vwcruisn
Mar 23, 05:04 PM
There shouldn't even be checkpoints in the first place because they violate the 4th Amendment. Every person sitting in line at that checkpoint is accused of being drunk without reasonable doubt.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
The Fourth Amendment (Amendment IV) to the United States Constitution is the part of the Bill of Rights which guards against unreasonable searches and seizures, along with requiring any warrant to be judicially sanctioned and supported by probable cause.
Agree 100%.
There's a pretty good read here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/crovelli/crovelli27.html
while I don't necessarily agree with all of his points/correlations, some really do make sense.
One of the most glaring problems with the drunk-driving laws in this country is that they clearly discriminate against and ruthlessly penalize only one class of dangerous drivers. Drunk drivers are subject to arrest, thousands of dollars of fines, lengthy jail or prison sentences, loss of driving "privileges," alcohol abuse counseling, probation, et cetera. Other dangerous drivers are not subject to these draconian penalties. If Grandma gets pulled over by the police for careening in and out of the median, for example, she will not be wrenched from her Cadillac, handcuffed, incarcerated, counseled, or fined into bankruptcy. At worst, so long as she has not hurt anyone, she will be escorted home and possibly lose her "privilege" to drive on government roads in the future (she will not lose the "privilege" of paying for government roads, however). Similarly, a man who chooses not to wear his DMV-mandated glasses or contact lenses while driving does not have to worry about getting stopped at "corrective lens checkpoints" manned by nightstick-wielding troopers searching for un-bespectacled drivers to humiliate, arrest, fine, and send to jail. On the contrary, this type of dangerous driver is merely instructed to wear his glasses if he is stopped by the police, and he is issued a perfunctory (and revenue-generating) citation. He certainly does not have to worry about the possibility of going to state prison for several years when he decides to drive without his glasses � unless he actually hurts someone.
rpenzinger
Mar 23, 11:18 PM
Great news!
My six year old iMac G5 just gave up the ghost yesterday, so I am eagerly awaiting the new models.
I'm right behind you, my iMac G5 had a logic board issue...got it working though on all external drives...talk about slow
My six year old iMac G5 just gave up the ghost yesterday, so I am eagerly awaiting the new models.
I'm right behind you, my iMac G5 had a logic board issue...got it working though on all external drives...talk about slow
0815
Apr 20, 12:46 PM
The fact that apple has a huge location database accessible by anybody with an app scares me. That's too much centralized data for somebody to do bad things with, even if it's not Apple. THAT is why this is a bad thing.
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
zekegri
Mar 23, 05:18 PM
If I am sober enough to go through the process and find out where the checkpoints are then I should be able to use the software.
RollTide
Apr 30, 02:49 PM
Ill be in Panama city Florida a couple days after the release, may pick one up on the way home if we go by a store. Have to find a list of stores.
Thanatoast
Sep 15, 05:46 PM
Glad to hear that they're considering making 2 or 3 different phones. That way I can get my smartphone while others can get their regular phones.
rmwebs
Apr 25, 02:38 PM
I'd like to see something along the lines of carbon fiber. I'm fed up of being shocked by my unearthed mac book pro, and very fed up of the razor sharp edges they seem to like so much. It makes me look like I've tried slitting my wrists :p
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
The obvious downside with using a non-metal is the heat. They have relied on the aluminium to act as a giant heatsink, and I fear not using aluminium again would result in a thicker, hotter model!
rhett7660
Nov 13, 05:12 PM
the tide is turning against Apple here, they need to clean up their act and get this whole thing working better.
i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
i understand the walled-garden approach and respect that, but they also need to get the store cleaned up/organized and they need to work better with developers - which might just mean hiring more people to work with them on a daily basis.
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
dondark
Sep 14, 12:49 AM
I think that Apple would make their phone a GSM phone to get more worldwide market rather than releasing it on CDMA. And I doubt they'd throw in 3G on a GSM phone because Cingular's 3G network is not the biggest right now. I think I read that Sprint's PowerVision is the biggest at the moment and still growing. T-Mobile just bought a TON of 3G bandwidth but isn't launching that until next year. So I don't think 3G would be in this phone because we aren't quite there......yet.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
Ya, i know 3G isnt that popular in America, but i expect the iPhone at least should have built-in WiFi like many Phones in today's market. So we can use the iPhone to video LIVE chat with the other Mac users or iPhone users through the internet. Since many Universities have Wi-Fi covered the whole school, so i think it will benefit abot students. And more and more hot-spot now.
As for UMA, I'd be surprised if it didn't have a Wifi card. There are a lot of rumors saying that T-Mobile's launching a giant UMA service, which I wouldn't be surprised with the 7,000 wireless networks they own.
Ya, i know 3G isnt that popular in America, but i expect the iPhone at least should have built-in WiFi like many Phones in today's market. So we can use the iPhone to video LIVE chat with the other Mac users or iPhone users through the internet. Since many Universities have Wi-Fi covered the whole school, so i think it will benefit abot students. And more and more hot-spot now.
jessica.
Sep 20, 07:34 AM
Wow. Good news for Apple and the future of the iTS in getting more studios on board. :)
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
GOOD! I think the HD DVD is out of control already. The future isn't in DVDs in my opinion, it's in digital formats. The iTV is just the first to prove it.
I am glad this movie thing is successful. I like the lower prices on new releases but I wish I could burn one copy to dvd so I can watch it anywhere.
If Apple can just convince studios to release movies in 720p and 1080p formats, it would kill off the blu-ray / HD DVD rivalry once and for all.
GOOD! I think the HD DVD is out of control already. The future isn't in DVDs in my opinion, it's in digital formats. The iTV is just the first to prove it.
I am glad this movie thing is successful. I like the lower prices on new releases but I wish I could burn one copy to dvd so I can watch it anywhere.
prady16
Sep 14, 08:59 AM
Any news if Steve will give a keynote in the special event preceeding photokina?
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:34 PM
First, $100 million is load of money for anyone. Time was, not so long ago, that reporting a $100 million quarterly profit was a big deal for Apple. The iPod doesn't "make" $6 billion a year for Apple. That's just revenue. Profits are a faction of that revenue.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
This might be a valid point, except that the $100 million payout isn't being charged against profits. Instead, it is being recorded as an asset and ammortized over many years, meaning it will have very minimal impact to the bottom line.
Second, Creative doesn't "give up" anything but a license to Apple for technology Apple was using before for nothing. No matter how you cut it, the license fee come right out of Apple's bottom line.
I believe this is incorrect. Just because Apple is paying the fee doesn't mean it comes directly out of Apple's profits. As stated above, the licensing fee will be ammortized over several years and thus the impact to the bottom line will be nil.
Secondly, the fee is conditional. If Creative manages to secure other licensing deals, they pay Apple back some of that $100 million. Perhaps all, if the other fees are substantial. That sounds more like a "loan" to me.
If this can be called a "win" for Apple, it's in their getting this issue squared away relatively quickly, so it doesn't overhang the next generation of iPod releases. The long-term impacts of allowing the suit to drag on could have been considerable, just as it was for RIM. Especially if in the end, they lost.
No disagreement with this. The only thing is that NTP never agreed to pay RIM back part of its licensing fee if it was successful in securing new licensees. And NTP didn't decide to become a maker of Blackberry add-on devices.
By officially becoming a member of the "Made for iPod" program, Creative is basically unofficially pre-announcing that it is exiting the player business (contrary to official denial, which are necessary in order for it to sell of remaining inventory). Zen's lost huge marketshare against Sandisk, of all companies, and there's no way Zen will hold on to what little marketshare it has with Zune entering the scene. Not to mention that "Zen" and "Zune" are phonetically similar, which all but guarantees the situation will be hopeless for the Zen line of players.
Creative realized it makes more sense to extract licensing fees from Microsoft for Zune than try to compete directly as it had against the iPod.
With that exit strategy tucked under its belt, it's now free to focus on creating great iPod accessories, which will require far less R&D than music players, and will actually be profitable.
Apple "lost" all right. Here's a summary from The Motley Fool
Apple Gets Creative (http://www.fool.com/News/mft/2006/mft06082410.htm)
What's more, Apple is allowed to recoup costs if others agree to license Creative's patent. Will there be other deals? It's a good bet Creative will try to secure some; the $100 million the firm is getting from Apple will juice per-share earnings by $0.85 in the current quarter.
Plus, there are plenty of targets, with the biggest and most obvious being Microsoft (Nasdaq: MSFT). Its planned Zune player is expected out before the holiday season. Creative could get ahold of a beta version of the device and, if there's evidence of a patent violation, file suit and petition for an injunction.
Apple would love nothing better, of course. But even if Mr. Softy and other i-wannabes avoid the courts, they're unlikely to avoid the extra time and expense of working around Creative's patent. That, too, is a win for the Mac maker. Well done, Steve.
This is what would be called Pyrrhic victory for Creative. Sure, it looks like they won the battle, but only at such a cost that it ends up being a defeat in the long term.
Peace
Aug 28, 12:41 PM
Why so many negative votes?
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
I'm guessing it's because every computer maker has announced the new Core 2 Duo but Apple hasn't.That's why I voted negative.
RKpro
Apr 28, 03:52 PM
Wow, Apple is pretty much unstoppable now. And if anyone tries to get in their way, they've got a $60b war chest.
~Shard~
Aug 28, 12:12 PM
Yeah, we all knew this was coming. It will be interesting to see how quickly Apple responds to its competition and follows suit. Hopefully very soon, I'm eager to see what exactly Apple does, i.e. only updates the MBPs, updates the whole MacBook line, updates the Mini as well... :cool:
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
Oh, and how about some Conroe iMacs? ;) :D
Satori
Apr 19, 08:43 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
Do no buckle to these power hungry tyrants Samsung. The stinger you fight, the more I will buy your products in the future.
I note that you posted this from your iphone!:eek:
xionxiox
Apr 25, 01:15 PM
Nice. My 17 MBP (Early 2009) will be getting close to the end of its life cycle by then, allowing me to easily slide into a new MBP.
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
A comment from Full of Win that's not complaining??? GLORY BE. :p
iMeowbot
Sep 14, 11:14 AM
Just checked again. It does appear that laptops are ready to go on 9-22, 9-25, and 9-27, depending on which model and size. Still, that gives Apple some "breathing room" to release theirs.
Well... there is a backlog now, but Merom Dell notebooks are already shipping (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=77155).
Well... there is a backlog now, but Merom Dell notebooks are already shipping (http://forum.notebookreview.com/showthread.php?t=77155).
funkyT80
Mar 22, 03:07 PM
wait, since when did apple make computers? :rolleyes:
nwcs
Apr 4, 12:16 PM
This is a silly debate here. Having known trained officers and military people and being related to some I can tell you one thing: they are taught to neutralize the threat. They certainly don't want to but if you hesitate you die. Chest shots are preferable because it's easier to target but head shots sometimes happen. People should be thinking about the guard who will undoubtedly need time to work through this ordeal.
mcarnes
Oct 12, 12:39 PM
Why is U2 so big with iPods anyways? The only group to have their own iPod. :confused:
(I don't mean to be disrespectful to the U2 fanboys out there)
Remember the keynote where Jobs introduced the iTMS (and the whole idea of legal downloads)?
SJ and Bono became bed buddies.
(I don't mean to be disrespectful to the U2 fanboys out there)
Remember the keynote where Jobs introduced the iTMS (and the whole idea of legal downloads)?
SJ and Bono became bed buddies.
kgtenacious
May 3, 05:43 PM
So the display input is not backwards compatible? Currently, I use an Atlona AT-HD620 to connect a high def DirecTV hdmi input into my 2010 27" iMac, for watching tv.
I won't be able to do that with the new 2011 27" iMac? :eek:
I won't be able to do that with the new 2011 27" iMac? :eek:
Guirgi
Sep 14, 11:40 AM
But since everyone's discussing MBP's, I guess it fits.
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
I know the Merom chip is compatible with the current boards in the CD MBP, but I've never heard anyone actually say that a CD MBP can be upgraded by simply dropping in a Merom chip. Will this be possible?
steve_hill4
Oct 27, 01:06 PM
In response to the previous post above, perhaps Greenpeace should think about limiting its volunteers at public events to "really hot" girls dressed "appropriately", I am sure its message would be better received.
Yeah, but make sure they're environmentally friendly, so get them to wear fig leaves. :)
Yeah, but make sure they're environmentally friendly, so get them to wear fig leaves. :)