toxic
May 6, 12:23 AM
the PPC-Intel move is not comparable - Steve Jobs intended to switch to Intel from the beginning. this is just a backwards move for anything beyond the netbook space, which Apple isn't competing in.
DomC
Apr 5, 01:38 PM
That takes some balls. Perhaps Toyota can have a say on some Apple product? I thought it was genius of Toyota to do the theme. They probably found the Scion buyer is the same demographic that jailbreaks a phone. Sounds like good marketing to me.
LagunaSol
Apr 20, 01:47 AM
Love the look and feel of the current model - makes everything else on the market look like cheap junk. I hope the rumor is true and Apple leaves the external design as-is. Like the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro, this is a design that will look great for many years.
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 5, 01:05 PM
Not surprised! Toyota should not take it!
dr_lha
Aug 11, 10:45 AM
The link that was posted was to a Conroe chip. mashinhead asked for third party upgrades for the the current Yonah based line here. #64 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2708950&postcount=64)
Conroe cannot fit into Merom's socket.
Which is exactly what I said in my post.
I'm totallly confused as to why you're saying I was wrong here. The chip linked was Conroe, I said:
There is no current Mac that this chip can "drop into", apart from maybe a Mac Pro, but going from a Woodcrest to a Conroe would be a downgrade in that case.
The Merom that should eventually go into the iMac, mini, MBP and MacBook are currently not on sale to the consumer.
Exactly what was wrong with this again, apart from your not reading it correctly?
Conroe cannot fit into Merom's socket.
Which is exactly what I said in my post.
I'm totallly confused as to why you're saying I was wrong here. The chip linked was Conroe, I said:
There is no current Mac that this chip can "drop into", apart from maybe a Mac Pro, but going from a Woodcrest to a Conroe would be a downgrade in that case.
The Merom that should eventually go into the iMac, mini, MBP and MacBook are currently not on sale to the consumer.
Exactly what was wrong with this again, apart from your not reading it correctly?
nuckinfutz
May 7, 04:57 PM
Don't negative a possibility, you have no proof that it can't happen, no matter how unlikely it is. You have no proof that iAds have nothing to do with this. We're all talking about possibilities here and MM going free is one of them.
Don't assume that iAds wouldn't lead to something else for Apple. Apple can do whatever they want if it'll earns them more money.
Yes, locking people in the Apple ecosystem earns them money, locking people in the same ecosystem with their own ads earns them even more money.
I don't negate the possibility but one of the problems is that I see is that people think Apple is going to become Google Lite. More appropriately put because Google found success with embedding advertising into free products people assume Apple will follow suit.
The failure of this ideology is that Google has largely been a web based company that has eschewed getting into consumer hardware save for the Nexus One. Apple is a company that seeks to sell software and hardware thus their profits aren't going to depend on advertising.
MobileMe Free clears up a big problem with people that have multiple computing problems which, hopefully, means they are less reticent to add another device to the collection if management costs in time and effort don't multiply.
iAd is important to Apple but it's clear that initially it's going to really appeal to the larger companies. Apple's going after the cream of the crop with iAd and not only are they designing, hosting and approving ads but the expected pricing is beyond what many companies are used to paying.
So with that in mind I think Apple keeps iAd within its walled garden and realizes that MobileMe free just sells more mobile iPhone OS devices. Could Apple leverage MobileMe free with iAds to make money? Sure but I think it's less plausible than many think.
Don't assume that iAds wouldn't lead to something else for Apple. Apple can do whatever they want if it'll earns them more money.
Yes, locking people in the Apple ecosystem earns them money, locking people in the same ecosystem with their own ads earns them even more money.
I don't negate the possibility but one of the problems is that I see is that people think Apple is going to become Google Lite. More appropriately put because Google found success with embedding advertising into free products people assume Apple will follow suit.
The failure of this ideology is that Google has largely been a web based company that has eschewed getting into consumer hardware save for the Nexus One. Apple is a company that seeks to sell software and hardware thus their profits aren't going to depend on advertising.
MobileMe Free clears up a big problem with people that have multiple computing problems which, hopefully, means they are less reticent to add another device to the collection if management costs in time and effort don't multiply.
iAd is important to Apple but it's clear that initially it's going to really appeal to the larger companies. Apple's going after the cream of the crop with iAd and not only are they designing, hosting and approving ads but the expected pricing is beyond what many companies are used to paying.
So with that in mind I think Apple keeps iAd within its walled garden and realizes that MobileMe free just sells more mobile iPhone OS devices. Could Apple leverage MobileMe free with iAds to make money? Sure but I think it's less plausible than many think.
kalsta
May 3, 06:17 PM
As for having a feel for the numbers, he's not alone. I have nearly 20 years of professional experience using Imperial units as a mechanical engineer, as does every mechanical engineer in the U.S. Switching systems (or, rather, making it mandatory) will require all of these engineers to re-learn the formulae they've known and used for decades. That's the equivalent of millions of man-years of engineering experience down the drain. That isn't progress, no matter how much you might want want to believe it is.
:confused: Not progress because you'd have to relearn something? Mate, what progress would ever have been made if people always held to that argument? In the 80's/90's there were probably more than a few people in the design/publishing industry saying, 'Sorry, can't switch to Macs… Got 20 years experience rubbing Letraset down and maintaining my bromide machine.'
:confused: Not progress because you'd have to relearn something? Mate, what progress would ever have been made if people always held to that argument? In the 80's/90's there were probably more than a few people in the design/publishing industry saying, 'Sorry, can't switch to Macs… Got 20 years experience rubbing Letraset down and maintaining my bromide machine.'
Lesser Evets
Apr 21, 02:38 PM
Having dug around in my Mac liberally over 4 years, I was surprised they didn't crunch down the design yet. It's got a lot of room in there. Though the sleds and space aren't unwelcome, there are ways to compact all that and still have a great machine which is easy to access.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Multimedia
Aug 12, 02:32 AM
Sounds like you'll be getting a nice Penryn MBP then! ;) :D :cool:From the Intel Core Microarchitecture Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intel_Core_Microarchitecture):
Penryn, dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Merom, 3�6 MiB L2
So you think Penryn pairs may be the 4 core mobile solution in 2008?
Penryn, dual-core, 45 nm shrink of Merom, 3�6 MiB L2
So you think Penryn pairs may be the 4 core mobile solution in 2008?
praetorian909
Apr 21, 03:35 PM
Very interesting. This is very plausible because of Lenovo has the C20 workstation (which I picked out for myself at my work):
http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/637217.html
The ThinkStation is 3U rackmountable, with the CD tray vertical for the thinner chassis. Fits full-length, full-height PCIe (video) cards. They called it the "world's smallest dual CPU workstation" so Apple could definitely match it for the Mac Pro.
I'd really like to get a Mac Pro, so this would be perfect. :) The size is nice though honestly I don't really see much need for rackmounting--do companies use these in a server room with a KVM or thin client or something?http://www.lenovo.com/shop/americas/content/img_lib/products/splitter/workstations/features/c20_worlds-smallest.jpg
http://news.ecoustics.com/bbs/messages/10381/637217.html
The ThinkStation is 3U rackmountable, with the CD tray vertical for the thinner chassis. Fits full-length, full-height PCIe (video) cards. They called it the "world's smallest dual CPU workstation" so Apple could definitely match it for the Mac Pro.
I'd really like to get a Mac Pro, so this would be perfect. :) The size is nice though honestly I don't really see much need for rackmounting--do companies use these in a server room with a KVM or thin client or something?http://www.lenovo.com/shop/americas/content/img_lib/products/splitter/workstations/features/c20_worlds-smallest.jpg
miloblithe
Aug 7, 02:01 PM
For those of you hoping for a mid-range tower, you're looking at it. Take the processor down from dual 2.66Ghz to dual 2.0 and the HD down from 250GB to 160, and you're looking at a $2124 machine.
I sincerely doubt Apple will introduce any new model to its current lineup of mini/pro, macbook/macbook pro. Your best hope is a supermini.
I sincerely doubt Apple will introduce any new model to its current lineup of mini/pro, macbook/macbook pro. Your best hope is a supermini.
Bibulous
Sep 10, 11:02 PM
I'm hoping for a streaming device with a remote that allows me access to media on my mac from my TV. Of course Apple will overly simplify it and limits it's capabilities, but well love it anyways.
Bilbo63
Apr 18, 03:02 PM
There wasn't a phone that looked or worked like the iPhone until the iPhone. Now how many clones are there?
There wasn't a Tablet that looked or worked like the iPad until the iPad. Now how many clones are there?
Apple is absolutely justified in going after them for copying their UI and design as far as I can see. I'm shocked that it's taken this long.
There wasn't a Tablet that looked or worked like the iPad until the iPad. Now how many clones are there?
Apple is absolutely justified in going after them for copying their UI and design as far as I can see. I'm shocked that it's taken this long.
cube
May 6, 02:33 AM
The headline is wrong.
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
The rumor is NOT that they would abandon Intel. The claim being made is that they would switch from x86 to ARM.
ChazUK
Mar 29, 12:48 PM
Wonderful, in that Files are encouraged to include photos, documents, etc. :mad:
"... access, retain, use and disclose ... as we determine is necessary ..."
No thanks.
Oh noes! :( (Isn't this standard legal mumbo jumbo?) :confused:
Access to Your Account and Content
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.
http://www.apple.com/legal/mobileme/en/terms.html
"... access, retain, use and disclose ... as we determine is necessary ..."
No thanks.
Oh noes! :( (Isn't this standard legal mumbo jumbo?) :confused:
Access to Your Account and Content
You acknowledge and agree that Apple may access, use, preserve and/or disclose your account information and Content if legally required to do so or if we have a good faith belief that such access, use, disclosure, or preservation is reasonably necessary to: (a) comply with legal process or request; (b) enforce these TOS, including investigation of any potential violation thereof; (c) detect, prevent or otherwise address security, fraud or technical issues; or (d) protect the rights, property or safety of Apple, its users or the public as required or pemitted by law.
http://www.apple.com/legal/mobileme/en/terms.html
tundrabuggy
Apr 18, 03:17 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
You would think that on the surface. People asked, if Apple wants to kill Flash, why doesn't Adobe just kill, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Dreamwever, Premiere and InDesign on the Mac, that would cripple Apple as a creative platform for designers, well, Adobe does not want to kill more than 50% of its revenue stream.....the answer is money! Samsung loves the profitability of making Apples stuff! They do not want to lose that golden goose.
You would think that on the surface. People asked, if Apple wants to kill Flash, why doesn't Adobe just kill, Photoshop, Illustrator, After Effects, Dreamwever, Premiere and InDesign on the Mac, that would cripple Apple as a creative platform for designers, well, Adobe does not want to kill more than 50% of its revenue stream.....the answer is money! Samsung loves the profitability of making Apples stuff! They do not want to lose that golden goose.
iRobby
Apr 21, 04:51 PM
Is this an IOS device?:eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 6, 06:15 PM
-Sync wirelessly (No more messing with that iTunes syncing madness)
-SD Card (Expandable storage)
-File manager (Operates more like a PC)
-Can actually attach files in the stock E-Mail app (IPad cannot)
-Photo file management in stock photo app (Not possible in iPad without iTunes syncing madness)
-USB Port (This is HUGE)
-HDMI (Also pretty huge)
-Decent cameras
-Flash
-UI looks very cool.
Haven`t held a Xoom yet so just working from posted specs..
But I do have an iPad 1. Quite a disappointing experience for a power user.
The games rock though!!
Yet despite all this perfections over the iPad, it struggles to sell 100,000 units. Why? Why is this? Is it JUST the Apple on the back of it? Is it because iOS is so widely adopted, understood and familure? It shouldn't make sense, not to a power user. A power user is someone who deals with 1' and 0's every other, other every day. 1 +1 =2, thats true today, tomarrow and so on so forth. iPad is a anomoly, despite other higher powered, more flexable options its really the only name in the game. The human factor is what comes into factor, its a ameoba, a never ending algorithim of DNA that changes at will, and is persuaded just as easily. Its this Human factor that the iPad is what it is. Somehow Apple's best service is taming the human factor, its something in the DNA of the company that makes its products sell as they do. This annoys power users and lots of Apple Haters, it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't make sense. But outside of motherboards, 1+1=2 doesn't mean much when humans are involved.
-SD Card (Expandable storage)
-File manager (Operates more like a PC)
-Can actually attach files in the stock E-Mail app (IPad cannot)
-Photo file management in stock photo app (Not possible in iPad without iTunes syncing madness)
-USB Port (This is HUGE)
-HDMI (Also pretty huge)
-Decent cameras
-Flash
-UI looks very cool.
Haven`t held a Xoom yet so just working from posted specs..
But I do have an iPad 1. Quite a disappointing experience for a power user.
The games rock though!!
Yet despite all this perfections over the iPad, it struggles to sell 100,000 units. Why? Why is this? Is it JUST the Apple on the back of it? Is it because iOS is so widely adopted, understood and familure? It shouldn't make sense, not to a power user. A power user is someone who deals with 1' and 0's every other, other every day. 1 +1 =2, thats true today, tomarrow and so on so forth. iPad is a anomoly, despite other higher powered, more flexable options its really the only name in the game. The human factor is what comes into factor, its a ameoba, a never ending algorithim of DNA that changes at will, and is persuaded just as easily. Its this Human factor that the iPad is what it is. Somehow Apple's best service is taming the human factor, its something in the DNA of the company that makes its products sell as they do. This annoys power users and lots of Apple Haters, it doesn't make sense, it shouldn't make sense. But outside of motherboards, 1+1=2 doesn't mean much when humans are involved.
ravenvii
May 5, 08:49 AM
ravenvii, correct me if i am wrong, but wouldn't the points remaining be 2, and not 3, since in the turn he summoned and placed the goblin he would not be collecting any point?
vR1T1:collect 1 point, TP=1
vR1T2:use point for goblin, TP=0
vR2T1: collect point?. TP=1?
vR2T2: collect point?, TP=2?
Assuming the goblin costs one point, let's say the villain does this:
R1T1 Collect 1 point
R1T2 Collect 1 point, summon Goblin
R2T1 Collect 1 point
R2T2 Collect 1 point
Villain now has 3 points left, see?
***
Loras turned around and regarded the room they found themselves in. As the rest of the group walked around the Goblin's head to join Loras in the middle of the room, they found that their torch was barely enough to put the entire room into view.
It was a empty room, with decrepit walls and cracks along the once-magnificent floor. All they could see on the floor is the body of the Goblin near the far wall, it's head near the door they came through, and unfortunate Wilmer's body lying near another door.
THERE ARE NOTHING IN THE ROOM.
vR1T1:collect 1 point, TP=1
vR1T2:use point for goblin, TP=0
vR2T1: collect point?. TP=1?
vR2T2: collect point?, TP=2?
Assuming the goblin costs one point, let's say the villain does this:
R1T1 Collect 1 point
R1T2 Collect 1 point, summon Goblin
R2T1 Collect 1 point
R2T2 Collect 1 point
Villain now has 3 points left, see?
***
Loras turned around and regarded the room they found themselves in. As the rest of the group walked around the Goblin's head to join Loras in the middle of the room, they found that their torch was barely enough to put the entire room into view.
It was a empty room, with decrepit walls and cracks along the once-magnificent floor. All they could see on the floor is the body of the Goblin near the far wall, it's head near the door they came through, and unfortunate Wilmer's body lying near another door.
THERE ARE NOTHING IN THE ROOM.
nastebu
Mar 29, 04:17 PM
Who is joking here?
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
I assume the "maybe the radiation will produce higher density batteries" comment was meant as a joke.
As for the rest of what you said, no doubt.
A better battery is highly improbable. However if you only look at the dark side of an event you pass up any chance of benefitting from it. Certainly it isn't good to have your nukes melt down but this is also a learning opportunity. That is if people can look at what is happening objectively. If all you see is people getting irradiated then you aren't looking at the bigger picture.
I assume the "maybe the radiation will produce higher density batteries" comment was meant as a joke.
As for the rest of what you said, no doubt.
JAT
Mar 29, 04:13 PM
Secondly, the term "3rd world" and "1st world" is offensive. The proper term is developing and developed world.
Yawn. In 5 years, those terms will be "offensive". Then we'll have to call them "mature" and "growing". Then, 20 years later that will be offensive, and we'll have to call them "service oriented" and "industry oriented". Then, 20 years later that will be offensive, and we'll have to call them "1st world" and "3rd world" again. Get off your PC high horse and deal with life straight on instead of hiding behind semantics.
*note: PC does not always refer to computers.
Yawn. In 5 years, those terms will be "offensive". Then we'll have to call them "mature" and "growing". Then, 20 years later that will be offensive, and we'll have to call them "service oriented" and "industry oriented". Then, 20 years later that will be offensive, and we'll have to call them "1st world" and "3rd world" again. Get off your PC high horse and deal with life straight on instead of hiding behind semantics.
*note: PC does not always refer to computers.
KCMichaelB
Nov 11, 09:14 AM
How wrong you are.
This software actually protects for more than just viruses, it also removes trojans which HAVE been written for Mac. It also removes Windows viruses that you as a user can still pass on to other people. It removed 3 trojans from my machine, yes they were Windows trojans, BUT I will now not pass them on in emails, etc.
Be ignorant if you like, but one day soon we will all be caught out.
It found 7 trojans (6 for Windows and 1 for OS X) on my Mac.
Btw, how does one know if their computer is virus/malware/adware free if they never scan for it?
This software actually protects for more than just viruses, it also removes trojans which HAVE been written for Mac. It also removes Windows viruses that you as a user can still pass on to other people. It removed 3 trojans from my machine, yes they were Windows trojans, BUT I will now not pass them on in emails, etc.
Be ignorant if you like, but one day soon we will all be caught out.
It found 7 trojans (6 for Windows and 1 for OS X) on my Mac.
Btw, how does one know if their computer is virus/malware/adware free if they never scan for it?
HecubusPro
Sep 16, 11:53 AM
Congratulations! You have just provided a second independent source of unnatural delay proving Apple is already manufacturing Merom C2D MBPs and that 17" models will ship behind 15" models by a week Monday October 2.
As long as they at least announce the 17" MBP C2D, I'll be happy, even if it isn't immediately available.
As long as they at least announce the 17" MBP C2D, I'll be happy, even if it isn't immediately available.