chefscientist
Aug 25, 04:22 PM
Apple could start improving their customer service by:
- Combining "Pro Care," and ".Mac"
- Offering online apple care support for .mac members
- Extending their standard warranty
- The ability to serve people at the apple store as they walk in (for minor issues). Who in the world came up with this appointment crap?:confused:
- Allowing apple users to subsrcibe to apple learning events in iCal.
- Combining "Pro Care," and ".Mac"
- Offering online apple care support for .mac members
- Extending their standard warranty
- The ability to serve people at the apple store as they walk in (for minor issues). Who in the world came up with this appointment crap?:confused:
- Allowing apple users to subsrcibe to apple learning events in iCal.
Sydde
Mar 22, 08:47 PM
What I always wonder is what diplomatic efforts were used to pressure Qaddafi? There were no (as far as I know) threats of economic embargoes, freezing of assets, or other less violent methods to coerce Qaddafi.
As I recall, there was some freezing of the assets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/gaddafi-family-assets-frozen-queen), though the figures they show make it look like little more than window dressing.
Really, the reason the west wants him outta there is because no one can agree on how to transliterate his name :confused:
As I recall, there was some freezing of the assets (http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/feb/27/gaddafi-family-assets-frozen-queen), though the figures they show make it look like little more than window dressing.
Really, the reason the west wants him outta there is because no one can agree on how to transliterate his name :confused:
ggbrown
Mar 31, 04:09 PM
I'm a sysadmin and we use Ubuntu for our office fileserver. However, if you want other enterprise level software (e.g. Backup software) on Open Source systems, you have to choose a different system (Open SUSE in our case).
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
Sure, it's great....it's all free...but now we have multiple platforms to support. All Linux distros are NOT the same.
Android is suffering what Windows does.....an OS that is supposed to support a multitude of platforms, which will all come with varying success.
Open = Good in theory, not so good in real life.
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 11:01 AM
To those saying they'll boycott, I'd just like to point out...
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
Megan Fox - Jennifer#39;s Body
Megan Fox latest sexy photo
Beau and I saw Jennifer#39;s Body
Will Megan Fox Be Wonder Woman
pain olympics…megan fox…angel
megan fox body paint superman.
A new Megan Fox?
megan fox hair up
Megan+fox+ody+painting
Megan+fox+ody+paint+
For Megan Fox#39;s dewy skin,
apple shaped a ody paint
...Universal is by far the largest record label in the world, and those of you that say you don't listen to anyone of their artists might need to dig deeper into their subsidiaries, as just a few of the musicians in their stable are:
The Carpenters
Jimi Hendrix
Nikelback
Carole King
Andrea Bocell
Four Tops
Lionel Richie
Cat Stevens
The Jackson 5
The Andrews Sisters
SPUY767
Nov 28, 10:12 PM
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Just so you know, flame bait is almost always ignored. So don't bother.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 12:14 PM
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
I thought we were talking MWSF here, in January, so that's on par with expectations
kdarling
Apr 27, 09:52 AM
Incorrect - it's not tracking your direct location as you assert.
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
Depends.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
For instance, when you're visiting "Harry's Sex Shop and under the counter Heroin sales" it doesn't track that you're actually at that business.
Depends.
Someone could infer that info, if the cell cache says that around 2am you visited the town Harry's is in, and it's the only store open at that time.
:)
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
dukebound85
Aug 4, 10:17 PM
i thought this game was vaporware
TrollToddington
Apr 6, 01:21 PM
You can't please everyone with a tiny 11" or 13" machine. I think people on here expect far too much from such a small package. If you want the best of all worlds go and get the uber 15" with 256GB SSD. If you pay anything less you are in for a compromise.
Teddy's
Nov 29, 11:07 AM
...Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago.
Oh yes! some major label releases:
Grwen Pstefanny, Perris Hill Tong, Christeena Aguelara
*choking*
Oh yes! some major label releases:
Grwen Pstefanny, Perris Hill Tong, Christeena Aguelara
*choking*
Gugulino
Apr 6, 04:43 AM
precision editor? there are a million bajillion ways to "precision edit" in FCP that are easy and accurate. Just because there's no "one click" flashy UI to go with it doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
Yes, there are ways in FCP, but they are clunky! It was much easier for my project to do it in iMovie. Naturally, it is not true for every project.
For example, I can't do Multicam edits in iMovie. FCP has also its advantages, for sure! If FCP could marry with iMovie and make a child, the new FCP, that would be heaven.
Yes, there are ways in FCP, but they are clunky! It was much easier for my project to do it in iMovie. Naturally, it is not true for every project.
For example, I can't do Multicam edits in iMovie. FCP has also its advantages, for sure! If FCP could marry with iMovie and make a child, the new FCP, that would be heaven.
dwd3885
Mar 31, 03:10 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Ditto. Gruber is as much a blow hard as anyone can possibly be. He's such an arrogant, self-absorbing prick of a human being, without an un-biased bone in his body. He is the epitome of Apple fanboy.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Ditto. Gruber is as much a blow hard as anyone can possibly be. He's such an arrogant, self-absorbing prick of a human being, without an un-biased bone in his body. He is the epitome of Apple fanboy.
daver969
Sep 13, 11:05 AM
A bit pointless given that no software utilises the extra cores yet. But nice to know, I guess.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
I'm still getting used to having two cores in my laptop!
What I couldn't understand - I couldn't see it explained in the article - why is the dual core Mac Pro (i.e. with current Mac Pro with 2 cores disabled) faster in so many tests than the 4 core Mac Pro.
I think part of the reason so many people seem to be hung up on the "software doesn't utilize multiple cores" mantra is because benchmarks tend to test only one software component at a time. If a given app isn't multithreaded, then it doesn't benefit from multiple cores in these tests. But that doesn't mean that multiple cores don't affect the overall system speed.
What we need is some kind of a super benchmark: How fast is my computer when I'm watching a quicktime stream of Steve demoing the latest insanely great stuff, while ripping my CD collection to iTunes, while surfing complex Cnet.com pages (w/animation), and compiling the latest version of my Java app, every once in a while flipping over to Dashboard (dashboard seems to take up a lot of system resources every time I invoke it, not just on startup).
At this point I would rather push towards more cores than more raw speed in a single core, since I don't tend to wait on any single process. If something is taking a long time, like loading a page or compiling code, I switch to something else and come back later. I would much rather have the whole system retain its responsive feel than have one app finish its task a few seconds quicker.
mikethebigo
Apr 6, 01:28 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
Motorola doesn't "get" tablets yet, but the G1 didn't sell well either. Let's look at the market again in two years, I bet it'll look a lot different.
fastlane1588
Aug 5, 05:35 PM
iMac - No.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
Movie jennifers ody paint
Megan+fox+ody+painted
megan fox body paint superman.
iPod - No.
MacBook - No.
MacBook Pro - No.
MacPro - Yes.
Xserve - Yes.
Displays - Yes.
Leopard Preview - Yes.
iPhone - Ha ha ha ha ha ha.
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:25 AM
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 7, 01:37 PM
Looks like a good time to let my PM D1.25Ghz G4 retire... The new MP must be at least 10 times faster. :eek:
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
Apple store up again. The old PM G5 seem to be gone.
rawdigits
Sep 13, 08:57 AM
I guess I'll wait until Tigerton. I want to buy a merom MBP when it comes out.
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
The architecture of Tigerton is without the Frontside Bus. More in direction of AMD. Much more efficiency than put just 8 Cores to the 1.3 FSB. Clovertown alos has slower RAM.
:rolleyes:
dicklacara
Apr 10, 04:24 AM
I'm not so sure about the down res option, it sounds like an awful lot of time spent compressing, though I sure hope it is some type of interface, perhaps as an input device or palette.
iOS 4.3 apparently contains private frameworks for all the ProRes codecs.
I hope we also will see a way to use an iPad as a control surface for some FC operations -- pinch/zoom for example or dragging audio sliders...
iOS 4.3 apparently contains private frameworks for all the ProRes codecs.
I hope we also will see a way to use an iPad as a control surface for some FC operations -- pinch/zoom for example or dragging audio sliders...
Hastings101
Apr 6, 03:18 PM
I'd rather buy like a tablet running a modified version of Windows 7 or something similar. Not an Android tablet. Unfortunately I don't think I've seen anything like that released :(
leekohler
Mar 3, 12:04 PM
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
Fair enough. Now let's move along. ;)
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
Fair enough. Now let's move along. ;)
Multimedia
Jul 21, 12:51 PM
All I will say is that you are not a typical user. You are not even close to typical.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.
And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. :eek:
I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.
I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.
OK. So maybe you need ten thousand cores and three million gigabytes of RAM. Don't think for an instant that the majority of the world shares your requirements.I may not be typical today, but in future a majority of Western Pop-Culture type users - not the world - will want to be able to archive HDTV to mp4 off their original recordings in a flash and only more cores will solve that problem.
And I never said anything about needing ten thousand cores etc. I think it is quite realistic for the majority of Western Pop-Culture Type Nationalities ONLY users to need 16 or more cores by 2010. Thank God we will begin to get them by 2008. :eek:
I don't begin to pretend we are discussing the world's users' needs here. Only Westerners with heavy Pop-Culture Multimedia type usage - Video iPods HDTV Sat Radio etc.
I believe that there is a fundamental lack of imagination on this front - because it hasn't been possible to date, therefore it isn't in the consciousness of many users yet as a possibility they would think of doing. It's not so much that I'm atypical as it is I am already thinking outside the box of how we've been doing stuff to date. Soon many will begin to see the new ways we will be able to get stuff done faster thanks to more Cores inside.
SevenInchScrew
Dec 8, 12:05 PM
Actually, Sony explained that the damage is not unlocked or progressive as one dives deeper into the game. It's just that as one goes further into the game, one is able to FINALLY collect more premium cars which do have the better damage engine.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.
This is exactly opposite to what I've read and seen in the game.