macintel4me
Sep 4, 07:05 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Piggie
Apr 22, 05:34 AM
I'm amazed that no-one is seeing the very dangerous path we could be heading down here. Will people only see it when it's too late?
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Are we looking into the jaws of the future where you pay, but never OWN anything? Music, Movies, Apps.
You pay to have the right to listen/watch/use the data.
The data is never downloaded to your device to do as you wish, it's always held by the owners. or distributors.
I can see this coming like a flashing red warning sign.
Al Coholic
Apr 14, 12:15 PM
USB3=native to all platforms
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
TB=Mac Only
Sounds like TB just died.
sully677
May 1, 12:11 AM
Any news about a 24in option?
carmenodie
Apr 19, 07:04 AM
this to me is soooo damn stupid.
Apple buys 5.3 billion in parts from Sammy then sue them for copying(allegedly) their design. Whatever man.
Apple buys 5.3 billion in parts from Sammy then sue them for copying(allegedly) their design. Whatever man.
hvfsl
Apr 19, 08:16 AM
But then they'd have been hammered with 2 law-suits, and then lost their 2nd biggest customer. Thats financial suicide, Apple would find someone else for parts.
Plus other companies would be less likely to do business with Samsung if they suddenly stopped shipments to a company they had a disagreement with.
Plus other companies would be less likely to do business with Samsung if they suddenly stopped shipments to a company they had a disagreement with.
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I wonder, if in this day and age of "find my iPhone" and all the location-enabled apps on an iPhone, if it's not actually harder-to-the-point-of-impossible to ensure such information is immediately, constantly erased.
OneMammoth
Mar 30, 01:21 PM
I don't claim to know a thing about trademark law, but looking at this simply I find it difficult to understand how the term "Windows" can become a trademark but "App Store" cannot.
"Windows" is not the definition of the thing itself, as "App Store" ;)
"Windows" is not the definition of the thing itself, as "App Store" ;)
AppleScruff1
Apr 19, 11:16 PM
Where did anyone say that?
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
I thought that cover had photos of the Beatles on it?
And red or green, their logo still looks nothing like the Apple Computer logo.
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
amac4me
Sep 14, 09:34 AM
Aperture update for sure.
Very good chance that a MacBook Pro update will be announced.
Very good chance that a MacBook Pro update will be announced.
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:17 PM
I'm as pro gun rights as anyone, but this sounds like a problem for the security guard. Unless that guard's life was in danger, there was no reason to shoot anyone, especially in the head. The placement of that shot was no accident.
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Unfortunately justified shooting or not it's always a problem for the shooter. I highly doubt the headshot was intentional. Unless he's an ex-special forces guy, he probably was just shooting wildly and got a lucky shot (well, lucky might not be the right word). When bullets started flying, he was probably terrified without enough composure to aim for the head. And if he came upon armed people, identified himself and they pointed guns at him, he has a very valid reason to shoot them. The mere presence of weapons puts the guard's life in danger.
It's odd that you judge his actions in the first part of your post, but then say that there's not enough facts in the second. :confused:
That being said, I'm sure there are a lot of facts we don't know. Innocent until proven guilty, of course.
Unfortunately justified shooting or not it's always a problem for the shooter. I highly doubt the headshot was intentional. Unless he's an ex-special forces guy, he probably was just shooting wildly and got a lucky shot (well, lucky might not be the right word). When bullets started flying, he was probably terrified without enough composure to aim for the head. And if he came upon armed people, identified himself and they pointed guns at him, he has a very valid reason to shoot them. The mere presence of weapons puts the guard's life in danger.
It's odd that you judge his actions in the first part of your post, but then say that there's not enough facts in the second. :confused:
oneighturbo
Sep 14, 01:15 PM
If the new one is announced before your order ships, it will be automatically upgraded. Otherwise, you should return the unopened product within 2 weeks of purchase for a free upgrade.
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
so far its 24hr shipping..
that will mean living with a MBP unopened for 11 days and then some... :eek: :D
ctdonath
Apr 4, 12:43 PM
And heroics by gun toting civilians is mostly a product of fantasy as well. The idea of whipping your gun out to save the day is absurd.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
Happens about 2,000,000 times a year. Check the FBI stats if you don't believe me. You don't hear much about that because (A) our media doesn't like to report "good" shootings, and (B) about 97% of the time no shooting is required, as the criminal gets the idea quick and stops threatening innocents in a hurry.
markw10
Sep 14, 11:20 AM
I wish a Tablet Mac would come out. My fiancee wants to get a mac now that her son has one and she sees how great they are. Unfortunately she just upgraded her laptop about 4 months ago to a Tablet PC. I am due for a laptop upgrade and said my next laptop will be a Tablet but instead I'm going to the next MBP that will be coming out. She is considering it as well but doesn't want to leave the Tablet so may end up keeping the Tablet as well. I know for the PC side though sales of Tablets are slow so not sure how well that would do. I would imagine though with a Mac things could be different. I think some type of PDA type of device or something similar to the UMPC would come out, kind of a very portable laptop that could fit in a woman's purse.
My hardest thing is these all in one units. I think a lot of good things go with it, the imac is easy to move from one room of the house to the other for example but it's hard to imagine when I want to upgrade my computer having to give up the display as well. I imagine this is the type of thing though that make macs work so well. On the PC side I'm used to building my own pc's, getting the case, motherboard, drives, etc. but with that comes a lot of headaches. I'm more into laptops now anyway but would like a nice desktop that I can always add a new hard drive in, etc. and probably will go with a Mac Pro next year but would like to see something cheaper by then, like a headless imac.
My hardest thing is these all in one units. I think a lot of good things go with it, the imac is easy to move from one room of the house to the other for example but it's hard to imagine when I want to upgrade my computer having to give up the display as well. I imagine this is the type of thing though that make macs work so well. On the PC side I'm used to building my own pc's, getting the case, motherboard, drives, etc. but with that comes a lot of headaches. I'm more into laptops now anyway but would like a nice desktop that I can always add a new hard drive in, etc. and probably will go with a Mac Pro next year but would like to see something cheaper by then, like a headless imac.
Squonk
Sep 12, 03:06 PM
My only problem is there doesn't seem to be an education discount right now on the new iPods. Just 249 and 349. :confused:
I'm guessing this will change once the current edu promotion is over...
I'm guessing this will change once the current edu promotion is over...
Platform
Sep 9, 04:49 AM
I'm thinking Apple might also dump the price of the good old iPod Shuffle to $29 for a 512... They'll sell like hot cakes at that price!
Count me in for one :D
Count me in for one :D
mrbrown
Mar 23, 07:17 PM
If you're drunk enough that you shouldn't be driving, no app is going to save you. It's as simple as that.
nomad01
Sep 14, 01:47 AM
Its an ipod with a longer screen and a slider.....well at least for me I see nothing too interesting in it...just another ipod you can talk to.
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
Bless
Yep I agree, it's not a revolutionary design but I'm REALLY more interested in what it will do. I'm really excited by an Apple phone operating system. Mobile iCal? Mobile Widgets? Who knows? Could just be an iPod with limited phone functionality.
Bring it on! :-)
dashiel
Sep 15, 06:26 PM
Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
you are correct, brain glitch on my part, i'm looking at by 1g ipod purchased the weekend they were in stores -- i really should know better.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
you are correct, brain glitch on my part, i'm looking at by 1g ipod purchased the weekend they were in stores -- i really should know better.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
mashinhead
Sep 14, 01:17 AM
Holy Guacamole!
That is Sick!
They need to come out with that right now!
really:confused: i think it looks horrible. I mean everything in the world doesn't have to look like an ipod. It's not an ipod, its a phone, make something new. They're forcing it. It looks really bad.
That is Sick!
They need to come out with that right now!
really:confused: i think it looks horrible. I mean everything in the world doesn't have to look like an ipod. It's not an ipod, its a phone, make something new. They're forcing it. It looks really bad.
prady16
Sep 14, 09:00 AM
May be Apple will give a silent upgrade to MBP before the special event just like they did with Mini and iMac before "Its Showtime"!
What say?
What say?
QuarterSwede
Sep 16, 02:21 PM
It's certainly why I haven't. I wouldn't say the U.S. is so much behind the rest of the world (although that is true) but keep in mind U.S. carriers are all about keeping people locked into contracts. It's much easier to get a phone and change providers in Europe because they don't do hardware locking to network and prepaid is more proliferant. You can get lots of these great phones (by the way, they do make 10 megapixel camera phones now) if you buy them online, paying retail prices.
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
The problem is most U.S. consumers are cheap as far as I can tell, most will not pay at all for a phone and even few will pay more than $100. The carriers cannot afford to subsidize these phones because even with them partially covering the cost a consumer will be looking at an over $250 cost with a contract..
The U.S. cell phone is behind other countries because the U.S. cell phone network is behind other countries. We're just now getting 3G out in most of the country but Japan has had it and two way video calls for years.
If I could afford it and was willing to take the gamble of learning a new UI, I would get the Nokia N73. But it's hard to justify spending that much on a cell phone for me and I'm more familiar with Nokia series 40 phones.
I hear you on that. Just check out DoCoMo's (http://www.nttdocomo.co.jp/english/product/function_icon/index.html) phones (Japanese).
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Crawn2003
Apr 25, 02:04 AM
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
You're getting your 16 year old, testosterone panties in a twist yet you admit that you went over the speed limit that you cherish so much by at least 20mph. You admit you (but not in so many words because you have that 16yo complex of I gotta be right) drove recklessly all to teach a lesson that is really not yours to teach. That is for the highway patrol and driving school.
Regardless of what your inexperienced mind may believe, she was in the right and actually doing nothing wrong. She was traveling the speed limit. She was minding her own business until a little 16yo know-it-all comes along driving with minimum experience and equally inexperienced driver next to him.
Unfortunate for you this seems to be a running trait in your family. Inexperience. Just because your uncle is a sitting judge doesn't make him a god. On the contrary, he's as idiotic and inexperienced as you.
Now kid, no matter how much you slap those jaws of yours together you are wrong. We don't care that your mommy was sitting next you or that your uncle is the judge. Go ahead a drive however you want. Frankly I see your kind every day on the road.
I'm that guy over in the left lane driving 70. I'm that guy you have to race up to and ride my bumper and zoom past me flipping me off.
But I'm the guy that's laughing at you because honestly at the end of the day, you are just a little 16yo with a giant ego stuck up your rear.
You're also the guy that will wreck his car because I force you to, and you're also the guy that I will then sue to pay for my deductible and any applicable medical costs. And I'm the guy that will laugh in your face and say "gonna move for me next time?" as I walk out of court and you cut me a check.
I'm sorry, but if you're the guy that goes 70mph in the fast lane and refuses to move, you are at fault for what ever I chose to dish out to you, for not having the common courtesy to move your car.
-Don
I'm the guy I hope you kill so they put you away where you deserve to be.
Wirelessly posted (iPhone: Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_0 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8A293 Safari/6531.22.7)
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
You're getting your 16 year old, testosterone panties in a twist yet you admit that you went over the speed limit that you cherish so much by at least 20mph. You admit you (but not in so many words because you have that 16yo complex of I gotta be right) drove recklessly all to teach a lesson that is really not yours to teach. That is for the highway patrol and driving school.
Regardless of what your inexperienced mind may believe, she was in the right and actually doing nothing wrong. She was traveling the speed limit. She was minding her own business until a little 16yo know-it-all comes along driving with minimum experience and equally inexperienced driver next to him.
Unfortunate for you this seems to be a running trait in your family. Inexperience. Just because your uncle is a sitting judge doesn't make him a god. On the contrary, he's as idiotic and inexperienced as you.
Now kid, no matter how much you slap those jaws of yours together you are wrong. We don't care that your mommy was sitting next you or that your uncle is the judge. Go ahead a drive however you want. Frankly I see your kind every day on the road.
I'm that guy over in the left lane driving 70. I'm that guy you have to race up to and ride my bumper and zoom past me flipping me off.
But I'm the guy that's laughing at you because honestly at the end of the day, you are just a little 16yo with a giant ego stuck up your rear.
You're also the guy that will wreck his car because I force you to, and you're also the guy that I will then sue to pay for my deductible and any applicable medical costs. And I'm the guy that will laugh in your face and say "gonna move for me next time?" as I walk out of court and you cut me a check.
I'm sorry, but if you're the guy that goes 70mph in the fast lane and refuses to move, you are at fault for what ever I chose to dish out to you, for not having the common courtesy to move your car.
-Don
I'm the guy I hope you kill so they put you away where you deserve to be.