Tampa Tom
Apr 30, 01:48 PM
Besides abolishing the ability of your graphics card, there are other interesting features of the processor. The hardware giant has confirmed that Sandy Bridge was designed with an integrated content protection to prevent piracy of high-end digital quality.
samiwas
Apr 18, 12:50 AM
why would I want to pay someone $17 an hour to a job a monkey is almost qualified to do? Sounds like an opportunity to hire less people, or jack my prices up. A job is worth simply what a job is worth. Period. If I'm trying to offer services at competitive prices, and someone is willing to bag groceries for $3 an hour, then they should be ALLOWED to. Rather than me just choose to hire nobody and using automated checkouts.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
Yeah man, one of my biggest incentives to put my money on the line and open a small business is that I have the opportunity to pay someone to not work for a year.
So, needless to say, you don't support any type of workers' rights, correct? Basically, if someone wants to work, they better damn well be willing to work for the lowest possible dollar in your opinion. I mean, let's not worry about things like being able to pay rents or insurance, or even for transportation to and from work. Screw them, they are under your watch now.
And what YOU think a job is worth is not what everyone thinks a job is worth. I think most people are vastly underpaid for the work they do. And others, like entertainers, sports players, corporate CEOs, and types like that, are VASTLY overpaid. I don't know what world you might live in that acting in a movie or playing a few 3-hour games a year or driving in circles is actually WORTH $20 million or even much more.
So let's flip this the other way. Should an employer be able to change compensation at will? Let's say you have 10 employees working at $30 a day scooping scum out of sewers (in your fantasy $3 an hour type world). You want to get more work done, so you decide to require all workers to now work for 18 hours a day, 7 days a week without any extra compensation or be fired. Should that also be allowed? You know, free will and free market and all? Those pansies who wont accept such a deal can just go find something else?
And as for your maternity leave thing...it's just one part of having some sort of benefit that makes you have happy, productive workers. Now, I know that you believe that all workers should just be productive and follow orders and meet the goals without any sort of recognition or reward other than a measly paycheck, but how about as an employer you put a little up there, too, and treat your workers as fellow human beings with a few benefits, and not the punching bags that you seem to think they are.
For example...the company I work for has been cutting every possible "thank you" that we used to get. Full nights out at steak restaurants with open bar and all expenses paid, as a thank you for the weeks of hard work doing installs, have turned into "We'll take you to a Fridays and buy the first round" even though they are still doing very well. As every benefit has gone away, our desire to go that extra mile has gone with them. This past work period, the client took us out for numerous barbecues, group outings at local pubs, visits to local attractions, etc. Guess what? We went all out to return the love.
What happens then? More people find jobs, and prices go down. $3 dollars suddenly buys you a subway sandwich. # of consumers goes up bc more people are employed, which brings in more revenue, causes more hiring etc.
Also, people who do want to make $10 bucks an hour are forced to either be productive or learn something useful, which is good for everyone, plus that $10 is worth more now bc of deflation. Deflation would also drive interest rates on loans down bc the money you pay back is worth more.
All ideology. It's a nice thought, but it would never happen. With wages that low, these people wouldn't be able to afford anything. Your $3 an hour wage, working 40 hours a week would net less than $500 a month BEFORE any taxes. And with so many people making so little, they wouldn't be paying tax anyway probably, so all the various tax issues would not be solved.
And if you REALLY think that cost of everything across the board would fall drastically solely because of smaller wages on low-level jobs, you are delusional. Do you think transportation costs would drop drastically, rent would drop drastically, land costs would drop drastically, corporate wages would drop drastically? Just paying low-level workers less would solve all the country's problems? Really?
Best case scenario, taxes are low at this point, and the government isn't a handout machine, so people feel the need to donate to an EFFICIENT charity. Rather than to the government, which is the most inefficient entity on the planet.
Taxes are now the lowest they have almost EVER been, so those clearly aren't the problem. And with people making pretty much no money, I don't think it would solve your handout woes. And there is no private charity out there that has the reach and availability of the government, whether you like to believe that or not.
Overall result: More buying power, lower unemployment, more substantial and efficient charity, more innovation.
So using this chart...
http://consumerist.com/images/resources/2007/04/changeinceopaygraph.jpg
...answer this please: if taxes are the lowest they've been almost ever, worker pay hasn't increased much at all in 15-20 years, then why are corporate profits way up, and CEO pay ridiculously increased over the same period??
It would seem to me that it isn't taxes and worker pay that have caused the problem. It's putting the money in the wrong place. Instead of paying the CEO $20 million a year, you could pay him/her $18 million a year, and hire 66 new employees at $30,000 a year. The CEO would never notice that difference (no, they wouldn't), and 66 new people could afford to live comfortably, eat, and BUY STUFF IN THE ECONOMY.
How about instead of trying to cut standard wages down to unlivable numbers, we cut down ludicrous wages to just ridiculous wages. THAT is where our problem is. The majority of the money is going to owners, shareholders, and profits and not to workers. The workers are not the problem here....greed is the problem.
sydde: What is this supposed to show? That US corporations are more profitable? Is that a good thing? For whom?
bassfinger: Stock owners in these companies. Which are made up of middle class citizens
Oh my god...this is the most laughable statement of all....
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html
http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/images/wealth/Figure_2a.gif
The bottom 90% owns 2% of financial securities, 19% of stock and mutual funds, and 21% of trusts. The top 10% (ie VERY LITTLE of the the middle class) owns the vast majority of it. The middle class benefits very little from massive profits of business in this sense. Give up that notion.
Face it...your ideas are crap.
toddybody
Apr 14, 12:51 PM
Glad to hear it:D
Im really stoked to see the Ivy Bridge benchmarks...the i72600k blew my mind:eek: I feel bad for the enthusiast folks who bought a 980x :(
Im really stoked to see the Ivy Bridge benchmarks...the i72600k blew my mind:eek: I feel bad for the enthusiast folks who bought a 980x :(
Burnsey
Apr 10, 11:33 PM
Canada is sounding awfully good to me right now.
Taxes, cell phone fees, gas and car prices are higher here. Pay for professional jobs also seems relatively lower compared to the US.
Taxes, cell phone fees, gas and car prices are higher here. Pay for professional jobs also seems relatively lower compared to the US.
CHSeifert
Mar 29, 11:16 AM
I think this could very well be true.
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
iKyle0990
Apr 22, 08:42 AM
This is exciting, since my music library already tops 16 GB and isn't shrinking any time soon. Now, I saw a little bit about it in the article, but does anyone else know if the general consensus is that ALL of ones music could be stored? As opposed to just iTunes-purchased songs. That's crucial.
.jpg "Monthly Specials For May. New")
martygras9
Mar 23, 04:36 PM
Here in Sweden, the Police says that their goal is to increase safety, not catch people. I'd rather have a drunk driver stay at home because of an app warning of a checkpoint than get in the car and get caught.
That's the problem, though. People WILL go out after drinking, thinking they can circumvent the law.
That's the problem, though. People WILL go out after drinking, thinking they can circumvent the law.
anim8or
Aug 28, 01:15 PM
It makes more sense for Apple to wait for tomorrow, anyway. This way, they can avoid being drowned out by the other manufacturer's announcements and simultaneously steel their fanfare. They'll probably do something like "New, with Merom, and more..." and add on another fancy feature or two to each thing to outdo the other laptop guys.
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Every time i read a post like this i cringe a little!
There are so many rumors about a new ipod coming in the next few weeks/months/etc, most likely announced at Paris (maybe).
Therefor if apple were to release a new ipod they would want to try and get rid of some older models! Thus i conclude that even if the new MBPs are announced or even shipping tomorrow then more people would buy one with the ipod offer... ...getting rid of sed older models!
So why would they wait til after the promotion?
Apple dont needhelp shifting notebooks but if they announce a new ipod you would bet that not many people would want the original ipod video over a new improved one!?
Though, I still think they're coming on the 18th of sept.
Every time i read a post like this i cringe a little!
There are so many rumors about a new ipod coming in the next few weeks/months/etc, most likely announced at Paris (maybe).
Therefor if apple were to release a new ipod they would want to try and get rid of some older models! Thus i conclude that even if the new MBPs are announced or even shipping tomorrow then more people would buy one with the ipod offer... ...getting rid of sed older models!
So why would they wait til after the promotion?
Apple dont needhelp shifting notebooks but if they announce a new ipod you would bet that not many people would want the original ipod video over a new improved one!?
mcmlxix
Apr 20, 01:13 PM
everyone here is on facebook, exposing their real names, friends, user uploaded photos that are under the control of facebook under the new TOS agreement, where they live, phone numbers, what they like, what they dislike, their status updates, etc.
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I've never used Facebook
-signed, Not Everyone
facebook.com? lol, more like facebook.gov
I've never used Facebook
-signed, Not Everyone
Full of Win
Apr 20, 11:45 AM
Am I the only person laughing at this? If you didn't know your phone was already tracking you, then you should read up. All phones do it and it is not limited to the iPhone. Most common reason it would be done is for emergency needs. Just go to another cell tower and watch it track you. Next story please.
Reading is fundamental. The point is not tracking the phone, its keeping a usable log of it on the computer and phone that can be accessed by others.
Big difference.
Reading is fundamental. The point is not tracking the phone, its keeping a usable log of it on the computer and phone that can be accessed by others.
Big difference.
medster17
Apr 28, 03:30 PM
Congratulations to apple, eventually this day had to come. Microsoft has been slacking off in the past few years and this will make them see the larger picture.
Sent from my iPhone
Sent from my iPhone
cyclone84
Sep 15, 11:52 PM
Good god, calm down until this thing is actually released. What is the point of getting so hyped up over this RUMOR (which is all it is at this point)?
Eye4Desyn
Apr 30, 04:12 PM
I couldn't possibly be happier to hear this news. Bring on May 3rd. I've got cash in hand.
jeff1977
Mar 29, 11:40 AM
I use both.... and all I can say is "CUT and paste". Windows has had it for years, OS X SL doesn't.
What? I don't get it.
What? I don't get it.
moxxey
Mar 22, 04:01 PM
There's pretty much no news in this news piece.
We know it's going to include Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt. We know it's unlikely to be re-designed and we know it's going to be between now and May.
Where's the news here?
We need specs. Some CPU and other info, at least.
We know it's going to include Sandy Bridge and Thunderbolt. We know it's unlikely to be re-designed and we know it's going to be between now and May.
Where's the news here?
We need specs. Some CPU and other info, at least.
ValSalva
Apr 25, 05:29 PM
I love this idea so I'll just add on
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
As for 6, I either would like it to be 14in in the same form factor (less bezel) or just make it a smaller 13in with less bezel.
7. Do a hybrid HDD/SSD drive, like Seagate has.
8. Remove optical drive (makes room for things I actually use, like processors/gpus/cooling)
9. Make a matte option on the 13in, (ideally ditch the glass in general for either regular glossy or matte screens)
10. Make the laptop slightly lighter, like .2-.5lbs lighter
11. Put a real GPU in the 13in
12. Also somehow fit a quad core in the 13in
13. Allow for 16GB of RAM
If they did all this by next summer, well gosh I would be the happiest guy in the world but even half of these things would be pretty nice.
The new 13" MBP will accept 16GB of RAM. It's pricey (http://eshop.macsales.com/shop/memory/Apple_MacBook_MacBook_Pro/Upgrade/DDR3_1333MHz_SDRAM) though.
miles01110
Apr 20, 10:21 AM
News flash... your cell phone provider already has all this data anyways. It's somewhat disturbing that Apple decided to store it in cleartext, but who cares? Mobile security is nonexistant anyways.
cmaier
Nov 14, 12:35 PM
Boo Hoo Rogue Amoeba. How stupid? Devs need to grow up.
And we have a winner, ladies an gentleman. The Stupidest Post.
And we have a winner, ladies an gentleman. The Stupidest Post.
1984
Sep 14, 04:53 AM
I think that the phone interface won't have a click-wheel. Rather, it will be all screen with an on-screen wheel changing to an on-screen keypad. No slider action whatsoever. Maybe a hard switch for on/off, answer, and phonebook, but that's about all I'd put on the phone. It'll save on cost and hardware complexity too, not having to include a wheel.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
That's what the recent Apple patents lead me to believe. Hopefully this iPod nano with the slide out keyboard is just an early concept. A very early concept.
AppleScruff1
Mar 23, 06:23 PM
Make drunk driving legal. End of problem.
mrsir2009
Apr 25, 12:16 AM
What happens if you did it to a mafia boss?
shelterpaw
Oct 27, 11:27 AM
I'm all for people making others take notice of environmental problems. It's a good thing. I do my share by recycling, conserving gas, and buying organic foods when possible. However, I don't agree when they step over the line and cause damage or put people in harms way. When ELF burned all those vehicles, that's going way over the line. Passing flyers outside of your booth isn't way over the line IMO, but if they broke the rules then they're subject to the consequences.
If activists do things in a mature respectable fashion, they'll get so much further than screaming in people's ear. Throwing paint on people whom wear fur coats is only going to make people hate activits. The best way is to educate and make people aware of what they're doing. Appeal to their emotions and you'll go much father.
If activists do things in a mature respectable fashion, they'll get so much further than screaming in people's ear. Throwing paint on people whom wear fur coats is only going to make people hate activits. The best way is to educate and make people aware of what they're doing. Appeal to their emotions and you'll go much father.
BC2009
Mar 30, 11:52 AM
It seems that App on its own is generic, but the combination with another word to define a particular thing is not... see
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Lady + Gaga
Best + Buy
Face + Book
Micro + Soft
General + Electric
Pintos + Cheese .. okay, maybe not that
Very good points. Trademarks like this are granted all the time. The word "App" may have been common slang among IT professionals for a while, but certainly not "App Store". Like I said before though -- whenever Apple wants to use a common term they just stick an "i" in front of it. Wouldn't "iApp Store" have made this whole thing go away? :)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 19, 06:20 PM
Samsung can easily be replaced. Apple doesn't need them.
you have that backwards.
Samsung can replace Apple as a client. Apple can not replace Samsung as a supplier.
Reason Samsung can do it is because demand for LCD, flash chips ect is out pacing supply.
Apple can not replace Samsung for the same reason. no one else has the capacity to fill those orders.
you have that backwards.
Samsung can replace Apple as a client. Apple can not replace Samsung as a supplier.
Reason Samsung can do it is because demand for LCD, flash chips ect is out pacing supply.
Apple can not replace Samsung for the same reason. no one else has the capacity to fill those orders.