Do more research on Tim. Steve picks the target. Tim delivers the system.:apple:
more...
takao
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
Make a Custom Class with Ghost, problem solved. Hell, equip that same class with the Strela, and not only will the various Choppers not shoot you, but you can then bring it down so it stops killing your team as well.
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
Brucewl
May 3, 01:19 AM
OK, come on, just released ios 5.0, do not fix it again and again..
more...
Macaddicttt
Mar 4, 03:35 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
I honestly cannot believe you hold these views.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
I honestly cannot believe you hold these views.
Abstract
Apr 7, 05:28 AM
Nice Volvo! Love the look of their wagons.
more...
macenforcer
Aug 8, 07:50 PM
Just picked up the 30" today. WOW!
This monitor is so choice. If you have the means, I highly suggest you pick one up.
- (Ferris Bueller)
This monitor is so choice. If you have the means, I highly suggest you pick one up.
- (Ferris Bueller)
gkarris
Jan 15, 04:14 PM
Happy for my :apple:TV.
I'm glad Apple has decided to return to the sub-note market - great job Apple!
I'm glad Apple has decided to return to the sub-note market - great job Apple!
more...
Eidorian
May 3, 11:33 PM
With regards to this particular ad, should we presume from your comment that you are not an engineer, a doctor, a business person, a teacher, a student, a parent or a child? All these folks love their iPads.None of the above.
The commercials are cringe worthy when the potential you have is limited to web browsing.
The commercials are cringe worthy when the potential you have is limited to web browsing.
Maxiseller
Nov 16, 11:51 AM
I'm sure that somewhere in their headquarters Apple keeps a build of OS X on AMD like they did with Intel. But Idon't think that anyone outside of Apple will see it at least for several years.
Would it even require a different build? After all, it's still x86 architecture no?
Would it even require a different build? After all, it's still x86 architecture no?
more...
pmz
Apr 16, 10:07 AM
A quick read through this thread is proof of why I normally don't bother reading or posting here.
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Almost everyone has posted that they feel the next iPhone could look something like this...
...which is completely ridiculous based on logic and common sense. But it has been my experience that Macrumors forums and "logic" and "common sense" cannot exist in the same place at the same time.
Memory also seems to be a problem around here. For example, Apple's breakthrough smartphone that changed phones for forever, was completely and totally redesigned after its first year, because the design was incredibly flawed.
To not understand the significance of this, is really to forfeit your opinion on what Apple will or will not do. You CANNOT logically state that Apple would return to an aluminum iPhone (no matter how sexy it might look), after having already moved away from it.
2 straight years, the iPhone 3G and 3GS have unibody plastic design. The SAME one. This is not a coincidence, or laziness, or any other 4th grade opinion....its what the iPhone is. It's not going to change.
The most Apple will do with the design, is make it a little taller to accommodate more pixels, but the design will remain. They may offer a few more colors, or they may not.
Plastic, Unibody iPhones are here to stay. To state otherwise, is to fantasize, and ignore reality. (which is fine, just acknowledge it please).
Lyra
Aug 1, 03:02 PM
I live in The Netherlands, and I don't have any TV shows either, so it's not only in Denmark, etc. which you can't get them. And as far as I can you can only get them in the US (maybe there are other countries where they are awailable, but there aren't many).
The issue is that ITMS needs to get distribution rights in each and every country where they want to distribute anything, which can be a pain, and for europe the networks might not be interested in making a TV Show available via ITMS before it have been air'ed as they then will loose ad money.
It is not just a simple matter...
As for DRM, one of the reasons for this is going on is that when you download something from ITMS it will only play in either iTunes or on a iPod which is locking the user to a single device.
We where all laughing when the EU fined MS - issue is that Apple is not much better in this case....
I'm a Mac head, but I do not like the DRM Apple is forcing me to live with....
Casper
I see what you mean and I agree to some extend...
But no disrespect when I say, you really are not forced to live with the DRM... No one is, and that is the main point here...
If people really are that bothered by it, then all they need to do is to stop using the Apple iPod and iTunes.
I for one, really don't feel affected by this, not even a little bit...
And you are right, it is only the American version of the iTunes that offer TV shows... At the moment...
The issue is that ITMS needs to get distribution rights in each and every country where they want to distribute anything, which can be a pain, and for europe the networks might not be interested in making a TV Show available via ITMS before it have been air'ed as they then will loose ad money.
It is not just a simple matter...
As for DRM, one of the reasons for this is going on is that when you download something from ITMS it will only play in either iTunes or on a iPod which is locking the user to a single device.
We where all laughing when the EU fined MS - issue is that Apple is not much better in this case....
I'm a Mac head, but I do not like the DRM Apple is forcing me to live with....
Casper
I see what you mean and I agree to some extend...
But no disrespect when I say, you really are not forced to live with the DRM... No one is, and that is the main point here...
If people really are that bothered by it, then all they need to do is to stop using the Apple iPod and iTunes.
I for one, really don't feel affected by this, not even a little bit...
And you are right, it is only the American version of the iTunes that offer TV shows... At the moment...
more...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Patch^
Aug 8, 12:05 PM
is it me or has the 20" ACD just dropped by �20 and still has the same specs as before?
Why has is dropped by $100 in the US and got better specs? o well, maybe they being lazy to update it or get rid of old stock. I think there will be some new ACDs coming soon and the Dells seem quite tempting at the moment.
Why has is dropped by $100 in the US and got better specs? o well, maybe they being lazy to update it or get rid of old stock. I think there will be some new ACDs coming soon and the Dells seem quite tempting at the moment.
more...
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 5, 03:10 PM
At first I was so excited that this was free!!
I DLed and found out it's ad supported.
Dumb, 1 star :mad: Where's the $1 in app purchase to remove the ads?
:p
I DLed and found out it's ad supported.
Dumb, 1 star :mad: Where's the $1 in app purchase to remove the ads?
:p
RebeccaL
Apr 30, 07:28 AM
I hope they go back to the rounded buttons. The new square ones are too windows-like. Also that new iCal interface looks like crap.
ThE.MeSsEnGeR
Apr 25, 11:54 AM
I don't know but I have a feeling that after all those crazy rumors we ARE gonna see the iPhone 5/4S getting introduced in WWDC in 42 days! it's just too many iPhone-related rumors for a supposedly "september" release... I mean, we don't start hearing about next-gen iPod touch/nano rumors until mid-summer... and April/May has always been the peak of the iPhone-rumor-mill!
it might be just me, but I think I'll be reviving this thread in 42 days to prove that I'm right :D
it might be just me, but I think I'll be reviving this thread in 42 days to prove that I'm right :D
lordonuthin
Apr 27, 09:34 PM
heck, you know there's a motherboard out there that can hold 2 x i7 980x for $600 i think. now that would be awesome - but just 2 processors and motherboard would cost over $2600
I thought about that, getting one cpu now and getting another one down the road, but the board was only $200 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128423) in this case maybe 2 systems would be better than one - if I get another one down the road or if Apple EVER gets around to making a new Mac Pro :rolleyes:
I thought about that, getting one cpu now and getting another one down the road, but the board was only $200 (http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16813128423) in this case maybe 2 systems would be better than one - if I get another one down the road or if Apple EVER gets around to making a new Mac Pro :rolleyes:
GoKyu
Apr 12, 08:00 AM
The price of office is built into the price of the computer, just as the price of iLife is built into the price of a mac - standard accounting practice. You're really not getting iLife for free just like you're not getting office for free.
I think the last version of Office that actually shipped "free" (full version) with PCs was Office 2003. Unless a third party like Dell allows you to purchase it when you're ordering a custom machine, you don't get Office for free anymore.
Retail purchasing (which is how a LOT of people buy computers) for Office 2010 is: You now get what's called "Office 2010 Starter (http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx)" - Word & Excel. Both are no longer time-limited, BUT are now feature-limited and ad-supported (ads rotate every 45 seconds.) You no longer get Powerpoint at all, and of course they aren't gonna give you Outlook for free (that's what makes you upgrade from "Home & Student" to "Home & Business" or "Professional".)
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
I think the last version of Office that actually shipped "free" (full version) with PCs was Office 2003. Unless a third party like Dell allows you to purchase it when you're ordering a custom machine, you don't get Office for free anymore.
Retail purchasing (which is how a LOT of people buy computers) for Office 2010 is: You now get what's called "Office 2010 Starter (http://www.microsoft.com/oem/en/products/office/pages/office_2010_starter.aspx)" - Word & Excel. Both are no longer time-limited, BUT are now feature-limited and ad-supported (ads rotate every 45 seconds.) You no longer get Powerpoint at all, and of course they aren't gonna give you Outlook for free (that's what makes you upgrade from "Home & Student" to "Home & Business" or "Professional".)
The image below is directly out of Microsoft's retail training, where they tell you explicitly that Office does NOT come pre-loaded (but customers assume it does.)
kdarling
Mar 28, 10:37 PM
And please.... don't cry about the 30% margin... it's so freak'n fair by all software distribution practices that is not a reason for any developer not to want to use the AppStore as a channel.
30% is very good if you usually went through others.
If you sell the software yourself online, it's not an attractive deal. A big example was the delay in getting Slingplayer on iOS devices. They could not have been happy about losing $10 per each of tens or hundreds of thousands of downloads.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
Sure, but the point is that this isn't a new award. It's been going on for years and yet suddenly has this requirement that is blatantly geared towards rewarding only those who also give royalties to Apple.
It's their right to do so, but greed is not pretty to watch in any case.
30% is very good if you usually went through others.
If you sell the software yourself online, it's not an attractive deal. A big example was the delay in getting Slingplayer on iOS devices. They could not have been happy about losing $10 per each of tens or hundreds of thousands of downloads.
Obviously, Apple is trying to encourage more Apps to get on iTunes or in the App store. Nothing wrong with that.
Sure, but the point is that this isn't a new award. It's been going on for years and yet suddenly has this requirement that is blatantly geared towards rewarding only those who also give royalties to Apple.
It's their right to do so, but greed is not pretty to watch in any case.
LagunaSol
Apr 25, 12:19 PM
Would love a larger screen if they can maintain the same body size. I have no interest in something like the giant PDA-sized Android phones.
garry12
Jan 10, 05:27 PM
But seriously ANY Australian will tell you that Telstra is rubbish.
I live in Australia and am on the Next G network and, to be honest, it's very disappointing. Coverage drops in and out even in very built up areas. I can't comment very much about the internet because I try to avoid using it as much as I can due to the insane amount of money Telstra charges.
Hopefully Telstra introduce this at a reasonable price. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was between $600 - $700.
I live in Australia and am on the Next G network and, to be honest, it's very disappointing. Coverage drops in and out even in very built up areas. I can't comment very much about the internet because I try to avoid using it as much as I can due to the insane amount of money Telstra charges.
Hopefully Telstra introduce this at a reasonable price. But, I wouldn't be surprised if it was between $600 - $700.