rand()
Aug 2, 12:14 PM
You got it wrong. If you can't have cameras.. you CAN'T HAVE CAMERAS even if they're NOT being used.
I don't think that's what the OP meant... it could be though. I think what he meant was don't use the new Apple displays, get a different brand without one built in. And at least with a desktop, you have that option.
My father-in-law can't buy one of the new Intel MacBook/MBP's simply because of the camera. He does government work occasionally, and they'll stop him at the door with anything that can behave as a camera, camphones & camlaptops included.
Maybe if they had some kind of lock-able latch that he could cover the camera and give the key to the door man... I've seen covers, but not lockable ones. That way, the agency/company can be secure knowing that the cameras have been rendered non-functional. I guess he could also simply shatter the lens, although that seems a bit extreme :-).
-rand()
I don't think that's what the OP meant... it could be though. I think what he meant was don't use the new Apple displays, get a different brand without one built in. And at least with a desktop, you have that option.
My father-in-law can't buy one of the new Intel MacBook/MBP's simply because of the camera. He does government work occasionally, and they'll stop him at the door with anything that can behave as a camera, camphones & camlaptops included.
Maybe if they had some kind of lock-able latch that he could cover the camera and give the key to the door man... I've seen covers, but not lockable ones. That way, the agency/company can be secure knowing that the cameras have been rendered non-functional. I guess he could also simply shatter the lens, although that seems a bit extreme :-).
-rand()
Moyank24
Mar 26, 10:53 PM
sounds plausible, but i really don't see iPad 3 coming out any time this year. it's way too soon
I agree. The only situation I can see where this would be a possibility is if one of the "iPad killers" actually did kill the iPad 2. And they came out with specs that just absolutely blew it away. But I just don't see that happening. It looks like the iPad 2 and the Xoom are coexisting just fine.
I agree. The only situation I can see where this would be a possibility is if one of the "iPad killers" actually did kill the iPad 2. And they came out with specs that just absolutely blew it away. But I just don't see that happening. It looks like the iPad 2 and the Xoom are coexisting just fine.
macenforcer
Aug 7, 05:47 PM
3ghz Xeon = 80W
2.66ghz Xeon = 65W
2ghz Xeon = 65W
Looks like the 2.66ghz Xeon is the best bang for buck and heat.
2.66ghz Xeon = 65W
2ghz Xeon = 65W
Looks like the 2.66ghz Xeon is the best bang for buck and heat.
akm3
Apr 24, 09:37 PM
Wow, that would look rly horrible, i mean 960x640 on a 27 inch screen:eek:
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
At least the video cards would be able to drive decent frame rates :p
Just joking, u probably meant DPI.
At least the video cards would be able to drive decent frame rates :p
MovieCutter
Aug 4, 09:54 AM
EXCLUSIVE: Leopard Feature Set Leaked
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/08/exclusive_leopard_feature_set_leaked.html
Hardly seems exclusive...more like "duh, that's obvious"
http://www.powerpage.org/archives/2006/08/exclusive_leopard_feature_set_leaked.html
Hardly seems exclusive...more like "duh, that's obvious"
itcheroni
Apr 17, 04:59 PM
Hello all, I just wanted to make another point about capital gains. Capital gains are applied to the "profits" from sale of something you bought. As I mentioned earlier about inflation, the government could choose to create money rather than impose an income tax. Everyone would keep the money the government would have taken, but that money simply won't go as far because the difference in purchasing power will appear in inflation. So, what does this have to do with capital gains? Well, if I buy a gold coin for $1000 and then sell it for $1500 a couple years later, I would be subject to a capital gains tax. But I didn't really gain anything. As gold critics often say, gold just sits there and doesn't produce anything. What has changed is the value of the dollar, which has fallen because the government has diluted the money supply. This is the reason the stock market is going up, not because the economy is improving.
If you bought an apple on Monday (your cost basis) and, before you bite into it on Wednesday (the point at which you realize gain), the price of apples go up, should you have to pay a tax on the difference?
If you bought an apple on Monday (your cost basis) and, before you bite into it on Wednesday (the point at which you realize gain), the price of apples go up, should you have to pay a tax on the difference?
Me1000
Aug 2, 09:10 PM
does anyone else notice that on intels site, the core2 duo is only refered to in PC's????
Slurpy2k8
Apr 7, 02:10 PM
Ehh, purposeful or not (as a sabotage)...not good news for iPad competition:( Which isnt good news for us iPad users...Apple needs constant pressure to release revolutionary products.
Uh, no they don't. Where was the 'constant pressure' when they released the iPad? The iPhone? The iPod? Apple has released its most revolutionary products in markets with mediocre products, and have essentially created new markets with their products, which when released were not in competition with anything. Apple functions independently from 'competition'- They're not a reactive company. Your assertion has absolutely no historical evidence.
Uh, no they don't. Where was the 'constant pressure' when they released the iPad? The iPhone? The iPod? Apple has released its most revolutionary products in markets with mediocre products, and have essentially created new markets with their products, which when released were not in competition with anything. Apple functions independently from 'competition'- They're not a reactive company. Your assertion has absolutely no historical evidence.
seanjs
Apr 20, 02:36 AM
Anyone think they won't call it the iPhone 5? I suspect, if they only update the speed, they'll call it the iPhone 4S and save the '5' for a mores substantial refresh.
illegalprelude
Aug 4, 08:53 PM
DO you guys think the Mac MINI will get a speed bump anytime soon? A friend of mine, shes looking to come over to the Mac side and the MINI seems perfect for her needs but something faster would be nice then the current.
Hildron101010
Mar 30, 08:01 PM
Are there any new internet or network features? Is internet access built in differently to take advantage of the cloud as the major news sources claim?
More to the point, I'll be interested in the new focus after 10.7 b/c the new team head is focused on internet tech and cloud services� I want to see something like Chrome OS but can run native apps with a radically new UI, something simple like Sony's Rachel UI for the Xperia X10, or the PS3 UI� or even iPad UI...
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God� please! License something or develop your own� HFS+ is old and dead. We should, at minimum, have a 64-bit system, with clones, and full disk encryption. Maybe links to cloud/web services in a unique way no one have thought of yet� Just get rid of all the redundancy and crap to make a super efficient machine�
I still think HFS+ is great. And they do have full disk encryption. I don't know why you thought they didn't, but they do. And what do you mean by a 64-bit system? The kernel already is 64-bit with the support for 32-bit apps.
More to the point, I'll be interested in the new focus after 10.7 b/c the new team head is focused on internet tech and cloud services� I want to see something like Chrome OS but can run native apps with a radically new UI, something simple like Sony's Rachel UI for the Xperia X10, or the PS3 UI� or even iPad UI...
Also, new filesystem for the Love of God� please! License something or develop your own� HFS+ is old and dead. We should, at minimum, have a 64-bit system, with clones, and full disk encryption. Maybe links to cloud/web services in a unique way no one have thought of yet� Just get rid of all the redundancy and crap to make a super efficient machine�
I still think HFS+ is great. And they do have full disk encryption. I don't know why you thought they didn't, but they do. And what do you mean by a 64-bit system? The kernel already is 64-bit with the support for 32-bit apps.
Eidorian
May 4, 05:13 PM
Whatever is cheaper. Steam sales have coddled me.
If they are using the App Store for distribution then I'd assume a new feature of Lion is "Build a Recovery DVD". That means you can write your own install DVD to be used after a crash.One would hope.
If they are using the App Store for distribution then I'd assume a new feature of Lion is "Build a Recovery DVD". That means you can write your own install DVD to be used after a crash.One would hope.
Don't panic
May 4, 04:38 PM
Actually, I can answer a few of those questions.
The villain isn't given any points prior to the start of the game, so as of round 1, he has 2 turns (points). There are no monsters nor traps pre-placed in the mansion.
As for the price-list and stats, that's secret.
thanks! that's most useful.
given this, mscriv can have so far only two points (but no placed traps/monsters) or 1 point and then place a 1-point trap/monster
assuming that there are both 1 point traps/monsters, if he put a trap, we can easily neutralize it, if he put a monster and we stumble on it, it has to be a lowly worm, so we are sure to kill it and move up one level, with the unfortunate and notable exception that one of us would be randomly killed.
so far is 2 votes to go forward. beatrice, dante?
3 now.
And goodness, Beatrice makes me feel like I'm 100 years old.
to my and Jorah's kin, 100 is barely of age :D
The villain isn't given any points prior to the start of the game, so as of round 1, he has 2 turns (points). There are no monsters nor traps pre-placed in the mansion.
As for the price-list and stats, that's secret.
thanks! that's most useful.
given this, mscriv can have so far only two points (but no placed traps/monsters) or 1 point and then place a 1-point trap/monster
assuming that there are both 1 point traps/monsters, if he put a trap, we can easily neutralize it, if he put a monster and we stumble on it, it has to be a lowly worm, so we are sure to kill it and move up one level, with the unfortunate and notable exception that one of us would be randomly killed.
so far is 2 votes to go forward. beatrice, dante?
3 now.
And goodness, Beatrice makes me feel like I'm 100 years old.
to my and Jorah's kin, 100 is barely of age :D
McGiord
Apr 10, 06:20 PM
Just gave the problem to my 12 year old brother. Yup, its 288. To all you people who still believe it's 2, I hope you don't deal with math a lot in your careers. It might also be a good idea for you to hire somebody else to do your taxes ;)
So he is the man. Does he do your taxes?:D
So he is the man. Does he do your taxes?:D
greenstork
Aug 2, 12:42 PM
(HDMI isn't really designed for computer displays)
I think that's kind of his point isn't it. I know I'd like to see more "media center" type features in my Mac.
I think that's kind of his point isn't it. I know I'd like to see more "media center" type features in my Mac.
marcosscriven
May 6, 02:37 AM
Moving to a different architecture doesn't mean the death of Mac OS - all they need to do is compile it to the new target. Obviously not *quite* that simple, but ARM Mac != iOS Mac
What I'm interested in though is how well any proposed ARM chip could emulate the Core i3/5/7s of today?
If a future MacBook had an 8-core 64-bit ARM chip in that was twice as fast as Intel's offerings, and used half the power (say), but was the same price, the only thing that would stop me buying is if x86 emulation was poor.
Basically, I don't care what processor is used, if older programs can be run *reasonably* well, for a year or so, before they are compiled for the new arch, or superseded by others. I'd be prepared to take a 20 - 30% hit on x86 apps in any interim changeover period.
What I'm interested in though is how well any proposed ARM chip could emulate the Core i3/5/7s of today?
If a future MacBook had an 8-core 64-bit ARM chip in that was twice as fast as Intel's offerings, and used half the power (say), but was the same price, the only thing that would stop me buying is if x86 emulation was poor.
Basically, I don't care what processor is used, if older programs can be run *reasonably* well, for a year or so, before they are compiled for the new arch, or superseded by others. I'd be prepared to take a 20 - 30% hit on x86 apps in any interim changeover period.
0tim0
Apr 18, 03:08 PM
Have you looked at the TouchWiz UI? It's almost identical to iOS - dock at the bottom, pages of icons in a grid and you even remove applications in the same way as you do on the iPhone. I've nothing at all against competition for iOS, but they shouldn't just rip the design off
http://www.sizzledcore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Galaxy-S-24-375x500.jpg
Wow, that does look familiar!
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
http://www.sizzledcore.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Galaxy-S-24-375x500.jpg
Wow, that does look familiar!
It looks just like the original Palm UI....
Maybe HP should sue Samsung instead :rolleyes:
--t
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 10:46 PM
All this talk about Palm needing to modernize their OS, or it is outdated, or needing to re-write is absolutely hilarious.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
On a phone, I want to use its features quickly and easily. When I have to schedule an appointment, I want to enter that appointment as easily as possible. When I want to add something to my to-do list, I want to do it easily and quickly. And first and foremost, I want to be able to look up a contact and dial it as quickly as possible.
A phone is not a personal computer. I couldn't care less about multitasking, rewriting, "modern" OSes (whatever "modern" means). "Modern" features and look is just eye candy and/or toys. A mobile phone is a gadget of convenience, and it should be convenient to use. Even PalmOS 1.0 was convenient. It was just as easy to use its contact and calendar features as any so-called "modern" OS is today.
I would really like to know how "modernizing" the OS on my phone would help me look up contacts, dial contacts, enter to-do list entries, and entering calendar entries any better that I could today.
Again, I repeat: a phone is not a personal computer. There's no point in treating it as such.
The same point could largely be made about cars, but I don't think either of us would want to be driving a Model T or Model A Ford these days, would we?
The term "Modern" as applied to operating systems has little to do with the interface per se. It primarily concerns the underpinnings of the OS and how forward-looking and/or open-ended it is. Older operating systems, if you want to look at it in this way, were very geared to the hardware of their times, and every time you added a new hardware feature or some new kind of technology came out, you wound up making this big patchwork of an OS, in which you had either an out-dated or obsolete "core" around which was stuck, somewhat unglamorously, lots of crap to allow it to do stuff it wasn't really designed for. Then, you wound up having to write patches for the patches, etc., ad infinitum.
Apple tried to go the internal development route, but that didn't work because their departmental infrastructure was eating them from the inside out at the time and basically poisoned all of their new projects. They considered BeOS because it was an incredibly modern OS at the time that was very capable, unbelievably good at multitasking, memory protection, multimedia tasks, etc. However, that company was so shaky that when Apple decided not to go with them, they collapsed. One of the products which was introduced and sold and almost immediately recalled that used a version of BeOS was Sony's eVilla (you just have to love that name -- try pronouncing it out loud to get the full effect).
Ultimately, they went with NeXT's BSD- and Mach-Kernel-based NeXTStep (which after a bunch of time and effort and -- since lots of it is based on Open Source software, there were a healthy amount of community contributions to) and hence we now have Mac OS X.
I'll leave it to actual developers and/or coders here to better explain and refine (and/or correct) what I've said here, should you wish greater detail beyond what I am able to -- and therefore have -- provided above.
The whole point of going with a modern OS implemented for an imbedded market (i.e. "Mac OS X Mobile") is it gives you much more direct (and probably better implemented and/or better-grounded) access to modern technologies. Everything from basic I/O tasks that reside in the Kernel to audio processing to doing H.264 decoding to having access to IPv4 or IPv6, are all examples of things which a modern OS could do a better job of providing and/or backing.
From what I understand, PalmOS is something that was designed to first and foremost give you basic notepad and daily organizer functionality. When they wrote, as you say, PalmOS 1.0, they happened to implement a way for third parties to write software that could run on it. This has been both a benefit and a bane of PalmOS's existence. First off, they now have the same issues of backwards-compatibility and storage space and memory use/abuse that a regular computer OS has. I said it was both a benefit and a bane; but there's actually two parts to the "bane" side. The first I've already mentioned, but the second is the fact that since apps have been written which can do darn near any conceivable task, people keep wanting more and more and more. And this then goes back to the "patchwork" I described earlier in talking about "older" computer OSs.
Then people want multimedia, and color screens, and apps to take advantage of it, and they want Palm to incorporate DSPs so they can play music, and of course that brings along with it all of the extra patching to then allow for the existence of, and permit the use of, an on-board DSP. And now you want WiFi? Well, shoot, now we gotta have IPv4 as well, and support for TCP/IP, none of which was ever a part of the original concept of PalmOS.
And even if you don't want or need any of those features in your own PDA, I'm sorry but that's really just too bad. Go live in a cave if you like, but if you buy a new PDA, guess what: you're gonna get all that stuff.
And at some point, all of this stretches an "older" OS just a bit too far, or it becomes a bit absurd with all the hoops and turns and wiggling that PalmOne's coders have to go through, so then they say, "Aw **** it, let's just re-write the thing."
Apple comes to this without any of *that* sort of legacy. Doubtless there will be no Newton code on this thing anywhere, but what Apple's got is Mac OS X, which means they also have the power (albeit somewhat indirectly) of an Open Source OS -- Linux. And in case you weren't aware, there are already numerous "imbedded" implementations of Linux -- phones, PDAs, game systems, kiosks, etc. -- all of which are data points and collective experience opportunities which ALREADY EXIST that Apple can exploit.
So no, having a "modern" OS is not a bad thing. It's actually a supremely awesome thing. What you're concerned about is having something that is intuitive AND efficient AND appropriate to the world of telephone interfaces for the user interface on the device you'd go and buy yourself.
All I can say, based on past performance, is give Apple a chance.
Now, here's a larger picture thought to ponder...
If Apple goes to market with the iPhone, then this is going to open up (to some extent) the viability of a F/OSS community cell phone. And this is a really good thing as well because it represents a non-commercial, enthusiast entrance into what up until now has been a totally proprietary, locked-down OS-based product world. It has the potential to do to cell phones what Linux has inspired in Mac OS X.
DakotaGuy
May 6, 12:20 AM
This seems like an inevitable move in the convergence of iOS devices and Mac computers. They will eventually be the same thing. Powerful, robust, thin, power efficient, easy to use touch interface. Lion is moving in the direction of the iPad and iOS in general. The iPad has been gaining more Mac-like features and robust applications. I think the time tables are probably off. I don't see this happening for 4 to 5 years at the earliest.
So basically what you are saying is that in a few years Apple will make everything an iDevice and if you want a computer that is actually a Personal Computer you will have no choice but to buy a Windows PC? Goodbye Thunderbolt. Hello Apple 30 pin connector!
So basically what you are saying is that in a few years Apple will make everything an iDevice and if you want a computer that is actually a Personal Computer you will have no choice but to buy a Windows PC? Goodbye Thunderbolt. Hello Apple 30 pin connector!
bradc
Sep 11, 01:44 PM
Just trying to hedge off the 5,123 "This is BS, no MBP/MB updates OMG!!!11BBQ" threads. ;)
Gary you forgot the MacTower miss-spellings of 'Merom', how everything is pin compatible, everyone is an engineer/marketing/business pro and if anything does get released there is something wrong with it.
and.....
pyramid6 wrote
Why couldn't apple mail a movie to you via USPS? Pop it into your <insert favorite Mac flavor> and have it automaticly import into iTunes library. There is no way I would download a 2g file to watch a movie. 2g is way too big to download. Compare that to music, 5mb on the high end. 2g is 400 times the size. I don't see downloading as a viable option, atleast not at the resolution that makes it competitive with DVD.
PS I think downloadable movies sounds great, but I don't think it is practicle.
What rock are you living under?? A 5mb file is high end? Haha Why do you think the RIAA & MPAA are scared? It's soooooo easy to download music & movies illegally. Or look at YouTube, god knows how many 10mb videos are downloaded each second.
Gary you forgot the MacTower miss-spellings of 'Merom', how everything is pin compatible, everyone is an engineer/marketing/business pro and if anything does get released there is something wrong with it.
and.....
pyramid6 wrote
Why couldn't apple mail a movie to you via USPS? Pop it into your <insert favorite Mac flavor> and have it automaticly import into iTunes library. There is no way I would download a 2g file to watch a movie. 2g is way too big to download. Compare that to music, 5mb on the high end. 2g is 400 times the size. I don't see downloading as a viable option, atleast not at the resolution that makes it competitive with DVD.
PS I think downloadable movies sounds great, but I don't think it is practicle.
What rock are you living under?? A 5mb file is high end? Haha Why do you think the RIAA & MPAA are scared? It's soooooo easy to download music & movies illegally. Or look at YouTube, god knows how many 10mb videos are downloaded each second.
LarryC
Mar 30, 05:40 AM
The data (http://www.ted.com/talks/hans_rosling_asia_s_rise_how_and_when.html) would say otherwise...
Number 41 is correct. Anyone who doubts that globalization is a lowering of American standard of living is a damned fool. The people who say otherwise do so because it hasn't hit them yet, but it will eventually. Some of you sound like you live in your parents basement and others sound like yuppie pricks. Just wait, it will happen to you, too!
Number 41 is correct. Anyone who doubts that globalization is a lowering of American standard of living is a damned fool. The people who say otherwise do so because it hasn't hit them yet, but it will eventually. Some of you sound like you live in your parents basement and others sound like yuppie pricks. Just wait, it will happen to you, too!
mex4eric
Mar 29, 01:39 PM
This is undoubtedly one of the first of many dislocations of supply for our global economy caused by this massive disaster. But I suspect the Japanese are masters of diversification and will meet the challenges.
WildCowboy
Jul 21, 01:54 PM
This definitely increases the chances of Apple introducing new MBPs at WWDC. Could be a huge event!
My PB is only a year and half old, but Merom-based MBPs are looking awfully tempting...
My PB is only a year and half old, but Merom-based MBPs are looking awfully tempting...
Stella
Aug 4, 02:24 PM
The 17" has a larger enclosure space than the 15.4" of course, so, better heat control and more space to put components. Perhaps the 15.4" would just get too hot / consume too much power with the 17" D/L SD inside it.
Doesn't the 17" use a different battery - higher capacity - than the 15.4"?
3. The 17" MBP is as thin as 15.4". Why does it have faster D/L SD ??
Doesn't the 17" use a different battery - higher capacity - than the 15.4"?
3. The 17" MBP is as thin as 15.4". Why does it have faster D/L SD ??