LightSpeed1
Apr 13, 12:30 PM
Why not get a mini displayport straight to DVI cable? I never understood the use of an adapter. Maybe someone can shed some light?To be completely honest, I didn't look into such a cable. I knew about the adapter and assumed that was the only option.
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?
t-man
Apr 25, 08:16 PM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
Sun Baked
Aug 3, 07:36 PM
The Volt should sell for no more than $20,000. What a ripoff!!!!
It is going to sell for that much above MSRP, according to some dealers.
So expect to fork out 50-60k for a Volt the first 6-18 months.
It is the new New Beetle, Mini, Mercedes SLK, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Smart Car, etc. which all had some markups the first year.
It is going to sell for that much above MSRP, according to some dealers.
So expect to fork out 50-60k for a Volt the first 6-18 months.
It is the new New Beetle, Mini, Mercedes SLK, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Smart Car, etc. which all had some markups the first year.
applefanDrew
Apr 25, 12:00 PM
Doesn't the status bar look taller? I remember a thread on here talking about how they overheard engineers discussing iOS 5 and that was one of the things that would be different. It was going to allow for an SBSettings type of thing and maybe a place for notifications to scroll? Anyways, cool. But I think this is fake.
SPEEDwithJJ
Mar 17, 12:49 AM
I am a reward zone member, the receipt said I paid $530.00 cash.
Haha. Congrats then. :) It looks like you won the lottery at BestBuy! :D
Haha. Congrats then. :) It looks like you won the lottery at BestBuy! :D
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
brianus
Oct 17, 03:01 PM
Yes, it's appalling.. ;)
Oh, well, every time I hear someone say they can't see the difference between a standard DVD and an HD-DVD/BluRay disc when shown on a proper 1080p display, I cringe. Perhaps they need to just buy the 25" TV for $200 along with a $25 DVD player, take the money they save and get some laser eye surgery. :D
Actually, with my new HD set up, most family and friends that see it in action are usually awed by it. I have several friends and neighbors that continuously invite themselves over for monday night football and other events. Most of them think it's pretty cool, but would never spend that kind of money on their home theatre setup (I don't think I spent that much, the TV accounted for over half of everything and it was $3600). A couple of them in the past few months though didn't balk at the price and they went and bought one too...
But yeah, I'm an "-ophile" when it comes to audio and video. I don't really fit in with the rest of my family. I have an uncle that's only about 10 years older than me and I let him have a left-over 20" TV when I moved. I told him it's a nice set - only about 3 years old. His only concern was "is it color?".
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
My wife tells me that I'm insane... She's probably right, but what do I care. :D
Well, my dad's the same way with audio. He's a professional sound engineer, so it stands to reason -- he's still got a huge stack of DAT tapes next to the computer. No DVD-Audio though; you just can't find it much anymore.
If most folks not only don't have the knowledge or interest, they also don't have the kind of money to invest in these kinds of hi-def technologies in their early, expensive years (for HD that includes, of course, the enormous televisions required to really get anything from the higher definition). By the time this stuff comes down in price and is more readily available, SD downloads will be more common.
I suppose working in the HD formats' favor is the coming of HDTV, which will be the standard whether we like it or not. Sooner or later DVD-9 will *have* to be superceded by something in a high definition format, else the stuff we download or buy will be crappier looking than the stuff we can watch for free. And, of course, in the mean time the discs themselves will be extremely useful for some types of data storage. I eagerly await the day when, in my job, I can archive a TB of files to eight 200GB Blu-Rays instead of 200-odd DVD-Rs, and I'm sure many small/medium businesses do too.
Oh, well, every time I hear someone say they can't see the difference between a standard DVD and an HD-DVD/BluRay disc when shown on a proper 1080p display, I cringe. Perhaps they need to just buy the 25" TV for $200 along with a $25 DVD player, take the money they save and get some laser eye surgery. :D
Actually, with my new HD set up, most family and friends that see it in action are usually awed by it. I have several friends and neighbors that continuously invite themselves over for monday night football and other events. Most of them think it's pretty cool, but would never spend that kind of money on their home theatre setup (I don't think I spent that much, the TV accounted for over half of everything and it was $3600). A couple of them in the past few months though didn't balk at the price and they went and bought one too...
But yeah, I'm an "-ophile" when it comes to audio and video. I don't really fit in with the rest of my family. I have an uncle that's only about 10 years older than me and I let him have a left-over 20" TV when I moved. I told him it's a nice set - only about 3 years old. His only concern was "is it color?".
I know I'm the minority around here when I say this, but I don't own an iPod. :eek: Yeah, it's true... I personally don't care for the MP3 format and the lesser quality offerings of iTunes. If it isn't at least CD quality, uncompressed, I don't want it. And yes, I can hear the difference on my sound system which is a separate setup from my home theatre.
My wife tells me that I'm insane... She's probably right, but what do I care. :D
Well, my dad's the same way with audio. He's a professional sound engineer, so it stands to reason -- he's still got a huge stack of DAT tapes next to the computer. No DVD-Audio though; you just can't find it much anymore.
If most folks not only don't have the knowledge or interest, they also don't have the kind of money to invest in these kinds of hi-def technologies in their early, expensive years (for HD that includes, of course, the enormous televisions required to really get anything from the higher definition). By the time this stuff comes down in price and is more readily available, SD downloads will be more common.
I suppose working in the HD formats' favor is the coming of HDTV, which will be the standard whether we like it or not. Sooner or later DVD-9 will *have* to be superceded by something in a high definition format, else the stuff we download or buy will be crappier looking than the stuff we can watch for free. And, of course, in the mean time the discs themselves will be extremely useful for some types of data storage. I eagerly await the day when, in my job, I can archive a TB of files to eight 200GB Blu-Rays instead of 200-odd DVD-Rs, and I'm sure many small/medium businesses do too.
kasei
Sep 12, 12:57 AM
Damn! I have jury duty so I am going to miss everything!
tophergt
Oct 19, 04:54 PM
We're talking about hardware here, not OS. So Vista should have very little effect on Apple's PC marketshare, unless of course Vista's release encourages people to buy new PCs from Dell, HP, etc.
Yeah, that was my point--if there is an imminent OS release, there exists a significant number of consumers who will wait so that they can get Vista for "free." Same concept as not purchasing that iMac or MacBook in mid-march when you know that 10.5 will be out in a month.
Yeah, that was my point--if there is an imminent OS release, there exists a significant number of consumers who will wait so that they can get Vista for "free." Same concept as not purchasing that iMac or MacBook in mid-march when you know that 10.5 will be out in a month.
JTR7
Oct 4, 10:01 AM
And I recognize this awful trend, the trend of overindulgence and unnecessary opulence. That's why I'm an architecture major, to hopefully convince people like you waste is not the best option, even if you can afford it. The best spaces are often the most well designed small spaces. Clearly, you have never experienced this.
Clearly you have never experienced 4 screaming kids trying to use the same bathroom in the morning while getting ready for school. You seem to be emphasizing form over function. And who defines "overindulgence" and "unnecessary opulence"? Personally, I find that what I want to do with my hard earned cash is the perfect amount of "indulgence".
Clearly you have never experienced 4 screaming kids trying to use the same bathroom in the morning while getting ready for school. You seem to be emphasizing form over function. And who defines "overindulgence" and "unnecessary opulence"? Personally, I find that what I want to do with my hard earned cash is the perfect amount of "indulgence".
sevimli
May 3, 09:33 PM
Well done apple! :apple:
bac4Christ
Nov 17, 12:32 PM
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.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
iShater
Jul 28, 01:44 PM
The Audi A3 clean diesel TDI
It is not a hybrid drive train that uses diesel with an electric, it is a pure diesel car.
It is not a hybrid drive train that uses diesel with an electric, it is a pure diesel car.
vincenz
Apr 15, 05:23 PM
Ah, an English major. Kudos.
How'd you guess?! Is it that obvious?
How'd you guess?! Is it that obvious?
iflipper
Oct 11, 10:10 AM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
I've just bought one, but I bought one in the full knowledge that the 6g may be appearing soon. I've had a true PMP in the past and I just didn't use it, as what I want is primarily a music player with very occasional videos. Unless this has some real killer feature no-one has thought of yet (and I'm including all the wild speculation in this) I will be perfectly happy.
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
I've just bought one, but I bought one in the full knowledge that the 6g may be appearing soon. I've had a true PMP in the past and I just didn't use it, as what I want is primarily a music player with very occasional videos. Unless this has some real killer feature no-one has thought of yet (and I'm including all the wild speculation in this) I will be perfectly happy.
JAT
Apr 8, 01:20 PM
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
Maybe they'll hire some drunk to stand on the corner in an iPad costume like all the tax preparation places do for March-April 15.
Maybe they'll hire some drunk to stand on the corner in an iPad costume like all the tax preparation places do for March-April 15.
TheAshMan
Jul 22, 04:45 PM
What real issues?
Apple are selling iPhones as fast as they can make them.
Aside from a tiny minority on the internet, the avg. joe is out there enjoying and using their new iPhone. If it was a big issue as the media portrayed it, Apple wouldn't be selling a single unit.
You people are funny.
I'm not really sure how to respond if you don't know what the issues are. My main point was the videos are dishonest and Apple has damaged themselves with their response. You disagree?
I agree it is a great phone and that everyone loves it as long as they have good coverage. I don't have the new one, but I have marginal AT&T coverage with my current iPhone. If I had just spent over $2,200 (phone + plan) and lost calls, I would not be happy. I think the response to give away the bumpers and reminding people that they can return them was a good, concrete response so far, but these propaganda videos are laughable and may come back to bite them.
No issue? It was being demonstrated that in marginal signal areas you could have 5 bars and then lose a call if your finger was in the wrong place. Apple immediately realized how bad that was for their brand released a patch that dramatically alters the signal bar on the phone, making them more accurate. They have 18 PhD's working on the antenna technology and they were "shocked"? Please. They knew exactly how their previous calculation distorted reality.
This issue brought it to the forefront. I have seen claims that many phone makers do the same thing, but how come my AT&T Blackberry Bold from work gets 2-3 bars at my house, but the iPhone gets 5? Apple knew it was enough of an issue to call a major press conference, where they discussed and obfuscated the issues.
Most people would use a case anyway, negating the issue for them, but that isn't the point.
Apple are selling iPhones as fast as they can make them.
Aside from a tiny minority on the internet, the avg. joe is out there enjoying and using their new iPhone. If it was a big issue as the media portrayed it, Apple wouldn't be selling a single unit.
You people are funny.
I'm not really sure how to respond if you don't know what the issues are. My main point was the videos are dishonest and Apple has damaged themselves with their response. You disagree?
I agree it is a great phone and that everyone loves it as long as they have good coverage. I don't have the new one, but I have marginal AT&T coverage with my current iPhone. If I had just spent over $2,200 (phone + plan) and lost calls, I would not be happy. I think the response to give away the bumpers and reminding people that they can return them was a good, concrete response so far, but these propaganda videos are laughable and may come back to bite them.
No issue? It was being demonstrated that in marginal signal areas you could have 5 bars and then lose a call if your finger was in the wrong place. Apple immediately realized how bad that was for their brand released a patch that dramatically alters the signal bar on the phone, making them more accurate. They have 18 PhD's working on the antenna technology and they were "shocked"? Please. They knew exactly how their previous calculation distorted reality.
This issue brought it to the forefront. I have seen claims that many phone makers do the same thing, but how come my AT&T Blackberry Bold from work gets 2-3 bars at my house, but the iPhone gets 5? Apple knew it was enough of an issue to call a major press conference, where they discussed and obfuscated the issues.
Most people would use a case anyway, negating the issue for them, but that isn't the point.
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 09:21 PM
Don't you mean "Oh yay, another rip off of Steam, XBLA store, Impulse, Gamersgate, PSN, WiiWare or [insert any of the other app download stores that existed years before any of Apple's download stores]."
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
Hmm?
How quickly they forget, or most likely never knew. Some here think that Apple invented the wheel. :D
Back on topic, I hope that Microsoft listens to their users and lets everyone who want to download the beta and give their feedback. It seems to have worked well for W7.
aznkid25
Jan 15, 10:43 PM
Just imagine in September when Apple has the September ipod keynote, SJ will probably say something like this:"The MBA sales have been average this year, we think we can do better, and we want to make it more affordable for the holiday season, so we will be dropping the price $500 and now it will cost $1300.
GadgetGav
May 2, 02:20 PM
If you cant show the date your full of BS, then again your also free to be naive and excused if crimes where committed by apple
If you can't learn the difference between "your" and "you're", then your [sic] going to have a hard time convincing people of your argument.
If you can't learn the difference between "your" and "you're", then your [sic] going to have a hard time convincing people of your argument.
GadgetGav
May 2, 10:07 AM
I find it hilarious that Steve Jobs claimed Apple was not tracking users, but now all of a sudden we find Location tracking being completely removed from this version of iOS, that is honestly something that annoyes me..
I find it hilarious that people can't grasp which way the data was going in this story. The cached database was an excerpt sent TO your phone FROM Apple so that the phone could calculate it's position faster.
The database at Apple was 'crowd sourced' and you opted in to that when you clicked on 'Accept' in the SLA, but that was a twice-per-day, anonymous, encrypted data packet sent back to HQ.
This update is going to clean the cache (something that could very easily be not done now due to a bug) and not accept this file at all if you have Location Services turned off. I bet it won't take long for the same people who were up in arms about this to start complaining about how this "so-called update makes my phone really slow when using Google Maps" or some other such complaint.
I find it hilarious that people can't grasp which way the data was going in this story. The cached database was an excerpt sent TO your phone FROM Apple so that the phone could calculate it's position faster.
The database at Apple was 'crowd sourced' and you opted in to that when you clicked on 'Accept' in the SLA, but that was a twice-per-day, anonymous, encrypted data packet sent back to HQ.
This update is going to clean the cache (something that could very easily be not done now due to a bug) and not accept this file at all if you have Location Services turned off. I bet it won't take long for the same people who were up in arms about this to start complaining about how this "so-called update makes my phone really slow when using Google Maps" or some other such complaint.
aristobrat
Oct 6, 10:39 AM
Are you telling me that Verizon got 4 times worse over the last year too?? This is the first I've heard of that.
I don't think there's any arguing that Verizon has the most stable 3G network, but the biggest question is, if they do get the iPhone, can Verizon's 3G network maintain the same quality with a quick influx of a few million iPhone users?
I don't think there's any arguing that Verizon has the most stable 3G network, but the biggest question is, if they do get the iPhone, can Verizon's 3G network maintain the same quality with a quick influx of a few million iPhone users?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét