swagi
Apr 13, 04:30 PM
Apple won't sell a suite (there are no suites in the App Store). Look at iWork - just individual apps for purchase. They'll probably charge $299 for FCP and $99/each for the other apps, or have it all rolled up into Final Cut Pro.
I just wonder if there is any upgrade pricing strategy. No matter what - $299 is A STEAL!
I just wonder if there is any upgrade pricing strategy. No matter what - $299 is A STEAL!
Eraserhead
Mar 29, 02:42 PM
Yep, poor ole' Saddam, just an innocent bystander. :rolleyes:
A well written statement on Obama's illegal war.
Pure partisanship is boring. Stop it.
A well written statement on Obama's illegal war.
Pure partisanship is boring. Stop it.
Edge100
Jan 15, 09:58 AM
I was waiting for the 'we've licensed the Beatles' announcement after he'd played some of their songs as well. Though thinking about it, that would be done at a separate announcement, when Apple need some easy pr.
I agree; it was a teaser. I think everyone was expecting the announcement, and playing The Beatles during the keynote got everyone excited.
But this clearly deserves its own event. Also, 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the CD releases, and the 40th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper. These are both big milestones, and both Apples will want to capitalize on it. I don't think it was coincidence that they played a track from Sgt. Pepper (Lovely Rita was it? I haven't seen the keynote). Look for an announcement in the near future, followed by a release (of at least Sgt. Pepper) on June 1, which is the 40th anniversary date.
In addition to downloads, I'd also really like to see upgraded CD (or even surround) releases of the UK albums.
I agree; it was a teaser. I think everyone was expecting the announcement, and playing The Beatles during the keynote got everyone excited.
But this clearly deserves its own event. Also, 2007 is the 20th anniversary of the CD releases, and the 40th anniversary of the release of Sgt. Pepper. These are both big milestones, and both Apples will want to capitalize on it. I don't think it was coincidence that they played a track from Sgt. Pepper (Lovely Rita was it? I haven't seen the keynote). Look for an announcement in the near future, followed by a release (of at least Sgt. Pepper) on June 1, which is the 40th anniversary date.
In addition to downloads, I'd also really like to see upgraded CD (or even surround) releases of the UK albums.
entatlrg
Apr 12, 11:56 AM
If they build it from scratch, they could probably design the place with working conditions that don't make people as suicidal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104449&referrerid=51132).
Your post meets the definition of ignorance. :rolleyes:
Your post meets the definition of ignorance. :rolleyes:
BreuerEditor
Mar 25, 12:22 PM
Pretty quick response to fixing the issue with 4th gen iPod Touches. Was getting really annoying. :)
likemyorbs
Apr 26, 01:55 PM
Why is that? I would see both options as equally lousy.
They are both lousy, but trailer parks are safer. People may get into domestic disputes in their own trailers and call the police, but you don't see white gangs terrorizing the streets and having to worry about getting shot walking outside your front door after dark.
They are both lousy, but trailer parks are safer. People may get into domestic disputes in their own trailers and call the police, but you don't see white gangs terrorizing the streets and having to worry about getting shot walking outside your front door after dark.
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Dont Hurt Me
Sep 1, 06:33 PM
Retail price for Vista Blows, my next system will be a Mac. Windows is like a generic copy of OS9 Made in China, Im sure Vista will be the same.
Robtastic
Aug 8, 02:56 AM
Although some will argue this, I think the exclusion of the remote on the Mac Pro is because it will be on the new displays that will most likely come out in January... I would also expect the new displays to have iSight's built in... clearly this is something Apple is heavily pushing and I think you'll see this across the line... I can't see Apple updating the actual iSight (note in the Keynote he said the new version in Leopard will support MANY new kinds of cameras)... I think you'll see Apple leave the 'external' camera options to third party developers or simply just encourage people without Sights to use FW camcorders... besides, what good would an IR receiver be on the tower for those who put it on the floor...
Overall, the Pro's are amazing (except will need to wait for PS CS3) and the Leopard demo was, at points, jaw dropping... I second one of the previous posters at awesome MacWorld is going to be in January... it will be quite a show...
Overall, the Pro's are amazing (except will need to wait for PS CS3) and the Leopard demo was, at points, jaw dropping... I second one of the previous posters at awesome MacWorld is going to be in January... it will be quite a show...
scottlinux
Nov 6, 11:12 PM
eh. I'm waiting for the 8-core macbook.
Thunderhawks
Apr 12, 12:06 PM
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)
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
With all the hoops and regulations that plant would not be ready in our life time!
dongmin
Jan 11, 01:24 PM
possibilities:
1. Airport Express 2.0 with support for video streaming or (Airtunes 2.0)
2. Wireless AppleTV
3. WiMax or 3G integrated with new MacBooks
4. Slingbox to iPhone (as already rumored)
5. Some sort of iTunes integration with in-flight entertainment
6. Super-light MacBooks
1. Airport Express 2.0 with support for video streaming or (Airtunes 2.0)
2. Wireless AppleTV
3. WiMax or 3G integrated with new MacBooks
4. Slingbox to iPhone (as already rumored)
5. Some sort of iTunes integration with in-flight entertainment
6. Super-light MacBooks
SuperCachetes
Mar 10, 11:05 PM
No it will not as I do not support cutting back on the Military ...
You're in Canada? And you don't support the United States cutting back? Would you like anything else? May I bring you a comfy pillow to prop your feet upon, and a little something from Tim Horton's?
My point was, how 'bout if the USA reduces its military spending to $1 less than the Canadian military budget? Then the Canucks are the badasses, and we Yanks fall in line with the rest of the world. Everybody's happy.
You're in Canada? And you don't support the United States cutting back? Would you like anything else? May I bring you a comfy pillow to prop your feet upon, and a little something from Tim Horton's?
My point was, how 'bout if the USA reduces its military spending to $1 less than the Canadian military budget? Then the Canucks are the badasses, and we Yanks fall in line with the rest of the world. Everybody's happy.
jvjava
Mar 25, 01:04 PM
FYI--I have my Itunes media folder on my time capsule, when I upgraded to iOS 4.3 and now 4.3.1 it changed the media folder to the default itunes folder on my hard drive in my MBP. It happened with each update and caused some syncing problems...
firewood
Apr 2, 12:56 AM
Android Phone Specs are out pacing the Iphone. An 8 Megapixel camera, bigger screen and more memory will keep me buying.
The competition hasn't learned that a huge portion of actual customers don't buy cell phones based on these kinds of hardware specs. And there's not enough money (bottom-line profit) in catering to those fewer customers who do care.
The competition hasn't learned that a huge portion of actual customers don't buy cell phones based on these kinds of hardware specs. And there's not enough money (bottom-line profit) in catering to those fewer customers who do care.
roadbloc
Mar 18, 05:41 PM
For the sweet love of God Apple, NO!
tribulation
Sep 23, 07:43 PM
I just noticed that on the Walmart.com site it says you can't buy iPods online - has this always been the case? Also on their front page is a big ad for the Zune that says "Get Zune at Walmart as soon as its released". What's this all about? Have they always not had ipods available online? I have no idea...but could be a clue.
paja
Apr 17, 04:19 PM
Toys R' Us?
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
I find it kind of embarrassing that Apple is choosing this as an outlet.
~Shard~
Sep 6, 09:36 AM
Oh come on! :D Heee.... I was thinking the 1080i/p resolution might be a hint of what's to come on the 12th :) :cool:
Yeah, it definitely would be a great machine to watch HD movies on from the new iTMS Movie Store. And after that, combined with Leopard's as-yet-unannounced super-secret built-in Media Center technology, the next iMac revision will see 30" displays with built-in TV tuners, HDMI, etc. :eek: :D
It's showtime!!! :cool:
Yeah, it definitely would be a great machine to watch HD movies on from the new iTMS Movie Store. And after that, combined with Leopard's as-yet-unannounced super-secret built-in Media Center technology, the next iMac revision will see 30" displays with built-in TV tuners, HDMI, etc. :eek: :D
It's showtime!!! :cool:
rainydays
Nov 7, 10:42 AM
The MacBook doesn't need a Core 2 Duo processor. Apple needs to leave a gap between the MacBook and the MacBook Pro.
There's still quite a big difference between the MB and the MBP even if they both have C2D processors.
CPU speed isn't the only thing to care about you know.
There's still quite a big difference between the MB and the MBP even if they both have C2D processors.
CPU speed isn't the only thing to care about you know.
Kimbie
Oct 13, 03:15 PM
If you're getting the rid of the Dell monitor, as long as it's still in working condition, let me know� I'm interested :D
Hi,
Yeah its still in good working order, only got the 24" Samsung to replace my other 2001FP as I dropped it
Kimbie
Hi,
Yeah its still in good working order, only got the 24" Samsung to replace my other 2001FP as I dropped it
Kimbie
gkarris
Mar 22, 11:31 AM
If you have shared responsibilities e.g. to send the kids to school (not realy cheap where I am), which takes a consierablen slap out of the salary, certain purchases might not be considered really important/essential for the family's well-being by the significant other (compared to lets sayspending the money for new clothes for the kid or a family trip). I still do it but tell her after the fact with a good justification (if possible). Works most of the time (and I am screwed if it doesn't).
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
Here we go with the "You said this, so you must be this..." stereotype... :rolleyes:
I know guys where even though they are the "bread winner" or contribute greatly to the funds, they have to approve EVERYTHING through the Wife - whereas the Wife can spend as she pleases....
Happy Wife, Happy Life... :eek:
Not into that type of relationship.
I take it you are not married or in a serious long term relationship...?
Here we go with the "You said this, so you must be this..." stereotype... :rolleyes:
I know guys where even though they are the "bread winner" or contribute greatly to the funds, they have to approve EVERYTHING through the Wife - whereas the Wife can spend as she pleases....
Happy Wife, Happy Life... :eek:
Not into that type of relationship.
MacBoobsPro
Aug 8, 10:09 AM
I have to descent from the mass and say I was not impressed by the Keynote. What the hell is with Safari still having the brushed metal interface, as well as the finder, etc...
I thought they were finally going to get rid of that and get some consistency in their GUI. :mad:
Overall, I am much more interested in the developers. When is OS X going to be more than a different OS and get some key native applications? Apple continues to lead the show, as they should, but they should take a hint from Microsoft and promote their developers more. Like it or not, it's not Apple, but ultimately their developers that will grow the platform.
Steve really should have pressed the developers to commit on stage to release dates...if that was possible. Microsoft should have been present to provide some information in regards to the next version of Office and its time frame for release.
How can he press them for release times when they haven't even got their hands on the new Developer kit?
Also its up to the developers i.e. Adobe et al to get the key native apps out the door. Apple is doing everything it can to help them. i.e. Xcode 2.x, hands on labs etc. Thats what WWDC is for.
I thought they were finally going to get rid of that and get some consistency in their GUI. :mad:
Overall, I am much more interested in the developers. When is OS X going to be more than a different OS and get some key native applications? Apple continues to lead the show, as they should, but they should take a hint from Microsoft and promote their developers more. Like it or not, it's not Apple, but ultimately their developers that will grow the platform.
Steve really should have pressed the developers to commit on stage to release dates...if that was possible. Microsoft should have been present to provide some information in regards to the next version of Office and its time frame for release.
How can he press them for release times when they haven't even got their hands on the new Developer kit?
Also its up to the developers i.e. Adobe et al to get the key native apps out the door. Apple is doing everything it can to help them. i.e. Xcode 2.x, hands on labs etc. Thats what WWDC is for.
barkomatic
Apr 4, 02:59 PM
A child does not naturally grow up to be socially responsible or kind. They naturally grow up to be self-centered and violent unless a parent or authority teaches them otherwise.
As negative as I think religion can be, it has set a code of conduct for people that enables cooperation and empathy for others. Although we don't need religion to teach people morals, we need some agreed upon code of conduct.
You might say that the laws of a country serve that purpose, but they don't. They are simply rules everyone must follow and any despotic ruler can set awful laws that can hurt people. Therefore, the code of conduct has to be separate from the law.
If atheism has any future, its needs some type of unified, agreed upon code.
As negative as I think religion can be, it has set a code of conduct for people that enables cooperation and empathy for others. Although we don't need religion to teach people morals, we need some agreed upon code of conduct.
You might say that the laws of a country serve that purpose, but they don't. They are simply rules everyone must follow and any despotic ruler can set awful laws that can hurt people. Therefore, the code of conduct has to be separate from the law.
If atheism has any future, its needs some type of unified, agreed upon code.
No comments:
Post a Comment