rasmasyean
Mar 18, 06:17 AM
Here's a video on the latest developments in Lybia. The "No Fly Zone" really means, "No Fly for Quadaffi plus Yes Bombing for US and UK".
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42143060#42143060
Is it me, or does war seem kind of rediculous now. :cool:
I mean, I understand the need for "non occupational forces", but this is getting kind of rediculous. It almost seems like it's almost a capitalist motive to demonstrate weapons for sale at every opportunity. :D
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/42143060#42143060
Is it me, or does war seem kind of rediculous now. :cool:
I mean, I understand the need for "non occupational forces", but this is getting kind of rediculous. It almost seems like it's almost a capitalist motive to demonstrate weapons for sale at every opportunity. :D
flopticalcube
Nov 28, 02:32 PM
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
Console sales (http://nexgenwars.com/)
Go Wii!
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
Console sales (http://nexgenwars.com/)
Go Wii!
showtunes
Jan 12, 12:47 AM
Everyone,
Let's just keep it simple. Here are the two things that are in the air:
1. WIMAX type wireless for MacBook Pros
2. The ability to sync your iPod and iPhone without a cable
Let's just keep it simple. Here are the two things that are in the air:
1. WIMAX type wireless for MacBook Pros
2. The ability to sync your iPod and iPhone without a cable
tigres
Apr 3, 07:38 AM
I don't have one, however I did like this ad.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
Curious if the same marketing company that does the current ip4 commercials does this one; as many have stated opinions of how terrible it is.
This ad has class, the "if you don't have an iPhone", not so much.
Mlrollin91
Mar 25, 05:43 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)
I knew it didnt support mirroring but thats my bad. I have an iPad 2, but i was told at Apple the hdmi cable won't work with iPad 1. Guess they should read up a little bit.
Their retail and tech support folks are not too familiar with it yet. You have to do some reading to catch that. I tried the Digital AV Adapter with my iPad-1 and it worked for playing movies -- only problem is my HDMI TV does not support HDCP which means it registers as an unauthorized device to playback fairplay movies -- this TV was made when TV's were first starting to get 1 HDMI input -- still I think they should fix that since my Apple TV does not have a problem with that television.
Either way, since I have the Apple TV and AirPlay, I can't see using the adapter for that function.
Yeah that's the reason why I returned my cable. My TV is across the entire room. I would need a 15ft HDMI cable for it to work. But this looks pretty awesome.
I knew it didnt support mirroring but thats my bad. I have an iPad 2, but i was told at Apple the hdmi cable won't work with iPad 1. Guess they should read up a little bit.
Their retail and tech support folks are not too familiar with it yet. You have to do some reading to catch that. I tried the Digital AV Adapter with my iPad-1 and it worked for playing movies -- only problem is my HDMI TV does not support HDCP which means it registers as an unauthorized device to playback fairplay movies -- this TV was made when TV's were first starting to get 1 HDMI input -- still I think they should fix that since my Apple TV does not have a problem with that television.
Either way, since I have the Apple TV and AirPlay, I can't see using the adapter for that function.
Yeah that's the reason why I returned my cable. My TV is across the entire room. I would need a 15ft HDMI cable for it to work. But this looks pretty awesome.
Edge100
Jan 2, 09:42 AM
Sorry if someone else has mentioned this already, but I also expect Apple to announce (if not release) a new version of Logic, either at MWSF or at NAMM, which starts about a week later.
The latter is more likely, since its a music industry event, but one way or another, Logic is due for an upgrade. Seriously!
Perhaps not of interest to everyone, but important for the musicians here...
The latter is more likely, since its a music industry event, but one way or another, Logic is due for an upgrade. Seriously!
Perhaps not of interest to everyone, but important for the musicians here...
bdj21ya
Jan 11, 05:58 PM
I really don't think Apple will come out with external optical drives... That is just too... complicated.
First time I've seen USB called complicated :).
I see what you mean from a design standpoint though, inelegant might be a better word. But it just makes too much sense not to do it. I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
First time I've seen USB called complicated :).
I see what you mean from a design standpoint though, inelegant might be a better word. But it just makes too much sense not to do it. I hardly EVER use my optical drive. Why am I carrying it everywhere I go?
extenet
Apr 1, 12:58 PM
Don't know if anyone mentioned this, but System Profiler has been given a complete overhaul, including detailed-USB hdd details and a refined GUI
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
Laird Knox
Mar 27, 01:38 AM
OH noooos, you gots me theres. ;) It's not exactly easy to takes 'some' of me toys with me, but as a trade off I get an absolutely superior experience on all fronts. There are NO compromises to my controls. I get top notch visuals now that are much better than what can be done on dated consoles like the PS3 and 360, and at a much higher frame rate.
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
Oh yay! These forums attract the angry Microsoft supporters, Android yahoos and now the rabid gamers are feeling insecure. We should all petition Apple to stop making compelling devices!
I have an iPad, I'm getting an iPad 2 for compatibility testing. I have a great phone that's similar to my iPad performance wise -- which I can plug a Wiimote into and play a ton of old games. I have a DS and I'm getting a 3DS.
I have portability for entertainment and there's nothing stoping me from bringing my PC, wheel, etc. to my friend's place, something I've done.
Who care's if the future iPad is up to par with a 360 visually as an example, it will still be subpar compared to my PC now and chances are it will still lack proper inputs.
If I wan to play a casual exploration game, a time killer, something that has fun direct interaction like World of Goo, I'll pull out my iPad. But for racing or any game that just plays better with a mouse, a wheel, a flightstick, and so on, I really can't care that my iPad or any future version is portable, if it makes playing these types of games lame.
Oh yay! These forums attract the angry Microsoft supporters, Android yahoos and now the rabid gamers are feeling insecure. We should all petition Apple to stop making compelling devices!
Silentwave
Sep 6, 05:56 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
probably supply reasons and cost reasons.
if they bumped it to core 2, at least the base model would still have been core duo, the c2d one would have been more expensive, and i'm willing to bet we may see the 1.83 C2D in more than just the 17" imac soon.
LarryC
Feb 24, 09:49 PM
They are exempt from CAFE( since HD's are supposed to be work trucks and all), but they are required to meet the new diesel emissions laws.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
Which I believe are a lot more stringent than in Europe. I don't know if this is true, but I have read that the diesel offerings in Europe would have been approved here just a couple years ago. Those small Ford's in Europe are getting something like 65 MPG.
MacinDoc
Aug 26, 02:44 PM
IDon't worry, the New Form-Factor Conroe Mini-Tower/Home-Theatre Mac� will be here soon. ;)
Wow, Aiden, you sound pretty confident about that. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? (It would make sense, however, to have a mid-range single Conroe-based desktop.)
Wow, Aiden, you sound pretty confident about that. Do you know something that the rest of us don't? (It would make sense, however, to have a mid-range single Conroe-based desktop.)
Yakuza
Nov 24, 09:21 AM
Even more awesome is that's the brainchild of Dan Akroyd.
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
ahh now i understand it.
i went like, whaatt!? brainchild of Dan Akroyd? lolol.
with a little help of google, i read the story :p
regandarcy
Apr 19, 11:06 AM
I can't wait! My G5 iMac has officially died and gone to that big computer desk in the sky. It served me well for 5 years, but it's over. Darn thang won't even turn on anymore. I hear the apple start up chime, but the screen stays black and then the iMac just shuts off. But even if I could fix it, it's so old it can't run the latest OSX or even play HD movies. Yup...it's time to buy a new iMac.
I'm hoping that the next update sees i7s across the line...even the 21.5" models. I expect thunderbolt too since the MacBook pros got it. Other things on my wish list would be for them to include that rumored flash start up drive as standard....but I'm not holding my breath. It would be great if the 21.5" model got the same ability as the 27" to be used as an external monitor. That way in 5 years or more when it becomes unable to run the latest software, you can still use it as a second monitor. :-)
I like the 27" features, it's just a tad too big. Actually the rumor about Apple adding a 24" size back to the iMac lineup would be PERFECT. But again...not gonna count on it.
I'm hoping that the next update sees i7s across the line...even the 21.5" models. I expect thunderbolt too since the MacBook pros got it. Other things on my wish list would be for them to include that rumored flash start up drive as standard....but I'm not holding my breath. It would be great if the 21.5" model got the same ability as the 27" to be used as an external monitor. That way in 5 years or more when it becomes unable to run the latest software, you can still use it as a second monitor. :-)
I like the 27" features, it's just a tad too big. Actually the rumor about Apple adding a 24" size back to the iMac lineup would be PERFECT. But again...not gonna count on it.
mkrishnan
Jan 1, 05:53 PM
Whatever happend to the thin macbook? That is all I wanted this year.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
I don't think there's been any compelling evidence to support that, sadly. At least, several very seemingly viable component technologies, such as ULV C2D's, are not available yet.
For the iSight, too, no really compelling evidence of what the revised product would be, should there be one.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 1, 02:06 PM
GM had the 4.5 liter Duramax in development for their half-ton trucks, but the economy and their situation canned that. Ford also was working on a baby Powerstroke and Cummins was working on a baby I-6 for Dodge. But, those as well have been canned.
I actually saw a prototype 4.5 Duramax on ebay about a year ago. A few of them are probably out in the wild somewhere - shame they killed it, it was a good idea.
The big three had little choice but to cancel a lot of programs in the last couple years due to the financial crisis, but America needs a company to develop a range of smaller diesel engines suitable for auto applications - not the least of which would be a diesel-powered version of the Volt.
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market
One would assume GM would use the new engine in any Cruze diesel here in the USA? If, of course, they actually do sell this here. I say do it, GM.
I actually saw a prototype 4.5 Duramax on ebay about a year ago. A few of them are probably out in the wild somewhere - shame they killed it, it was a good idea.
The big three had little choice but to cancel a lot of programs in the last couple years due to the financial crisis, but America needs a company to develop a range of smaller diesel engines suitable for auto applications - not the least of which would be a diesel-powered version of the Volt.
edit: nevermind ... the 163hp diesel is the new 2011 replacement engine for the 150 hp engine in the euro market, so i suspect the old production line of the 150hp version can no produce the engine for the US market
One would assume GM would use the new engine in any Cruze diesel here in the USA? If, of course, they actually do sell this here. I say do it, GM.
PBF
Apr 3, 07:57 PM
How is this logical? Just because I am in FS doesn't mean I don't want the ability to easily change what I am looking at.
I'm sorry, but either you shouldn't be in FS mode in the first place or you must be absurd to think it's not easy to have to move your mouse all the way to the top in order to reveal the address bar.
I'm sorry, but either you shouldn't be in FS mode in the first place or you must be absurd to think it's not easy to have to move your mouse all the way to the top in order to reveal the address bar.
macintel4me
Sep 1, 03:29 PM
Ignore the name Mac Pro, People I give you the 23" iMac!!!
That is soooooooooooooooooooo beautiful!!!!
Except you forgot the FrontRow IR port and that's at 30" and a 23" according to the description. :p
That is soooooooooooooooooooo beautiful!!!!
Except you forgot the FrontRow IR port and that's at 30" and a 23" according to the description. :p
EscobarFilms
Mar 26, 12:30 AM
umm ok.. so why ios doesnt support full hd? will the new ios 5 will support full hd?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 19, 01:31 PM
Maybe he thinks if he does enough of nothing, he'll get himself another Nobel Prize.
Still, it's good to see other governments taking the point on this. We've got enough on our plate as it is.
Why should we "take point" on everything? I think that's a ridiculous idea.
Still, it's good to see other governments taking the point on this. We've got enough on our plate as it is.
Why should we "take point" on everything? I think that's a ridiculous idea.
evilgEEk
Sep 6, 07:44 PM
$19.99 for a downloaded movie, that's absolutely ridiculous. There is no way I would ever pay that much when I can go buy a new release DVD for $12-14.99. Amazon's service will fail, especially if Apple does indeed release a Movie Store.
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
I'm not a fan of $14.99 either, but it's a little more reasonable.
Of course all of this depends on the quality and if you can burn it.
Six more days. :)
kiljoy616
Jun 22, 04:31 PM
Who wants to be touching a vertically standing screen all the time, that's tiring!
Maybe this is why we didn't see OS X 10.7 info because it might include support for this...
I was actually hoping to see a completely new mac Pro with new very high res screens and wireless trackpad.
imagine now nasty the screen will get really fast as we eat by the computer :rolleyes: chocolate sooooo goood. ;)
Maybe this is why we didn't see OS X 10.7 info because it might include support for this...
I was actually hoping to see a completely new mac Pro with new very high res screens and wireless trackpad.
imagine now nasty the screen will get really fast as we eat by the computer :rolleyes: chocolate sooooo goood. ;)
jeff303
Jul 20, 05:45 PM
Stock-price is irrelevant, what matter is the market-capitalization. Quite often I see people comparing two companies and saying stuff like "Company A has a shareprice of $50, whereas Company B has a shareprice of $60. Therefore Company B is better".
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
Not quite. The main thing that makes a stock attractive is consistent growth and strong financials (increasing profits, increasing tax liability, decreasing percentage of operating costs, etc.) This is the reason Apple's stock looks so good right now; today's announcement shows strong growth this quarter and suggests the trend will continue.
I guess Berkshire Hathaway is the Capo di Tutti Capi of companies, since their shareprice is over 90.000 dollars!
Not quite. The main thing that makes a stock attractive is consistent growth and strong financials (increasing profits, increasing tax liability, decreasing percentage of operating costs, etc.) This is the reason Apple's stock looks so good right now; today's announcement shows strong growth this quarter and suggests the trend will continue.
0 comments:
Post a Comment