Amazing Iceman
May 4, 08:48 AM
You're totally wrong. I develop software that is used by hospitals. In fact, I'm writing an iPad app now. Our customers (hospitals) are buying iPads left and right. One hospital just bought 1800 iPads for example. In the HIS world (Hospital Information Systems) there are tons of articles illustrating how iPads are being adopted. A recent article talked about how iOS is trouncing everything else with a 90% share among health professionals.
Doctors are always on the go, specially in a hospital. Having the iPad allows them freedom to move around and have all the information pertaining to their patients available at any time, without having to carry or wait for patient's files, etc.
The iPad will always be a toy, but not just a toy. It is a very adaptable device that is useful on many fields. It's an amazing tool in the medical, engineering, management, artistic, etc fields.
Doctors are always on the go, specially in a hospital. Having the iPad allows them freedom to move around and have all the information pertaining to their patients available at any time, without having to carry or wait for patient's files, etc.
The iPad will always be a toy, but not just a toy. It is a very adaptable device that is useful on many fields. It's an amazing tool in the medical, engineering, management, artistic, etc fields.
this is funah
Sep 12, 08:13 AM
i just hope that iTunes 7 has better video handling... the video podcasts tend to overload the CPU, making me just open them in QT
Billy Boo Bob
Jan 7, 08:45 PM
No (and it's not an AVI, it's a H.264 encoded MOV). You're going to have to wait for someone to capture the stream and post it somewhere as a downloadable file.
That's where I wish they would change (or rather add to) that... Put up both a stream and a downloadable movie. Sorta like the movie trailers... 'cept longer.
That's the type of thing that a BitTorrent type of technology would help out with big time. So they only have to upload the full movie a few hundred times instead of several thousand. Let the others do the rest of the uploading.
That's where I wish they would change (or rather add to) that... Put up both a stream and a downloadable movie. Sorta like the movie trailers... 'cept longer.
That's the type of thing that a BitTorrent type of technology would help out with big time. So they only have to upload the full movie a few hundred times instead of several thousand. Let the others do the rest of the uploading.
nxent
Apr 25, 01:14 PM
this can't happen soon enough as my 3gs is slowly dying... my volume button(s) are gone and the bottom 1/2" of the screen no longer recognizes touch input.
Adamo
Oct 4, 08:06 AM
I imagine they should be banned from MacWorld, but I also think it's the funniest thing I've seen today and absolutely hilarious. :)
Lynxpoint
Apr 29, 05:13 PM
Sensible defaults. Usability before looks. The iOS scrollbars might look better but they remove usability. Same with the slider, it's not as intuitive.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
I agree with you completely, but still a part of me always remembers that people don't necessarily like change thrust upon them. Sometimes change is for the better, but the effect is not immediate. I only say this because I have changed the scollbars on Snow Leopard to Lion-like ones as well as using the scroll reverser app, and I have found I prefer these changes and I really like the idea of the bars vanishing when not active.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
I agree with you completely, but still a part of me always remembers that people don't necessarily like change thrust upon them. Sometimes change is for the better, but the effect is not immediate. I only say this because I have changed the scollbars on Snow Leopard to Lion-like ones as well as using the scroll reverser app, and I have found I prefer these changes and I really like the idea of the bars vanishing when not active.
SeaFox
Oct 28, 11:23 PM
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
That's true. But they are the ones who are going bellyache continually about Apple not having the software available anymore. "Why can't I get the Darwin source code?" "This is unfair, they used BSD stuff and now they aren't sharing!" "Why haven't they released 10.4.9?" (when it comes out)
They aren't going to look at it from Apple's perspective. They aren't going to say. "Well, gee thanks Apple for trying to share the software with us. We're sorry you're getting screwed over by Wintel hackers who are too cheap to just buy a Mac." They're going too say. Well, we're sorry that's happening but you have to just put up with it as part of having your stuff available. They'll make Apple out to be evil when this is all a reactionary measure. Apple wants to release Darwin as open source, otherwise they could have just released the first version and then closed the source after that (they can legally do that, just because it was open source and you released it once doesn't mean you have to keep doing it). Apple would never be able to use any newer BSD components after that, they would begin maintaining their software as a fork pretty much. They only pulled it because someone keeps hacking to run it on plain beige box Wintels. And the OSS people aren't going to look at those hackers as the ones responsible for the source being pulled.
Many OSS people are the free as in speech types, but I feel most are a combination of the free as in speech and as in beer types. They wants software to be free for use and they don't think it should have a pricetag attached. These are the ones always saying Apple should have to release Aqua too just because the Darwin part of OSX is released.
Edit:
Oh ****! Thanks Apple! Now, how am I supposed to get Mac OS X to run on my old Linux box?
See? There they are now. "Oh, ****! Thanks Apple!" Who's fault is it the source was pulled again?
That's true. But they are the ones who are going bellyache continually about Apple not having the software available anymore. "Why can't I get the Darwin source code?" "This is unfair, they used BSD stuff and now they aren't sharing!" "Why haven't they released 10.4.9?" (when it comes out)
They aren't going to look at it from Apple's perspective. They aren't going to say. "Well, gee thanks Apple for trying to share the software with us. We're sorry you're getting screwed over by Wintel hackers who are too cheap to just buy a Mac." They're going too say. Well, we're sorry that's happening but you have to just put up with it as part of having your stuff available. They'll make Apple out to be evil when this is all a reactionary measure. Apple wants to release Darwin as open source, otherwise they could have just released the first version and then closed the source after that (they can legally do that, just because it was open source and you released it once doesn't mean you have to keep doing it). Apple would never be able to use any newer BSD components after that, they would begin maintaining their software as a fork pretty much. They only pulled it because someone keeps hacking to run it on plain beige box Wintels. And the OSS people aren't going to look at those hackers as the ones responsible for the source being pulled.
Many OSS people are the free as in speech types, but I feel most are a combination of the free as in speech and as in beer types. They wants software to be free for use and they don't think it should have a pricetag attached. These are the ones always saying Apple should have to release Aqua too just because the Darwin part of OSX is released.
Edit:
Oh ****! Thanks Apple! Now, how am I supposed to get Mac OS X to run on my old Linux box?
See? There they are now. "Oh, ****! Thanks Apple!" Who's fault is it the source was pulled again?
megsandbytes
May 2, 10:29 PM
whether this glitch/bug was intentional or not and even if you are not a fan of frequent updates, at least Apple has acknowledged the demand for a fix and those who prefer not to have their location tracked will at least have the option to remove this feature.
Davowade
Apr 6, 11:30 PM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
MrKobie
Jan 12, 04:51 AM
blah blah blah...
You see, this is my point. Zero criticism. Steve Jobs s***s on a stage and you all gather around to share the love.
If it's an iPod first then why's it got such ****** capacity? Why's it called the iPhone? Seriously, are you a genuine music producer that's happy to walk around with just 8 gigs worth of music?
I don't carry around a 400 gig seagate hard drive - I carry around a 60 gig iPod because it does a great job. I don't have whatever phone you were talking about because I don't need a phone with a crappy mp3 player - I have an iPod. I'm guessing the price you quote is without a contract too.
This thing costs so much because Jobs knows you people will buy anything he tells you to. Seriously people, is it so bad to question things?
Revolution? Tell me when it starts.
You see, this is my point. Zero criticism. Steve Jobs s***s on a stage and you all gather around to share the love.
If it's an iPod first then why's it got such ****** capacity? Why's it called the iPhone? Seriously, are you a genuine music producer that's happy to walk around with just 8 gigs worth of music?
I don't carry around a 400 gig seagate hard drive - I carry around a 60 gig iPod because it does a great job. I don't have whatever phone you were talking about because I don't need a phone with a crappy mp3 player - I have an iPod. I'm guessing the price you quote is without a contract too.
This thing costs so much because Jobs knows you people will buy anything he tells you to. Seriously people, is it so bad to question things?
Revolution? Tell me when it starts.
leekohler
May 5, 04:30 PM
You're better than this Lee.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
Kashchei
Jan 13, 10:43 PM
1) Announces deal with movie companies for rentals through iTunes. These rentals will last the running time of the movie and cost $20.
2) :apple:TV updated so that it can stream rental movies, but only to analog tvs.
3) "There's Something in the Air" slogan turns out to be Apple branded oxygen dispenser called the iMask
4) 16GB iPhone released for original price ($599)
5) Mac mini discontinued
6) Surprise switch back to Motorola chip (G6) with immediate updates for all laptop & desktop models
7) "One More Thing" is rumored lightweight notebook (also doubles as hot plate)
8) Steve announces the date he will step down as iCEO of Apple
Before I get flamed, think about how little everyone will have to complain about the actual keynote in light of my pessimistic predictions (I don't actually think any of these things will happen).
2) :apple:TV updated so that it can stream rental movies, but only to analog tvs.
3) "There's Something in the Air" slogan turns out to be Apple branded oxygen dispenser called the iMask
4) 16GB iPhone released for original price ($599)
5) Mac mini discontinued
6) Surprise switch back to Motorola chip (G6) with immediate updates for all laptop & desktop models
7) "One More Thing" is rumored lightweight notebook (also doubles as hot plate)
8) Steve announces the date he will step down as iCEO of Apple
Before I get flamed, think about how little everyone will have to complain about the actual keynote in light of my pessimistic predictions (I don't actually think any of these things will happen).
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
dumb terminal
Apr 24, 02:26 PM
I hope windows gets rid of the dos command shell and don't have to rely on third party tools like cygwin. If W8 is unix based, it would be glorious.
I hope they don't get rid of the command shell. That would make system administration a real pain in the neck.
Especially when you've been doing system administration since the days of NT 4.0/2000, and use cmd for everything (yes, even tasks that are done easily through a GUI).
I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. That said, Powershell was a great step in the right direction, and added a lot of useful functionality.
I hope they don't get rid of the command shell. That would make system administration a real pain in the neck.
Especially when you've been doing system administration since the days of NT 4.0/2000, and use cmd for everything (yes, even tasks that are done easily through a GUI).
I don't see any of this changing anytime soon. That said, Powershell was a great step in the right direction, and added a lot of useful functionality.
rdowns
Dec 13, 12:50 PM
We can all dream right? I hope to god this is true. I need better service. To me, it'd be worth the $200 termination fee...
If you really needed better service, you wouldn't be using an iPhone on ATT.
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Where would you have MacRumors put it? Why do you think of others peeing their pants?
If you really needed better service, you wouldn't be using an iPhone on ATT.
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Where would you have MacRumors put it? Why do you think of others peeing their pants?
Stella
Jul 21, 10:21 AM
Are we still debating this?
Maybe because its a "Discussion form"?
Maybe because its a "Discussion form"?
Carouser
Sep 29, 11:27 AM
I would have a turntable in front of the garage. You can devote less space to the driveway area.
Turntables are for people who can't afford enough space or live in busy areas. They are a waste of time and energy. An optimally-sized driveway is a more elegant solution.
Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub?
Those things are for the new rich or the status-insecure. When you're sufficiently wealthy to actually do whatever you want that stuff is junk and a waste of time.
Turntables are for people who can't afford enough space or live in busy areas. They are a waste of time and energy. An optimally-sized driveway is a more elegant solution.
Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub?
Those things are for the new rich or the status-insecure. When you're sufficiently wealthy to actually do whatever you want that stuff is junk and a waste of time.
nmrrjw66
May 6, 10:15 AM
This is a little ridiculous. Is it really a big deal to answer simple questions about firearms? Gun owners should be happy to answer questions about their safety practices. It should also be perfectly reasonable to simply decline to answer those questions.
thejadedmonkey
Apr 12, 09:05 AM
Agreed. I feel like Wordpad, with the ability to open .doc and .docx files, would suffice.
And have Graphpad, a basic spreadsheet app, with the ability to open .xls and .xlsx for excel. :)
And have Graphpad, a basic spreadsheet app, with the ability to open .xls and .xlsx for excel. :)
applekid
Apr 15, 11:54 PM
Re-read your post on the first page. So, there's been no one that has run into rtgoldfish on X-Box Live? :confused:
At least that could make for a possible lead if someone could get the thief to say where he/she lives.
At least that could make for a possible lead if someone could get the thief to say where he/she lives.
0010101
Oct 29, 01:34 AM
The problem with Apple making a 'PC' version of OSX is that they'd have to write it to work with a million different combinations of hardware.. one of the reasons XP is such a crappy OS.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.
Since Apple builds the hardware, they build the OS to work with that hardware. That's what makes it so stable and reliable.
Now, Apple could, in theory, start a 'OSX Compliant' program, telling third party hardware vendors like Dell or HP that if they use a specific logic board chipset, video chipset, etc that OSX would run as well on such a PC as a Mac, but all that would do is kill Apples hardware sales, because most folks would opt for the ballsed out clone instead of the neutered Apple.
That's why licencing nearly killed Apple.. because the clone companies were building a better, faster box for much less money, and cutting too deep into their hardware sales (which they're making alot more than 20% on).
Another good reason for Apple to keep OSX on their hardware is Microsoft, who would probably quit releasing OSX versions of their popular Word and Excel software if Apple were to try and go head to head with them in the OS market.
Even animals know better than to $#it where they eat.
Despite Apples superior OS, I doubt they'll ever gain much more than 20% of the market, because when it comes down to it, people in general are going to buy what is inexpensive and familure, and has the best range of software available.
Software companies are going to write software for the largest audience possible.. and that's going to continue to be the Winblows platform.
Why hasn't there been a 'universal' version of Photoshop yet? Because the hard core digital imaging people are hanging on to their G5's. The 'casual' and 'consumer' users can use their software just fine under Rosetta on their Intel Macs.
There isn't any incentive for Adobe to port their flagship product yet.. because customers don't have any real incentive to buy it yet.
Multimedia
Oct 3, 01:44 PM
Just 97 days to go. :)No surprise to me. 8-Core Dual Clovertown Mac Pro will be announced in this presentation too. ;)
ucfgrad93
Mar 17, 01:12 AM
We all find creative ways to justify our actions.
Agreed. As long as I get what I want how it happens doesn't matter.:rolleyes:
Agreed. As long as I get what I want how it happens doesn't matter.:rolleyes:
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:47 AM
Agreed. AMD has traditionally been significantly faster and cheaper than Intel.
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
