Fuchal
Jul 13, 11:14 PM
HD-DVD all the way.
Unorthodox
Aug 6, 08:59 PM
100,00 users!
Yikes! I wonder how many this year....
I bet it's 500,000+
Arn has a LOT of bandwidth.
I bet he could walk thorough his internet connection without bumping his head.
March a whole army thorough there. Three abreast.
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
Yikes! I wonder how many this year....
I bet it's 500,000+
Arn has a LOT of bandwidth.
I bet he could walk thorough his internet connection without bumping his head.
March a whole army thorough there. Three abreast.
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
slffl
Apr 26, 09:20 PM
Count me in there.
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
Oh give me a break! Maybe it's because all you read are the headlines which focus on Apple. Apple has no more lawsuits than any other company out there, not to mention the private lawsuits against Apple for dumb ass stuff like 'tracking', antennas, batteries, etc. etc. etc.....
Apple have become Big Brother and Big Bully lately.
In the past they trod more lightly.
Oh give me a break! Maybe it's because all you read are the headlines which focus on Apple. Apple has no more lawsuits than any other company out there, not to mention the private lawsuits against Apple for dumb ass stuff like 'tracking', antennas, batteries, etc. etc. etc.....
TangoCharlie
Sep 1, 12:05 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more.
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I think you're absolutely right!! They need to stick in a couple of digial tuners in it too tho.....
This size represents the iMac that can display Full resolution 1080p HD content. If they introduce this and then eventually throw a Blu-ray in there they've got the killer combination. Front Row is already setup to be a home-theatre replacement. I mean come on, it's basically an HDTV...it's 1080p, it's got a remote, and it's got front row... This will sell like crack... Digital crack...
I think you're absolutely right!! They need to stick in a couple of digial tuners in it too tho.....
wchong
Oct 23, 07:10 AM
Tuesday Release!!!!
lynfordd
Jan 13, 03:46 PM
Could it be this is what Apple has done to work with the new Sprint
WiMAX service. To start this month around the USA!
WiMAX service. To start this month around the USA!
rmwebs
Mar 22, 04:31 PM
Disk space aside, there's nothing wrong with the current iPod Classic. It doesnt need bluetooth, microphones, cameras, etc - the hint is in the name...CLASSIC.
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
Wany bluetooth? Get a iTouch. You arent going to be listening to your library of 50,000 song on the way to work I'm sure it wouldnt kill you to load 10,000 onto an iTouch for the car. :rolleyes:
![ak 47 gold. [WEAPONS - CSO] Arme din CSO](http://coolservers.ilive.ro/screen/cso_weapons/gold_ak47.jpg "[WEAPONS - CSO] Arme din CSO")
PowerFullMac
Jan 12, 11:54 AM
The google cache for adium usage stats page: http://www.google.com/search?q=cache:-KC3ZK_6EgEJ:www.adiumx.com/sparkle/%3FforceShow%255B%255D%3Dmodel+macbookair&hl=en&strip=1
It was retrieved on 9.jan and it already contained Macbook Air entry, few days before the rumors came.
Basically the name Macbook Air seems to be real. Only thing is what stands behind that name. :)
So definatly a new MacBook, then! And im guessing thinner as well (because of previous rumors and logic)... Woo! Sorry, got carried away there :D
It was retrieved on 9.jan and it already contained Macbook Air entry, few days before the rumors came.
Basically the name Macbook Air seems to be real. Only thing is what stands behind that name. :)
So definatly a new MacBook, then! And im guessing thinner as well (because of previous rumors and logic)... Woo! Sorry, got carried away there :D
n7vy
Feb 7, 04:08 PM
Here is a picture of my weekend ride:
http://qrp.net/012_12s.jpg
Gordon
http://qrp.net/012_12s.jpg
Gordon
Spongebobk
Apr 19, 12:18 PM
desktops are slowly but surely dying out. Notebooks are becoming more and more powerful and even moreso portable so what will an iMac offer that MacBooks won't have? Larger screen?
You can't beat the real estate that the iMac offers!:)
You can't beat the real estate that the iMac offers!:)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 7, 06:20 PM
Because there is not enough of it, and it will increase our need of foreign oil not lessen it.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
There is twice as much gasoline refined from a barrel of sweet crude than diesel.
Can you quote a source on that? As far as I'm aware, that is not necessarily true (http://www.theoildrum.com/node/2174). It all depends on what is in highest demand. Diesel can be refined into gasoline, and gasoline is what people in the US want at the moment. I will try to find some more citeable links than this (http://cr4.globalspec.com/thread/26624/Maximum-gallons-of-diesel-from-a-barrel-of-crude-oil), but my impression is that a single barrel of crude always potentially contains more diesel fuel than gasoline. This is a very market-driven process. Refineries make what people want to buy.
It's also worth pointing out that a lot of gasoline has ethanol and other compounds in it that diesel does not have, and that stuff had to be refined before being added - increasing the engery cost of refining gasoline. Regular unleaded gasoline also has more sulphur in it than the now mandatory-for-passenger-cars ULSD fuel.
For a long time, and in many places people that drove diesel vehicles did so because of the tax advantages. The taxes were kept lower in order to make commercial usage cheaper.
Diesel may be cheaper in Europe due to tax structures, but the same could be said about gasoline here. It doesn't have to be that way in either case. On a purely technical level, gasoline should actually cost more because it takes more energy to refine.
It is not greener to go diesel. It takes that resource from other parts of the economy and puts it into cars. Cars do just fine with gasoline. They are relatively clean and there is twice as much of the stuff in a gallon of oil. They don't get better mileage except in volume of stuff. Which is not the correct measurement. If cars became more diesel, then diesel would become dramatically more expensive, affecting the overall livelihood of everyone, dramatically increase the cost of oil and bring about energy devastation much faster than anyone could imagine.
Diesel takes less energy to refine, contains more energy per unit of volume, emits less CO2, you get potentially more of it out of a barrel of crude and diesel engines are always more fuel efficient than equivalent gasoline engines. Where's the problem?
I can't see how you are going to argue that it is necessary for us to drive gasoline-engined cars in order to prevent "energy devastation". Most other countries already use a much larger proportion of diesel and they seem just fine. We could make a lot more diesel with the crude we are currently extracting, and the market for gasoline will never go away.
By moving to hybrids and electrics, we actually decrease our dependence on foreign oil, and make our cars greener per mile driven. This is why it is the answer and diesel isn't.
I am not advocating that we all switch to diesel. Nor do I want to get rid of the gasoline engine (especially in performance cars!). But the USA has an unecessary obsession with the gasoline-engined car. We need diesel serial hybrids for starters, and more hybrids and diesel-engined cars of all types. There is no one solution. If tens of thousands of people in the US started buying diesel Cruzes, it would not destroy the world's energy infrastructure.
But come on - "energy devastation"?
the argument for that silent agreement ? they don't want "a horsepower arms race"... look how well that has turned out
Indeed. Same with the Japanese and their 280hp/180 km/h limit. Some of the cars made under this "agreement" were considerably faster/more powerful than was officially admitted, and anyway they did away with that a number of years ago.
Schizoid
Apr 3, 04:38 AM
This ad will never work. People want ads that make them feel like teenage boys. I know this from Android ads. Steel and lasers, Apple. Steel and lasers!
Yeah, I agree... more lasers!
How about a dinosaur with lasers for eyes mounted on a rocket-shark shouting, "queue for the iPad 2" in a metallic, robotic accent... that would be great
Yeah, I agree... more lasers!
How about a dinosaur with lasers for eyes mounted on a rocket-shark shouting, "queue for the iPad 2" in a metallic, robotic accent... that would be great
milo
Sep 6, 05:50 PM
Really confused as to why they just didn't skip to Core2.
Supply constraints, and intel is probably selling apple the yonahs cheaper than meroms.
Supply constraints, and intel is probably selling apple the yonahs cheaper than meroms.
ender land
Apr 10, 09:57 AM
The only stick-shift I ever drove cost about a quarter million.
Guess I should learn sometime as I would like to get a manual transmission at some point.
Guess I should learn sometime as I would like to get a manual transmission at some point.
Cheffy Dave
Jun 24, 01:40 AM
******* that. I'll be switching to Windows or Linux if that's the route Apple wants to take.
buh-bye porn guy!:eek:
buh-bye porn guy!:eek:
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:23 PM
Hmph...I don't really trust masOSXrumors at all...
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
Seryph
Mar 31, 11:30 AM
Look at this:
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad185/pegasusbsb27/ScreenShot2011-03-31at131303.png
Sometimes when I open any Finder window it does not show the Side Bar...Anyone having the same "experience"?...Any solution?;)
Sadly can't help (sorry) but is there any way you could post the background image of mt fuji on its own? Its lovely :)
http://i934.photobucket.com/albums/ad185/pegasusbsb27/ScreenShot2011-03-31at131303.png
Sometimes when I open any Finder window it does not show the Side Bar...Anyone having the same "experience"?...Any solution?;)
Sadly can't help (sorry) but is there any way you could post the background image of mt fuji on its own? Its lovely :)
firestarter
Apr 12, 10:04 PM
$299 are you out of your mind?
OK, I'm liking this.
OK, I'm liking this.
Chundles
Aug 7, 03:31 AM
An image of the new iPhone just came out! I can't reveal the source I got it from, but you have to trust me, this is the real deal!
OMG!!
Dat iz teh secks!!
OMG!!
Dat iz teh secks!!
BlizzardBomb
Sep 1, 12:23 PM
Hmph...I don't really trust masOSXrumors at all...
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
You can trust AppleInsider though and they too have said 23" and Merom iMacs. Looks like pretty solid evidence now but we'll have to wait and see.
I wonder if it'll use the same poor quality 23" panel that the ACD does.
Well, if you like everything rose-tinted it's OK :p
New 23" displays do not have the pink tint.
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 12:53 PM
Umm kind of hard to do this with out the US and its military power. My understanding is the US it mostly going to provide support for it but not as much of the combat forces. The support being things like aerial refueling as we have the most of those flying gas tanks. They will circle over the Mediterranean Sea refueling planes going to and from missions. Kind of key to extend the range of the fighters and Fighter bombers.
Other thing the US I believe will provide is cruise missals as that they can launch from the Mediterranean Sea. This mostly to take out the Air Defenses. They might provide a few bombers to help take out artillery
US is not taking the lead. But is providing support. US is going to have the other countries really provide most of the planes needed for this.
Actually, the US is supplying EWar and Communications as well. The AWACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control) planes themselves can be considered like "mother ships" of today and fill command and control functions.
Command craft often make the decisions and lead attack and defense tactics. It's not necessarily the ppl who have the "front line" forces are in the ones who are the major player. "Fighter planes" are just like drones with people in them. They follow orders and do not lead anything. It would be like saying the marines are the leading authority in war. They are not. They are just machine operators who pull the trigger.
It's really too early to tell what we are going to see, because they never tell you anything. Maybe with this rag tag army, you don't need $billion stealth planes to beat them up so you might not see these kind of things. Maybe later on you will see some predators or some crap only, who knows. But for now they just give the press a story and if the reporter steps out of line, they get him fired, like Geraldo Rivera during the Iraqi Freedom.
Other thing the US I believe will provide is cruise missals as that they can launch from the Mediterranean Sea. This mostly to take out the Air Defenses. They might provide a few bombers to help take out artillery
US is not taking the lead. But is providing support. US is going to have the other countries really provide most of the planes needed for this.
Actually, the US is supplying EWar and Communications as well. The AWACS (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Airborne_Early_Warning_and_Control) planes themselves can be considered like "mother ships" of today and fill command and control functions.
Command craft often make the decisions and lead attack and defense tactics. It's not necessarily the ppl who have the "front line" forces are in the ones who are the major player. "Fighter planes" are just like drones with people in them. They follow orders and do not lead anything. It would be like saying the marines are the leading authority in war. They are not. They are just machine operators who pull the trigger.
It's really too early to tell what we are going to see, because they never tell you anything. Maybe with this rag tag army, you don't need $billion stealth planes to beat them up so you might not see these kind of things. Maybe later on you will see some predators or some crap only, who knows. But for now they just give the press a story and if the reporter steps out of line, they get him fired, like Geraldo Rivera during the Iraqi Freedom.
HecubusPro
Aug 29, 05:42 PM
Amen to that. I give this about as much credibility as an apple rumor scrawled in sharpie on a gas station toilet stall.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
Huh? What happened there? Didn't Think Secret used to be the place to go for the most accurate rumors? I definitely trust macrumors and appleinsider a lot more than think secret now though.
Fearless Leader
Aug 6, 09:57 PM
how long is the keynote?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
-SD-
Mar 24, 04:45 PM
Putting a 6970 in the Pro sounds like a fantastic idea. Might do it this weekend.
:apple:
:apple:
No comments:
Post a Comment