DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:27 PM
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
whatever
Oct 11, 12:00 PM
Disagree strongly. There are PLENTY of times when people are doing things that go perfectly with the video iPod (airplane travel, roadtrips, commuting via bus or carpool, just to name a few). Just because it doesn't fit into your lifestyle doesn't mean it won't be the greatest thing since sliced bread to a whole lot of others. When you miss a show you want to see (I still do occassionally, even with a DVR) it is AWESOME to be able to get it quick and easy on iTunes, at a pretty dang good quality.
Also, have you TRIED watching TV on an iPod. Even the current screen at 320x480 looks great with as bright and high resolution (per inch) as they've made the current iPod. If Apple really does go wide screen as so many are hoping, the picture may look nicer than a big screen TV (since any screen gets smaller the further you get from it).
Hey don't you watch Heroes? The Japaneese guy watches his porn on a iPod.
Also, have you TRIED watching TV on an iPod. Even the current screen at 320x480 looks great with as bright and high resolution (per inch) as they've made the current iPod. If Apple really does go wide screen as so many are hoping, the picture may look nicer than a big screen TV (since any screen gets smaller the further you get from it).
Hey don't you watch Heroes? The Japaneese guy watches his porn on a iPod.
James17
Oct 12, 07:06 PM
Gizmodo is not credible in my opinion!
rstansby
Apr 15, 05:27 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
I agree.
I agree.
true777
Sep 29, 12:42 AM
Man, that is a crummy little house by Silicon Valley standards if I ever saw one. I live in the neighboring town (Portola Valley), which is essentially the same as Woodside, and hence know many homes in the area (including the one I live in). And by current standards around here, not having a private bathroom for EACH bedroom, and a LARGE closet, is pretty substandard. 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? This honestly doesn't look like a place where a man of his caliber would be living full-time. Of course his house in Palo Alto isn't huge, either, but at least it is charming, historic, enchanted.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
He has a number of kids, so I'm not sure how they would all fit into this small space with their friends when, e.g., everyone comes home for summers, holidays, etc. Typical houses for higher level people in the Woodside area would have at least 6-7 bedrooms, a bathroom for each bedroom, plus several additional half bathrooms, and probably about 10,000 squ. ft.
Only thing that makes sense to me is that he would view this as his retirement house since it'll only be done ~5 years, anyway. And I suppose for retirement people like to keep it small and simple. That would make sense to me and might hint at when he might be planning on retiring.
iGary
Sep 28, 10:49 AM
Well I got it back today (tried it out at the Genius Bar before I left the store) and it's working brilliantly.
Now I have to change my whole workflow again. :(
Now I have to change my whole workflow again. :(
jayducharme
Oct 6, 10:32 AM
The only drawback for Verizon is that they still don't have the iPhone ... yet.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
Aperture
Jan 15, 10:06 PM
My Thoughts:
A nice iPhone update, I wasn't expecting a new iPhone.. yet I wasn't surprised considering the entire firmware was leaked
The $20 on the Touch doesn't really matter to me because it seems like you are getting quite a bit of functionality out of it. Apple did a similar thing with the upgrade to wireless N on some notebooks, right?
iTunes movie rentals, Apple TV, & Time Capsule sound like a good idea but none of them truly appeal to me
Macbook Air: I'm really not sure I'd ever recommend this.. I know I am not the targeted audience but I'd much rather go for a MB and save a bunch of money or spend a few more hundred and get a MBP. I know it is an ultra portable and it therefore has limited ports, but they are just too limited for me. I don't think I could justify spending that much for so little. Edit: I've thought about it and I understand this is a niche market, it is meant to compete against the comparable IBM & Sony. In that regard, it is quite good.
I'm also not a fan of the black keyboard, it doesn't look right to me. The curvature of the design is excellent, though.
Either way, Macworld 08 was alright.. a little underwhelming compared to last year but I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking. One thing that did annoy me is that the entire keynote was almost laid out for us prior to Steve Jobs taking the stage.. No surprises. Apple needs to do a better job keeping rumors low and leaks to a minimum.
A nice iPhone update, I wasn't expecting a new iPhone.. yet I wasn't surprised considering the entire firmware was leaked
The $20 on the Touch doesn't really matter to me because it seems like you are getting quite a bit of functionality out of it. Apple did a similar thing with the upgrade to wireless N on some notebooks, right?
iTunes movie rentals, Apple TV, & Time Capsule sound like a good idea but none of them truly appeal to me
Macbook Air: I'm really not sure I'd ever recommend this.. I know I am not the targeted audience but I'd much rather go for a MB and save a bunch of money or spend a few more hundred and get a MBP. I know it is an ultra portable and it therefore has limited ports, but they are just too limited for me. I don't think I could justify spending that much for so little. Edit: I've thought about it and I understand this is a niche market, it is meant to compete against the comparable IBM & Sony. In that regard, it is quite good.
I'm also not a fan of the black keyboard, it doesn't look right to me. The curvature of the design is excellent, though.
Either way, Macworld 08 was alright.. a little underwhelming compared to last year but I wasn't expecting anything groundbreaking. One thing that did annoy me is that the entire keynote was almost laid out for us prior to Steve Jobs taking the stage.. No surprises. Apple needs to do a better job keeping rumors low and leaks to a minimum.
milo
Sep 25, 04:36 PM
Perhaps all the developers are spending too much time on Leopard and Logic 8 at the moment.
You're kidding, right? Besides the fact that all are different teams, Logic has had FAR less development than Aperture as well as most other apple apps (with the obvious exception of Soundtrack Pro, which hasn't had a single improvement in over a year, and has always run like crap). I'd kill to see Logic development moving at the speed of Aperture.
You're kidding, right? Besides the fact that all are different teams, Logic has had FAR less development than Aperture as well as most other apple apps (with the obvious exception of Soundtrack Pro, which hasn't had a single improvement in over a year, and has always run like crap). I'd kill to see Logic development moving at the speed of Aperture.
Tymmz
Sep 12, 05:56 AM
Call me na�ve, but aren't they supposed to receive you?
hehe, good one!
hehe, good one!
anotherarunan
Jan 15, 02:31 PM
- No desktop updates at all. I predict Apple getting out of the consumer desktop market in the next 2-3 years. No more iMac or mini.
.
Absolute madness. No offence.
.
Absolute madness. No offence.
rtdgoldfish
Apr 3, 09:05 PM
A friend of mine works with the Xbox support team. I'll ask him if there's anything (legal) that they can do. You have my admiration for your good detective work!
That would be great. I'm sure there must be SOMETHING they can do.
That would be great. I'm sure there must be SOMETHING they can do.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 11:22 PM
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
err404
May 2, 11:36 AM
your correct, based on Steve Jobbs response to this which was pure BS we can never trust that the files do NOT get sent out.
Apple has been open about collecting location data. However that does does not come from consolidated.db. The database that everyone is talking about is data sent FROM Apple TO your phone. Why would Apple collect the data that they sent to you?
The issue is that if your phone is compromised by a third party, this DB could be used to infer information about your location (you location is not directly stored in the DB). The changes being made reduce this risk by shortening the cache and encrypting the data.
Apple has been open about collecting location data. However that does does not come from consolidated.db. The database that everyone is talking about is data sent FROM Apple TO your phone. Why would Apple collect the data that they sent to you?
The issue is that if your phone is compromised by a third party, this DB could be used to infer information about your location (you location is not directly stored in the DB). The changes being made reduce this risk by shortening the cache and encrypting the data.
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 04:25 PM
I still disagree with you. The device is material. The network is supposed to be invisible. You're not supposed to notice the network. AT&T's service isn't great, but I'll put up with it to use the device of my choice.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
The mobile industry has a strange business model compared to other industries. You don't buy a desktop computer that you can only use on one ISP or a car that you can only fill up at particular gas stations (excluding electric). However, If these industries were to operate this way, I still think people would go for the product over the commodity.
To me, and apparently many others, mobile service is just a commodity. Some may be a bit better than others, but in the end you're getting a comparable service. The devices, on the other hand, vary. And, yes, I still think the iPhone was game changing. All I remember before January 2007 were RAZRs and Chocolates. Unintuitive text-based interfaces with linear button-mashing controls in a hyped-up shell.
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
SeaFox
Oct 28, 11:10 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:19 AM
Man that's early must be a big update. :cool: :D
mcorf
Apr 10, 01:08 PM
I went to pick up my ipad yesterday(which I reordered) and asked if they had any more for sale. They said they had a lot of the verizon 3G(which I didn't want anyway), but were not allowed to sell them. I asked why and they said because of what happened at some of there other stores, but wouldn't tell me what.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:12 PM
Hey wildcowboy, at least credit me for this article. :P
T-Will
Apr 5, 04:32 PM
OMG I JSUT FOUND THE GRAETEST TV CHANNEL IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE YOU CAN WATCH ADS 24HUORS A DAY!111 IT"S CALLED HSN (Home Shopping Network)!!11
:D
:D
fishmoose
Apr 15, 04:36 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
I think Apple will be able to get the right deals in the end get Steve Jobs pissed enough at the labels and they'll come around he usually gets his way, one way or another.
I think Apple will be able to get the right deals in the end get Steve Jobs pissed enough at the labels and they'll come around he usually gets his way, one way or another.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
neiltc13
Sep 12, 08:37 AM
It has to come back soon, think of all the sales they're losing!
minnesotamacman
Oct 18, 05:47 PM
It has been said here already, but Apple is smart to back both. I have a feeliing that HD DVD is going to win out in the end. Sure Sony is going to Blu Ray everyone, but not many people over 30 are going to get a PS3...
0 comments:
Post a Comment