Kilamite
Apr 9, 08:25 PM
Exactly.
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
To avoid the 'implied' multiplication, it should be shown as below.
The answer is then obviously "2".
2 to the power of (9+3) is not the same as 2 x (9+3).
mrblack927
Apr 21, 05:02 PM
I think the next Mac Pro refresh will be a huge milestone. Not only will it be the first case redesign in nearly a decade and add all the latest tech (USB3, sata III, thunderbolt, etc) but I believe Apple will take this opportunity to finally revise the pricing structure. Over the past few years, Apple has been making a clear shift towards the consumer market. Part of that is arguably negative ("dumbing things down") but the positive is more reasonable prices. The Mac Pro is the only computer left that hasn't been revised. My hope is that Apple will create a few models of the new Mac Pro, at least one of which is an affordable mid-range consumer tower starting under the the $2,000 mark.
Unfortunately, they will probably wait to use the new performance desktop/server sandy bridge CPUs which Intel won't have ready until Q4 2011 (or later). If that's true then we won't see these new beauties until 1H 2012. :(
Unfortunately, they will probably wait to use the new performance desktop/server sandy bridge CPUs which Intel won't have ready until Q4 2011 (or later). If that's true then we won't see these new beauties until 1H 2012. :(
ucfgrad93
May 5, 11:31 AM
BTW, searching a room disarms traps, so we should get to a point where our last move is search instead of move, if I understand the rules.
Agreed.
Agreed.
Abstract
Apr 10, 08:02 PM
Wow. There are still people who think the answer is 2? I'll check back later, but please remember that not everyone is good at maths. Let it be. :p
ChipWinter
Sep 11, 12:03 AM
So ... would a Beatles announcement be the cause for a London feed? Or would that be too big of a thing for this one event?
LagunaSol
Apr 18, 04:05 PM
[B]But I don't think companies should be able to copyright overall aesthetic choices unless the two products are basically identical looking and intended to be sold as cheap knockoffs.
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
And the Samsung phones are not cheap knock offs, they're actually probably the best andriod phones on the market.
Wait, so they should be able to clone a competitor's product's industrial design as long as they don't undercut the competitor's price? :confused:
![new york city skyline wallpaper. [Wallpaper] Petrol ( New York](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_uWwvEMXJFcAlbGSOvm4fQzmlVbaeBBGdWmcvl5BvOi1WQXb0kmcnXbVCFdCiIOSNcPk1WYM8RlnEb8op2USi5HqiMnnn_iO3aFR8qBROJe5DpH8RTyyfgOYt0=s0-d "[Wallpaper] Petrol ( New York")
mcrain
Apr 18, 11:59 AM
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
andrewbecks
May 4, 03:57 PM
How would one do a "complete fresh reinstall" by this method? Or will we be able to burn to a disc/USB key?
I'm wondering the same thing.
Personally, I'd rather not risk eating up my AT&T crappy bandwidth limit and would love to be able to pickup a USB-key in the store. It would also be necessary to have for fresh installs.
I'm wondering the same thing.
Personally, I'd rather not risk eating up my AT&T crappy bandwidth limit and would love to be able to pickup a USB-key in the store. It would also be necessary to have for fresh installs.
seek3r
May 6, 12:36 AM
Very true. Listen to the man.
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Well, first of all, don't confuse *x86* with Intel. Intel has made ARM chips in the past (XScale, StrongARM), and might in the future (including a recent rumor about apple moving to using Intel's foundries for the A5 later in the year, and the A6 or whatever the next chip will be called). For that matter, there are other x86 designers and foundries (AMD and Global Foundries & VIA) and Intel has had several other arches of its own. Intel is the largest chipmaker in the world, ARM is a chip design corp that does excellent work and licenses their work to foundries and other design houses - they're not remotely similar companies except in the sense that they both work on CPUs.
The ARM arch *may* one day supersede x86, but *Intel* isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
In the short term I don't see that happening quite yet, ARM usually focuses on low power first, not performance, and while there is a convergence in the netbook/phone/tablet areas, an iMac, MP, or MBP based on any current ARM designs for example would be woefully underpowered compared to an x86 design.
Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.
If it were done well I can think of plenty of people that would like OSX Server on Poweredge blades
There's many analysts that believe ARM will supersede Intel.
Well, first of all, don't confuse *x86* with Intel. Intel has made ARM chips in the past (XScale, StrongARM), and might in the future (including a recent rumor about apple moving to using Intel's foundries for the A5 later in the year, and the A6 or whatever the next chip will be called). For that matter, there are other x86 designers and foundries (AMD and Global Foundries & VIA) and Intel has had several other arches of its own. Intel is the largest chipmaker in the world, ARM is a chip design corp that does excellent work and licenses their work to foundries and other design houses - they're not remotely similar companies except in the sense that they both work on CPUs.
The ARM arch *may* one day supersede x86, but *Intel* isn't going anywhere anytime soon.
In the short term I don't see that happening quite yet, ARM usually focuses on low power first, not performance, and while there is a convergence in the netbook/phone/tablet areas, an iMac, MP, or MBP based on any current ARM designs for example would be woefully underpowered compared to an x86 design.
Apple licensing Mac OS X to Dell.
If it were done well I can think of plenty of people that would like OSX Server on Poweredge blades
iDemiurge
Apr 23, 05:49 PM
Doesn't OS X already support displays up to 2560x1600? Afaik that was the resolution of Apple's own (now discontinued) 30" display and the resolution of most, if not all, 30" displays available at the moment. 3200x2000 is nothing but the next rung on the ladder. This is just Apple future-proofing their OS a bit. If they release anything in the short term it will most likely be a big-ass iMac or a bigger Apple Display, NOT a laptop running that resolution. Just saying...
AndroidfoLife
Apr 20, 03:51 AM
In tech years this new iPhone 5 will be old as dirt when it is released. It is no faster then the phones that being released two months ago and it will compete with the ones 5 months from now? Seems like apple needs to Aim alot higher on their hardware.
Michaelgtrusa
Mar 30, 07:11 PM
Well we are getting closer.
JoeG4
Apr 21, 10:18 PM
1080p is such a low resolution -_- BAH! You stink.
WTF is wrong with lots of expandability? If I can shove 4 drives in my machine instead of having 4 externals.. heck yea!
WTF is wrong with lots of expandability? If I can shove 4 drives in my machine instead of having 4 externals.. heck yea!
aohus
Apr 18, 04:01 PM
Look's just like an iMac! :eek: almost... Stupid patents... Good for Xerox, too bad that playing fair is not helping these days...:mad:
you mean the iMac looks just like the Alto.. other way around :P
Alto was released in 1973. Macintosh in 1984.
you mean the iMac looks just like the Alto.. other way around :P
Alto was released in 1973. Macintosh in 1984.
LegendKillerUK
Mar 26, 10:43 PM
iOS was last announced in April which was slightly later than the year before. I don't see it jumping from April to June for an announcement. It also won't be so heavily cloud based - it's simply wishful thinking.
lkrupp
Apr 7, 10:24 AM
So you want Apple to be forced by the government to reduce its manufacturing, tell its customers "sorry, no iPad for you" because the competition needs to catch up? How stupid is that?:rolleyes:
If Apple was found to be abusing its position... yes. But this is NOT my point... 'countries start to investigate Apple due to a shortage of components due to Apple buying up the available stock'.
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
If Apple was found to be abusing its position... yes. But this is NOT my point... 'countries start to investigate Apple due to a shortage of components due to Apple buying up the available stock'.
And just how could Apple be found to be absuing its position by buying what it needs to supply its customers whith product? Maybe if the iPad wasn't selling all that well but Apple can't keep up with demand as it is. Arguments like yours don't even make sense and I'll bet you some serious money that no one can produce a single instance of a company "found to be abusing its position" by buying what its needs to produce and sell its products. It would appear people like you are just angry that Apple is successful and want to take it down somehow. Stupid, just stupid.
pack
Apr 7, 12:50 PM
Thanks for the class act.
it was a joke in reference to your snarky comment relax.
Hey bro look on the bright side atleast we have bing now on appstore!
it was a joke in reference to your snarky comment relax.
Hey bro look on the bright side atleast we have bing now on appstore!
Mister Snitch
Mar 27, 10:26 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8C148)
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
This is a subject I'm very interested in, as I do believe we are headed into a long-term 'cloud' situation. Most people want the convenience and advantages. Most lemmings will also march off a cliff. I'd like to hear you elaborate on what you see is the 'dark side' of this.
Yay let us all surrender our privacy to the cloud... Sometimes I feel like the only one that understands the long term implications cloud based computer has when we allow our content and log files on others' servers. Thankfully I know I'm not the only one though.
This is a subject I'm very interested in, as I do believe we are headed into a long-term 'cloud' situation. Most people want the convenience and advantages. Most lemmings will also march off a cliff. I'd like to hear you elaborate on what you see is the 'dark side' of this.
jholzner
Aug 11, 09:06 AM
Merom definitely in the Black Macbook though, if this is true.
I hope so. At least then one could justify the price difference!
I hope so. At least then one could justify the price difference!
WildGuess
Apr 7, 09:31 AM
They can have my screen. It only bleeds on the edges. Still enough real estate for a seven inch model.
bloodycape
Apr 18, 04:47 PM
A bit OT but didn't BlackBerry successfully sue(or at least come to a large monetary agreement) Palm for copying the look and feel of their keyboard? If so, Apple could get pretty far with is.
rockthecasbah
Aug 2, 04:10 PM
i am happy that iPods "aren't expected" at WWDC, it doesn't seem the right place. We need emphasis on computers and software for them, not redesigned (or just updated) music players. xServe, Mac Pros, and hopefully redesigned exteriors of MacBook Pros, as well as lots of Leopard showing is what i hope for :)
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:54 AM
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
marvel2
Nov 13, 10:47 AM
Good for you Marvel2. How about a review after you use it. Tstreete did a great one but another perspective is always welcomed.
BTW do you use Navigon? Did you get the Live Traffic update? Love to hear how they each or both worked with the kit.
Thanks,
Mike
I'm going to use it for a few days and a couple trips around town first before I give a review. But my intial impressions of the kit is that it works just as advertised. Doesn't feel cheap, BT syncing is very easy and syncs every time I plug the phone in. Speaker volume is clear but may need to be louder. I still have to give it some time and adjust to my liking first (my car is pretty loud). And yes, I am using Navigon, but I have not yet downloaded their Live Traffice update.
The key for making this purchase for me is to have at least the option to allow the calls to come in through the car's speakers while using the built-in mic on the dock.
Also, the youtube video shows the guy had it stuck on his dash with the adhesive? Anyone have driver's point of view, pictures with it mounted with suction on the windshield? There's no way I'm sticking this thing to my dash.
Per the manual, calls will not come in through your car's speaker but instead the TomTom car kit's speaker.
I currently have the kit mounted on my windshield but I also tried mounting it on my dash. If you do not want to put that adhesive on your dash, buy a Sticky Pad (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Hand-Stands-Jelly-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Holder/2603163/product.html) and lay it on your dash. Now mount the TomTom kit as you normally would on the sticky pad as if it were glass. It sticks and works very well. Alternatively, you can put the adhesive disk on the sticky pad if you want the suction cup of the TomTom kit to cling to a hard plastic surface. When you leave your car, just peel the Sticky Pad off of your dash and it will not leave any residue. Essentially it is a GPS friction mount. Or you can buy this (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/HandStands-GPS-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Mount/4341949/product.html), but its just too big for my tastes.
What is the name of the store that you got it from? I'm curious to know if I could find one in my area
Here is their website (http://www.themacstore.com/locations/portland). They are an authorized third party Mac reseller sort of like MacMall, but with a physical location. You can try calling other third party Mac resellers in your area if you don't have "The Mac Store" in your area.
BTW do you use Navigon? Did you get the Live Traffic update? Love to hear how they each or both worked with the kit.
Thanks,
Mike
I'm going to use it for a few days and a couple trips around town first before I give a review. But my intial impressions of the kit is that it works just as advertised. Doesn't feel cheap, BT syncing is very easy and syncs every time I plug the phone in. Speaker volume is clear but may need to be louder. I still have to give it some time and adjust to my liking first (my car is pretty loud). And yes, I am using Navigon, but I have not yet downloaded their Live Traffice update.
The key for making this purchase for me is to have at least the option to allow the calls to come in through the car's speakers while using the built-in mic on the dock.
Also, the youtube video shows the guy had it stuck on his dash with the adhesive? Anyone have driver's point of view, pictures with it mounted with suction on the windshield? There's no way I'm sticking this thing to my dash.
Per the manual, calls will not come in through your car's speaker but instead the TomTom car kit's speaker.
I currently have the kit mounted on my windshield but I also tried mounting it on my dash. If you do not want to put that adhesive on your dash, buy a Sticky Pad (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/Hand-Stands-Jelly-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Holder/2603163/product.html) and lay it on your dash. Now mount the TomTom kit as you normally would on the sticky pad as if it were glass. It sticks and works very well. Alternatively, you can put the adhesive disk on the sticky pad if you want the suction cup of the TomTom kit to cling to a hard plastic surface. When you leave your car, just peel the Sticky Pad off of your dash and it will not leave any residue. Essentially it is a GPS friction mount. Or you can buy this (http://www.overstock.com/Electronics/HandStands-GPS-Sticky-Pad-Dash-Mount/4341949/product.html), but its just too big for my tastes.
What is the name of the store that you got it from? I'm curious to know if I could find one in my area
Here is their website (http://www.themacstore.com/locations/portland). They are an authorized third party Mac reseller sort of like MacMall, but with a physical location. You can try calling other third party Mac resellers in your area if you don't have "The Mac Store" in your area.