Steve121178
Apr 20, 11:03 AM
Indeed. You couldn't dumb down that statement if you tried.
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
How is the coffee?
Go hang at dailykos.com. Macrumors appears to be above your pay-grade.
How is the coffee?
AppliedVisual
Oct 27, 12:00 PM
People don't understand what freedoms truly are. It doesn't mean you get to say and do whatever you want wherever you want - that's anarchy, and anarchy is bad... unless you're the biggest, strongest and most brutal. Freedom of speech really means you can't be jailed or otherwise punished by the government for saying what you want in a pulic arena.
Thank you! I was going to say the same thing... In general, people are clueless and often whine about censorship and how free speech is a thing of the past. What most don't realize is that we have more freedom of speech now then ever before. The key is free speech laws (as you stated) apply within a public domain - always have. What many (even most) fail to grasp is what is truly public grounds. As bitfactory noted "... and who thought shopping malls were public places? WTH? Honestly.", that is so true. I think many people fail to grasp that just because the general public is allowed inside an area does not make it a "public place".
Thank you! I was going to say the same thing... In general, people are clueless and often whine about censorship and how free speech is a thing of the past. What most don't realize is that we have more freedom of speech now then ever before. The key is free speech laws (as you stated) apply within a public domain - always have. What many (even most) fail to grasp is what is truly public grounds. As bitfactory noted "... and who thought shopping malls were public places? WTH? Honestly.", that is so true. I think many people fail to grasp that just because the general public is allowed inside an area does not make it a "public place".
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 11:36 AM
I'm well aware of that, but many here have no idea that Samsung is much bigger than Apple.
Every time I hear someone say, "Apple should buy Samsung" it just really solidifies in my mind that a lot of people here are in fact just mindless drones to the Apple logo. Another thing people forget is that Samsung makes the chips technology that Apple assembles into a pretty little package and re-brands "iPhone/iPad"
Every time I hear someone say, "Apple should buy Samsung" it just really solidifies in my mind that a lot of people here are in fact just mindless drones to the Apple logo. Another thing people forget is that Samsung makes the chips technology that Apple assembles into a pretty little package and re-brands "iPhone/iPad"
peeInMyPantz
Sep 13, 11:41 PM
i think iphone will have aluminium surface to match the new ipods. maybe same colour combi?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 05:43 PM
This is really little more than a bookkeeping trick. The books will now report that Apple bought something for $100 million, something they thought they already owned. It's still the same dollar figure, no matter where the accountants put it in the books. The way I understand it, in theory at least, Apple could generate some revenue from this "asset" if Creative obtains more licenses. I'll believe it when I see it. I'm betting we never do see it.
It may be a bookkeeping trick, but it's considered part of Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). The IRS and the SEC certainly doesn't have problem with it and ammorization is actually encouraged. Apple used the same method to record the $250 million cash investment in flash memory plants last year, as well as the $400 million it is setting aside for the new Cupertino campus. Neither of those big cash outlays really affected their profit recording.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
Well, despite my strong opinions, I have to again agree with you that only time will tell who was the real winner here.
My predictions are
1) Microsoft gets hit with a patent infringement lawsuit and settles rather quickly and
2) Creative exits the player business because it will be squeezed by the iPod and Zune from above, and Sandisk and iRiver from below. The field will just be too crowded with Zune. Because no matter how much money Zune will lose in the first few years, Microsoft will no doubt keep it afloat rather than cede defeat in this space. That might help Zune to take away some share away from the iPod eventually, but not before Zune eats the bulk of Creative's and Sandisk's share first. Creative has to be thinking about whether continuing to pour R&D and marketing into players is worth it with Microsoft competing directly against them. My guess it they'll bail as soon as they are able.
But again, only time will tell. :)
It may be a bookkeeping trick, but it's considered part of Generally Accepted Accounting Procedures (GAAP). The IRS and the SEC certainly doesn't have problem with it and ammorization is actually encouraged. Apple used the same method to record the $250 million cash investment in flash memory plants last year, as well as the $400 million it is setting aside for the new Cupertino campus. Neither of those big cash outlays really affected their profit recording.
The Microsoft Zune possibilities are interesting. We haven't seen the Zune interface yet, but you can be sure Creative is going to be taking a good, hard look at the device when it finally surfaces (sometime during this decade, almost without a doubt). We'll just have to wait and see. We'll also have to wait and see if Creative dumps their DMP business. If any of these events occur, I'm prepared to change my opinion about this settlement.
Well, despite my strong opinions, I have to again agree with you that only time will tell who was the real winner here.
My predictions are
1) Microsoft gets hit with a patent infringement lawsuit and settles rather quickly and
2) Creative exits the player business because it will be squeezed by the iPod and Zune from above, and Sandisk and iRiver from below. The field will just be too crowded with Zune. Because no matter how much money Zune will lose in the first few years, Microsoft will no doubt keep it afloat rather than cede defeat in this space. That might help Zune to take away some share away from the iPod eventually, but not before Zune eats the bulk of Creative's and Sandisk's share first. Creative has to be thinking about whether continuing to pour R&D and marketing into players is worth it with Microsoft competing directly against them. My guess it they'll bail as soon as they are able.
But again, only time will tell. :)
dwman
Apr 4, 11:54 AM
The security guard just saved CA taxpayers a nice chunk of change.
billyboy
Sep 17, 07:28 AM
:/
...the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
Within the US, innovate or die, and elegant solutions to technology seem to be a purely Apple idea. US cell phones and cars, to name but two, seem to be archaic in design and function compared to elsewhere in the world. With that latest gold trimmed Cadillac SUV the size of a small bus and a 1980´s flip up phone, the US is all set to lead the way to retro.
...the US which, sure, adopted cell phone use, but the landline service infrastructure that was already in palce held them back-why shell out for new tech when we can plug the old tech and rake in the money. It's funny, the US initial lead actually turned to a disadvantage for them (us).
Europe is so far ahead of the US in what and how cell phone technolgy is used.
Within the US, innovate or die, and elegant solutions to technology seem to be a purely Apple idea. US cell phones and cars, to name but two, seem to be archaic in design and function compared to elsewhere in the world. With that latest gold trimmed Cadillac SUV the size of a small bus and a 1980´s flip up phone, the US is all set to lead the way to retro.
IntelliUser
Apr 11, 12:19 AM
Which is why the US
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-United-States_10Rank.html
and Sweden
http://www.forbes.com/lists/2010/18/global-2000-10_The-Global-2000-Sweden_10Rank.html
kresh
Sep 6, 05:33 AM
although i dont know enough about the bittorrent protocol to fully understand the effects of prioritizing consecutive pieces.
I think you just hit on why you can't watching streaming video with Bittorrent.
I think you just hit on why you can't watching streaming video with Bittorrent.
donlphi
Sep 5, 04:49 PM
isn't the resolution going to be terrible. I don't see these movie downloads working with a hi-def TV. The television shows are pretty pathetic on my old 42" panasonic. 320x240 is going to look terrible on a beautiful sony 1080p television...
this whole idea sounds like a lose lose situation.
You are going to be transfering these choppy looking movies, which will look great on the current ipod video, but lame as heck on a any screen larger than 5 inches.
what's the point? Who wants to buy that? I'd rather rent a movie from netflix or if I really like it, buy the movie at best buy and rip it onto my hard drive, and drop it into my iPOD and watch it later.
I hope there is more than just a new VCR or DVD player.
How about an on demand service through the device, which lets you watch it for one price or copy a lower resolution version of it to your iPOD for another price.
I don't know, but it seems like we are barking up the wrong tree.
Bring on the new processors for the macbook pro!
this whole idea sounds like a lose lose situation.
You are going to be transfering these choppy looking movies, which will look great on the current ipod video, but lame as heck on a any screen larger than 5 inches.
what's the point? Who wants to buy that? I'd rather rent a movie from netflix or if I really like it, buy the movie at best buy and rip it onto my hard drive, and drop it into my iPOD and watch it later.
I hope there is more than just a new VCR or DVD player.
How about an on demand service through the device, which lets you watch it for one price or copy a lower resolution version of it to your iPOD for another price.
I don't know, but it seems like we are barking up the wrong tree.
Bring on the new processors for the macbook pro!
marting
Mar 29, 02:30 PM
Are you suggesting that an internationally respected technology analysis firm might have more of a clue than the fans on MacRumours?
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
I think he is. Too bad IDC isn't one of them.
bitWrangler
Mar 30, 11:38 AM
I would think that the decision isn't necessarily the "generic-ness" of the term "App Store", rather the real test (IMHO IANAL) is the pervasiveness of the term before Apple decided to brand their product as such. While it may be simple to say "well heck, it's an app store, of course they'd call it the app store". One could argue that apps (short for applications) has been around forever. The word "store" and it's meaning as well. However, given that the two terms are common and the function of the store is not unique, that no one up until this point has used the term generically (note use of the term, not necessarily that someone has actually tried to apply it to a business) shows that the combination of the two terms in this context is indeed unique.
At least that would be my argument :)
At least that would be my argument :)
ls1dreams
Apr 25, 04:48 PM
I've been holding out to buy a mac for a long time.
I'm currently using one that my work purchased for me, but am not sure that I could justify buying one on my own just yet.
The buying guide here shows an average of 215 days between releases. However, the latest release was something like 300+ days, so time seems to be increasing.
That said, a new release would be due between late september and mid december.
My guess is that this revision will be the one that finally pushes me over the edge. Why?
- They will almost certainly fix the stupid sharp edge
- The CPU will be fast enough for anything I need for a long time
- It will be the new generation of chassis
- Ivy bridge for lower heat/power consumption
- Lion will be released. I don't want to pay for that upgrade and I absolutely need resizable windows from all edges.
What worries me the most is:
1. Will the 13.3" get discrete graphics? If yes, I'll buy
2. Will the screen be IPS? Probably not a dealbreaker, but important.
I'm currently using one that my work purchased for me, but am not sure that I could justify buying one on my own just yet.
The buying guide here shows an average of 215 days between releases. However, the latest release was something like 300+ days, so time seems to be increasing.
That said, a new release would be due between late september and mid december.
My guess is that this revision will be the one that finally pushes me over the edge. Why?
- They will almost certainly fix the stupid sharp edge
- The CPU will be fast enough for anything I need for a long time
- It will be the new generation of chassis
- Ivy bridge for lower heat/power consumption
- Lion will be released. I don't want to pay for that upgrade and I absolutely need resizable windows from all edges.
What worries me the most is:
1. Will the 13.3" get discrete graphics? If yes, I'll buy
2. Will the screen be IPS? Probably not a dealbreaker, but important.
NT1440
Apr 10, 09:08 PM
you guys do realize gas is like 9 dollars a gallon in europe right?
And this one random arbitrary fact is relevant....how?
Not to mention that it completely ignores the differences in culture regarding transportation. America is set up with cars being the main type of transport. Most European countries don't have this set up.
Knowing this, you then must acknowledge that many don't have the crazy subsidies we have on gas that gives it the appearance of being cheap, only because at the end stage the price tag is lower.
So, after taking this into consideration, what exactly was the point of this apples to oranges comment? :confused:
And this one random arbitrary fact is relevant....how?
Not to mention that it completely ignores the differences in culture regarding transportation. America is set up with cars being the main type of transport. Most European countries don't have this set up.
Knowing this, you then must acknowledge that many don't have the crazy subsidies we have on gas that gives it the appearance of being cheap, only because at the end stage the price tag is lower.
So, after taking this into consideration, what exactly was the point of this apples to oranges comment? :confused:
MacFly123
Nov 13, 04:40 PM
Why does Apple think it's okay to continually alienate and turn away developers?? :confused: Why do fanboys continue to excuse such incidences? Why aren't people SICK of this kind of behavior from Apple? :mad:
I think there have been some instances where I understand Apple's side of things. But yes, I realize the process really needs to be refined and clear cut. This specific case is very disappointing and Apple needs to apologize and really work things out with them! Apple needs to take strong measures to ensure that they protect the immensely powerful platform they have going for the future!
Go Phil and Eddie, go!
I think there have been some instances where I understand Apple's side of things. But yes, I realize the process really needs to be refined and clear cut. This specific case is very disappointing and Apple needs to apologize and really work things out with them! Apple needs to take strong measures to ensure that they protect the immensely powerful platform they have going for the future!
Go Phil and Eddie, go!
amac4me
Sep 19, 02:51 PM
It's just a matter of time before other movie studios come aboard and offer their movies for download.
inkswamp
Mar 29, 03:27 PM
Perhaps you should spend some time looking at the facts - there are non-Android Linux-based mobile systems out there.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
Not sure what you're on about but the quote implies that Android is not a Linux-based mobile OS which is factually incorrect. I realize it's not a pure Linux but it is very definitely Linux-based (or more specifically derived from the Linux kernel.) It just sounds to me like the author, who differentiates Linux from Android, doesn't understand that.
If you knew that, the IDC comment is spot on.
Not sure what you're on about but the quote implies that Android is not a Linux-based mobile OS which is factually incorrect. I realize it's not a pure Linux but it is very definitely Linux-based (or more specifically derived from the Linux kernel.) It just sounds to me like the author, who differentiates Linux from Android, doesn't understand that.
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.
Lynxpoint
Aug 31, 11:32 PM
I'm thinking of an Apple/Canon merger? I was hoping for a buyout of leica or kodak, but I think a Canon merger might work. We haven't seen any large mergers buyouts since HP/Compaq and something is going to happen soon. Though I don't know if this is true or not Steve Jobs and Canon have had close ties for nearly 15 years and I've noticed this recently with the Canon products being given first priority in there digital/video store. At one time Canon even invested something like $10 million into NEXT. Snapping(excuse the pun) Canon would help with a huge amount of patents and might be easier then starting from scratch with a camera or camcorder.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
Please explain to me how a computer company would benefit from aquiring a camera company because I just don't see it.
johneaston
Apr 22, 03:35 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So this cloud thing will allow me to listen to my music on multiple devices that have an internet connection.
Well I can already listen to my music on my MacBook, iPad and iPhone so why would I want it?
So this cloud thing will allow me to listen to my music on multiple devices that have an internet connection.
Well I can already listen to my music on my MacBook, iPad and iPhone so why would I want it?
Piggie
Apr 22, 05:34 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
orbital
Apr 20, 12:20 PM
Your loosing it wrong
gkarris
Apr 11, 01:11 PM
The US Government bailed out Wall Street and the Auto Industry. Then, they almost shut down themselves... :eek:
The US Government almost couldn't even bail itself out... :eek:
Yes, it is getting worse, you can tell, the media says we are no longer in a recession... ;)
Yes, my friends did find work, but they can barely make ends meet and a 1/2 car ride each way turned into a 1.5 hour car/train/walk each way.
They're not happy... (2 hours extra of commuting for a job where you need to whip out the credit card for essentials like food and gas).
It will definitely be interesting how things will churn out...
The US Government almost couldn't even bail itself out... :eek:
Yes, it is getting worse, you can tell, the media says we are no longer in a recession... ;)
Yes, my friends did find work, but they can barely make ends meet and a 1/2 car ride each way turned into a 1.5 hour car/train/walk each way.
They're not happy... (2 hours extra of commuting for a job where you need to whip out the credit card for essentials like food and gas).
It will definitely be interesting how things will churn out...
Hattig
Mar 29, 12:53 PM
Let's ask yourself this.. they are saying that approx 1 in every 17 people now have a Windows based phone?? Do you know ANYONE that does?? Cause I know hundreds of people who have smartphones and not one of them has a Windows based phone.. major statistical failure!
They must be counting the old Windows Mobile 6.x devices too - a very shaky thing to count as definite wins for WP7 in the future. A lot of those old WP6 devices are corporate, and we all know that corporate phones are moving towards the iPhone or BlackBerry.
They must be counting the old Windows Mobile 6.x devices too - a very shaky thing to count as definite wins for WP7 in the future. A lot of those old WP6 devices are corporate, and we all know that corporate phones are moving towards the iPhone or BlackBerry.
No comments:
Post a Comment