codymac
Apr 4, 10:38 AM
You're right that this state does have one of the highest deficits and tax rates for high incomes. However, if you look at the figures, despite the tax rate, Californians still earn more per capita on average than Texans. If you're looking to save money, it doesn't necessarily make sense to move.
Without going into the chicken/egg of it, Californians have to earn more since their housing costs are roughly 2/3 higher than Texas (per bankrate.com's cost of living comparison calculator as of this morning).
We earn less, but pretty much everything also costs less here.
Without going into the chicken/egg of it, Californians have to earn more since their housing costs are roughly 2/3 higher than Texas (per bankrate.com's cost of living comparison calculator as of this morning).
We earn less, but pretty much everything also costs less here.
DaveN
Mar 24, 08:47 AM
For all you people saying airplay doesn't work, check the hdmi connection to your tv. I had the same problem saying something about not having a secure (different term though) connection to the tv. Solution: turn off the tv and apple tv, unplug and replug the connection, turn both on and it has worked ever since. And I may say, it works elegantly.
Lacero
Sep 17, 10:55 AM
One day, just rush into the store and shout "I Love You!". That should get her attention.
bushido
Apr 12, 06:34 PM
I bought a Verizon iPad because I have an AT&T iPhone. I figured that if one doesn't work, the other will. I saw no need to get two devices on the same network.
But go ahead, explain to me why that's stupid, since I clearly don't get it and I'm ignorant.
its stupid bc u pay twice for a mobile plan lol why not just tether ... oh wait u can't in the us without additional costs xD nvm
...
sry but i still don't rly understand how it works in the US. there is an "AT&T" iPad, i thought they come unlocked, can't u just go to any store and buy a iPad "3G" and use whatever simcard u want? thats at least how it is here
But go ahead, explain to me why that's stupid, since I clearly don't get it and I'm ignorant.
its stupid bc u pay twice for a mobile plan lol why not just tether ... oh wait u can't in the us without additional costs xD nvm
...
sry but i still don't rly understand how it works in the US. there is an "AT&T" iPad, i thought they come unlocked, can't u just go to any store and buy a iPad "3G" and use whatever simcard u want? thats at least how it is here
more...
maroontiger2k9
Mar 23, 04:20 PM
Thats a tough one...while a non-apple device will sell better with an airplay compatible badge, its hard to argue that the opposite will drive more sales of iPads. Sorry folks, pay the Apple.
this is a brilliant idea... but honestly, i would let competitors struggle for another 8 years before i let AIRPLAY on other devices...
b/c this could potentially generate interest in competitors... or it could allow apple to pull profits from competitors who will ultimately FAIL to generate enough interest
think about it... other competitors would probably get their devices integrated with itunes so that they can HOME SHARE AIRPLAY to their phones/tablets/etc..
apple will make a profit for just providing access to airplay.... the problem is if if the competitor becomes more popular or as popular as apple... would the competitor throw apple a bone?! i dont think so
this is a brilliant idea... but honestly, i would let competitors struggle for another 8 years before i let AIRPLAY on other devices...
b/c this could potentially generate interest in competitors... or it could allow apple to pull profits from competitors who will ultimately FAIL to generate enough interest
think about it... other competitors would probably get their devices integrated with itunes so that they can HOME SHARE AIRPLAY to their phones/tablets/etc..
apple will make a profit for just providing access to airplay.... the problem is if if the competitor becomes more popular or as popular as apple... would the competitor throw apple a bone?! i dont think so
str1f3
Dec 27, 08:21 PM
Same reason most online stores don't ship to Nigeria.
If statistics show problem online fraud areas in a much higher percentage than other cities, it makes sense to temporarily curb it.
You're talking about a whole country. As it is right now there are more iPhones in NYC than anywhere else. In order for this to be true it would mean tens of thousands of NYers, at least, are having their personal info stolen. Also, why only the iPhone? Wouldn't these thieves with all their stolen info just move onto another AT&T phone that costs just as much? Such as BB? Why hasn't any other telco stopped onlines sales of any of their high priced phones in NYC? Surely these thieves wouldn't just buy one phone.
To believe this you would have to jump through many conclusions, some being illogical.
If statistics show problem online fraud areas in a much higher percentage than other cities, it makes sense to temporarily curb it.
You're talking about a whole country. As it is right now there are more iPhones in NYC than anywhere else. In order for this to be true it would mean tens of thousands of NYers, at least, are having their personal info stolen. Also, why only the iPhone? Wouldn't these thieves with all their stolen info just move onto another AT&T phone that costs just as much? Such as BB? Why hasn't any other telco stopped onlines sales of any of their high priced phones in NYC? Surely these thieves wouldn't just buy one phone.
To believe this you would have to jump through many conclusions, some being illogical.
more...
genshi
Aug 20, 10:45 AM
Though I am well over 30 I had been using Foursquare for the past couple of months only because most of my friends (who are mostly 20 somethings) are using it, but I did get pretty bored with it and always thought to myself "Why am I even bothering." (I know, to unlock the badges for some reason.) Facebook's Places is identical to Foursquare and they will be integrating both apps together soon, apparently.
But I just saw a TedTalk from a guy who has a company called Scvngr (http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_priebatsch_the_game_layer_on_top_of_the_world.html) and they have an app (also called Scvngr: link to app (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scvngr/id323248984?mt=8)) much like Places but with an added layer in which you have very specific goals to achieve in order to make it more fun. For example, if you walk into an American Apparel and check in, you then have the task of taking a photo of yourself posed like the Mannequin in the store window. When you do this [enough times at various locations] you unlock a reward of a badge. Apparently all of these badges (for both Scvngr and Foursquare) are supposed to, eventually, give you discounts at these various stores... it hasn't happened for me yet.
So, security concerns aside, do you think these things add value for the consumer? Of course it does for the companies gathering the market research data (it's a goldmine for them!) but what do these Location Services apps need to do to make this worth opening the app and "checking in" each time you walk into a place? Scvngr seems to have made their's a little more interesting by adding this game layer to the "check in" process (your life as a game) but is it enough?
I recommend watching the TedTalk that I linked to above as it explains it all better, but I still ask myself, "why the hell am I bothering to 'check in' ".
But I just saw a TedTalk from a guy who has a company called Scvngr (http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_priebatsch_the_game_layer_on_top_of_the_world.html) and they have an app (also called Scvngr: link to app (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scvngr/id323248984?mt=8)) much like Places but with an added layer in which you have very specific goals to achieve in order to make it more fun. For example, if you walk into an American Apparel and check in, you then have the task of taking a photo of yourself posed like the Mannequin in the store window. When you do this [enough times at various locations] you unlock a reward of a badge. Apparently all of these badges (for both Scvngr and Foursquare) are supposed to, eventually, give you discounts at these various stores... it hasn't happened for me yet.
So, security concerns aside, do you think these things add value for the consumer? Of course it does for the companies gathering the market research data (it's a goldmine for them!) but what do these Location Services apps need to do to make this worth opening the app and "checking in" each time you walk into a place? Scvngr seems to have made their's a little more interesting by adding this game layer to the "check in" process (your life as a game) but is it enough?
I recommend watching the TedTalk that I linked to above as it explains it all better, but I still ask myself, "why the hell am I bothering to 'check in' ".
jdczar
Mar 11, 02:20 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm going to wait at this best buy in garland they won't tell me how many they have but hopefully I get the one I want if not then I'll go to one of the apple stores later
I'm going to wait at this best buy in garland they won't tell me how many they have but hopefully I get the one I want if not then I'll go to one of the apple stores later
more...
Stridder44
Sep 26, 12:17 AM
Im enjoying this chaos. Personally, unless it's music, podcasts are a bore and a waste of time. They're worse than blogs. Ok, maybe not that bad.
Cerano
Apr 24, 09:59 AM
I think you mean an i5 or i7 ULV sandy bridge. The cpu will be much stronger but the graphics will be weaker (compared to the 320m nvidia chipset). Sandy bridge integrated graphics are twice arrandale graphics.
Don't fall prey to the megahertz myth. Clock speed is not all. I've got a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 computer (desktop) and my 1.66 GHz core 2 duo (laptop) completely destroys it, even on single threaded tasks. Core 2 duo was extremely efficient compared to pentium 4.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Notebook-Processor.49737.0.html
Benchmarks for the i7 2657M (the best ULV processor). It looks pretty good. 3D mark 06 was better than the standard voltage i3 2310. It ranks around an arrandale standard voltage i3 for most of the benchmarks. In some it even passes some of the i5 CPUs. But for this to happen it needs good cooling.
i was actually referring to Arrandales not SBs. SBs are far superior compared to the Arrandales. The Arrandale ULVs arent exactly fast.
I actually have a thread on this here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1076834
Don't fall prey to the megahertz myth. Clock speed is not all. I've got a 3.2 GHz Pentium 4 computer (desktop) and my 1.66 GHz core 2 duo (laptop) completely destroys it, even on single threaded tasks. Core 2 duo was extremely efficient compared to pentium 4.
http://www.notebookcheck.net/Intel-Core-i7-2657M-Notebook-Processor.49737.0.html
Benchmarks for the i7 2657M (the best ULV processor). It looks pretty good. 3D mark 06 was better than the standard voltage i3 2310. It ranks around an arrandale standard voltage i3 for most of the benchmarks. In some it even passes some of the i5 CPUs. But for this to happen it needs good cooling.
i was actually referring to Arrandales not SBs. SBs are far superior compared to the Arrandales. The Arrandale ULVs arent exactly fast.
I actually have a thread on this here
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1076834
more...
rasmasyean
May 4, 10:56 AM
I don't know. Does the US military usually sell its tech to the Japanese?
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
I don't think you understand the progress of technological advancements. You seem to have this idea that once something is thought of in bed, it's guaranteed to be on an instant bee line to world scale distribution. While it's true that many tech breakthroughs (or ideas) can be implemented rigth away, much of the most out disruptive realizations require huge investestments with no obvious guarantee of a profit.
And there is a distinguishment between nuclear reality and nuclear fantasy (fusion).
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
Bollocks. It is absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Opposed thumbs, brain size, bipedality, toolmaking and speech have had the most influence on our development. As to whether we have evolved past any other species, that, I would have thought, is very much up for debate.
Yea it does. To simply put it, there's no animal in between "us" and the "nearest monkey". They are all fossils. That's because in competition, we killed "our own kind" in the strugle for survival and prosperity. That is...unless you prefer the "man created in the image of some deity" explaination.
Seems to me that it's a technology lots of people are working on in parallel.
Nice example. Frank Whittle (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bljetengine.htm) received the first jet engine patent in 1930. He had been in the Air Force, but they wouldn't sponsor his research - so the development was privately funded and finally demonstrated in 1937.
I think you're confusing fission and fusion.
Darpanet, indeed. But the web itself was developed in peacetime by a man researching at a (non military) Swiss research establishment (http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/about/web-en.html).
The first commercial transistors were developed for telecoms by AT&T / Texas instruments (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transistor).
The integrated circuit was invented in peace time, and it's mass production was spurred as much by the Apollo program (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integrated_circuit) as for defence.
Interestingly, defence and space are very conservative in their use of technology and CPUs. The increase in CPU power over time has clearly been motivated by commercial market forces (non military).
Yes, I don't deny that defence money does finance innovation. But that's not the same as implying that innovation wouldn't take place if it wasn't for War. That's clearly nonsense - there's plenty of civil and commercial market forces that also spur development, and the examples you've cited demonstrate a few. War is not an essential for human or technological development, although it may speed it along a little from time to time.
I don't think you understand the progress of technological advancements. You seem to have this idea that once something is thought of in bed, it's guaranteed to be on an instant bee line to world scale distribution. While it's true that many tech breakthroughs (or ideas) can be implemented rigth away, much of the most out disruptive realizations require huge investestments with no obvious guarantee of a profit.
And there is a distinguishment between nuclear reality and nuclear fantasy (fusion).
http://www.howstuffworks.com/nuclear-power.htm
Bollocks. It is absolutely nothing to do with evolution. Opposed thumbs, brain size, bipedality, toolmaking and speech have had the most influence on our development. As to whether we have evolved past any other species, that, I would have thought, is very much up for debate.
Yea it does. To simply put it, there's no animal in between "us" and the "nearest monkey". They are all fossils. That's because in competition, we killed "our own kind" in the strugle for survival and prosperity. That is...unless you prefer the "man created in the image of some deity" explaination.
marksman
Apr 1, 12:03 PM
I'm always amazed at how much work studios go to to keep people from watching their shows.
This is the weird reality. TV Networks spend millions and even billions of dollars trying to get as many people to watch their shows for free, and then they also spend a great deal of time and money trying to stop people from watching their tv shows for free.
Imagine if they spend that energy just trying to properly record viewers for those outlets instead of weirdly begging people to watch their shows for free and then on the other hand demand they don't watch their shows for free.
This is the weird reality. TV Networks spend millions and even billions of dollars trying to get as many people to watch their shows for free, and then they also spend a great deal of time and money trying to stop people from watching their tv shows for free.
Imagine if they spend that energy just trying to properly record viewers for those outlets instead of weirdly begging people to watch their shows for free and then on the other hand demand they don't watch their shows for free.
more...
inkswamp
Mar 27, 01:01 PM
I take it none of you seem to remember this:
http://imgur.com/dWw7V.jpg
Not only do I remember it, I turned it into a comic.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/398284231_ff6d39df44_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkswamp/398284231/)
http://imgur.com/dWw7V.jpg
Not only do I remember it, I turned it into a comic.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/183/398284231_ff6d39df44_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/inkswamp/398284231/)
Vertigo50
May 2, 12:49 PM
It's amazing what someone with the proper tool can do to actually test these kind of issues.
I was waiting for someone to FINALLY grab a caliper and measure both devices. Game over.
I was waiting for someone to FINALLY grab a caliper and measure both devices. Game over.
more...
RalfTheDog
Apr 14, 09:56 PM
Rats, sinking ships and all that. </troll>
arogge
Mar 28, 11:04 PM
A 50 mm lens has the same focal length as any other 50 mm lens. There is no such thing as a "crop camera". There are differences in film sizes, onto which the lens projects an image. An APS-C recording sensor that is listed as 1.6X will cause the projected 35-mm image to have a smaller field-of-view. The other attributes of the lens, including the depth-of-field and focal length, remain unaltered by the size of the recording sensor.
A Canon 10-22 EF-S lens is only compatible with specific Canon APS-C cameras. This is because of the Short Back Focus attribute of the EF-S lenses. A Sigma DC lens, which does not use Short Back Focus, is intended only for use on APS-C cameras with 1.5X or smaller recording sensors. The Sigma 10-20 lens, like Canon EF-S lenses, projects a smaller image circle than the 35-mm standard. This is why these "digital" lenses aren't compatible with normal 35-mm cameras. Financial cost and weight were the considerations when developing EF-S, Sigma DC, and similar lenses for APS-C cameras. You do have another ultra-wide option if you don't want to use the smaller APS-C lenses. You can buy the Sigma 12-24 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24mm-f45-56-ex-dg-asp-hsm-sigma) lens.
A Canon 10-22 EF-S lens is only compatible with specific Canon APS-C cameras. This is because of the Short Back Focus attribute of the EF-S lenses. A Sigma DC lens, which does not use Short Back Focus, is intended only for use on APS-C cameras with 1.5X or smaller recording sensors. The Sigma 10-20 lens, like Canon EF-S lenses, projects a smaller image circle than the 35-mm standard. This is why these "digital" lenses aren't compatible with normal 35-mm cameras. Financial cost and weight were the considerations when developing EF-S, Sigma DC, and similar lenses for APS-C cameras. You do have another ultra-wide option if you don't want to use the smaller APS-C lenses. You can buy the Sigma 12-24 (http://www.sigmaphoto.com/shop/12-24mm-f45-56-ex-dg-asp-hsm-sigma) lens.
more...
berrykerry789
May 6, 10:17 PM
Anyone have a free beta key that they can give to me? i cant preorder because i live in china... :(
Interstella5555
Dec 2, 09:29 AM
I'll take Apples definition of what is and isn't good looking over yours thanks
I'll take my own definition over Apple's or yours. Seriously, the phone is damn good looking, but you'll take Apple's opinion over your on?
I'll take my own definition over Apple's or yours. Seriously, the phone is damn good looking, but you'll take Apple's opinion over your on?
rdowns
Apr 8, 08:31 AM
Uhm, yeah, there's also the Democrats who could've passed a new budget quite a long time ago, but were afraid of dealing with their own party.
What's pathetic is the complete lack of common sense between the two parties. They used to know how to work together in the past. Now they can't compromise because of ideological BS. It's a Lose-Lose situation, for the people at least.
It's time to throw the everyone out.
You'll get no argument from me. I blame all of them. See my earlier post.
The real absurdity is that, by and large, the pols who got us into this are the ones we are relying on getting us out.
What's pathetic is the complete lack of common sense between the two parties. They used to know how to work together in the past. Now they can't compromise because of ideological BS. It's a Lose-Lose situation, for the people at least.
It's time to throw the everyone out.
You'll get no argument from me. I blame all of them. See my earlier post.
The real absurdity is that, by and large, the pols who got us into this are the ones we are relying on getting us out.
topgunn
Sep 20, 03:07 PM
Nevermind, my question was answered.
H$R
Jun 19, 03:28 AM
Does nobody realise that you have to support the exFAT format (from Microsoft, currently NOT supported on OS X, and has to be licensed by Microsoft) to be able to use more than 32 GB? (or the up to 2 TB). Otherwise if you format it with the old formats you are stuck on the same limits as you would with ad SDHC card.
The way I see it, it's just the controller which supports SDXC, but the OS doesn't as of now. So nothing to really be happy about for the moment except that you have technology on board you can't take advantage on.
The way I see it, it's just the controller which supports SDXC, but the OS doesn't as of now. So nothing to really be happy about for the moment except that you have technology on board you can't take advantage on.
DPinTX
Mar 11, 01:55 PM
Which entrance to the mall is gonna get me closest to the end of the line?
Walk in from Dillards line goes to escalator by there or come in to ice ring entrance and go to the left.
DP
Walk in from Dillards line goes to escalator by there or come in to ice ring entrance and go to the left.
DP
spicyapple
Aug 14, 09:46 AM
I find it amazing he's never used a computer before doing the Mac ads. But he uses a Mac now, and that's all that counts. :)
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:40 PM
What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
0 comments:
Post a Comment