alphaone
Feb 12, 03:13 PM
if you're building a PC, we'd love to know which parts you're going with, over clocking, etc. if you get a MBP, we want to know what kind of PPD your getting
I'll keep you updated. Currently I'm working on getting my 10 WU's in under my passkey (at 7 right now) and after that I'll shift the i7 iMac over to -bigadv to take advantage of the pts bonuses and then we'll see what it can really do. Hopefully some big PPD. I'm folding under the name 206pilot.
I'll keep you updated. Currently I'm working on getting my 10 WU's in under my passkey (at 7 right now) and after that I'll shift the i7 iMac over to -bigadv to take advantage of the pts bonuses and then we'll see what it can really do. Hopefully some big PPD. I'm folding under the name 206pilot.
DaveGee
Feb 9, 01:21 PM
Why is a calling feature tied to a messaging one?
Silly.... Messaging and Voice Calling go together just like .... Vodka and Prune Juice! :D
Silly.... Messaging and Voice Calling go together just like .... Vodka and Prune Juice! :D
Simgar988
Apr 14, 12:44 PM
Mine has been sold out forever. Call first.
peapody
Dec 25, 03:31 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5290840511_9545941f54.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5290840511/)
abz1981
Apr 30, 02:37 PM
Hi
Does anyone know of any free applications for my MBP that I can convert a movie to play on my iphone 4 that I have downloaded. Something simple that I can drop into Itunes and then put on to my iphone?
thanks n advance
Does anyone know of any free applications for my MBP that I can convert a movie to play on my iphone 4 that I have downloaded. Something simple that I can drop into Itunes and then put on to my iphone?
thanks n advance
Sun Baked
Feb 13, 05:39 AM
Let the battle commence!
Well you know, everyones got to do a little bit of kissing up now and then :eek: ;) :Dhttp://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15956&stc=1
Yeah, right...
Well you know, everyones got to do a little bit of kissing up now and then :eek: ;) :Dhttp://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1 http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=20418&stc=1
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=15956&stc=1
Yeah, right...
BubbaMilo
Nov 19, 01:10 PM
I see TJ Maxx's acquisition of some iPads as a marketing scheme. If a few select stores have at least 5 to offer at a discounted price, imagine what kind of results they would get if they offered them as a Black Friday Doorbuster Special. They would probably get hundreds lined up at the door like Best Buy does for a deeply discounted HDTV or laptop. As for a warranty, I don't think they offer warranties on any of their products because they are a clearing house.
I think many people are missing the boat on Steve Jobs alleged statement. Saying TJ Maxx is "not an authorized reseller" is just stating a fact. It's not as if Apple even cares that TJ Maxx is doing this. In fact Jobs is probably happy at the fact that the iPad is getting yet more publicity at his competitors expense and spending $0 while doing so.
Precisely my dear Watson. By Job, I think you got it!!!:):o;):D
I think many people are missing the boat on Steve Jobs alleged statement. Saying TJ Maxx is "not an authorized reseller" is just stating a fact. It's not as if Apple even cares that TJ Maxx is doing this. In fact Jobs is probably happy at the fact that the iPad is getting yet more publicity at his competitors expense and spending $0 while doing so.
Precisely my dear Watson. By Job, I think you got it!!!:):o;):D
Darwin
May 6, 02:19 AM
Could I use a MiniDV camera for video input (ignoring its microphone) but a USB microphone for sound input at the same time in iMovie?
Off the top of my head I believe you would only be able to import the video and audio from the DV camera at the same time, you would need to use an external mic which was connected to the camera itself or add in your mic sound in post.
Off the top of my head I believe you would only be able to import the video and audio from the DV camera at the same time, you would need to use an external mic which was connected to the camera itself or add in your mic sound in post.
Blue Velvet
Mar 2, 12:24 PM
The biggest problem I see with SS is that it's an unsustainable Ponzi Scheme which requires constant growth in population in order to sustain costs incurred by smaller and smaller groups of people.
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
This is why you are wrong:
Nonetheless, some critics are attempting to undermine confidence in Social Security with wild and blatantly false accusations. They allege that the trust funds have been �raided� or disparage the trust funds as �funny money� or mere �IOUs.� Some even label Social Security a �Ponzi scheme� after the notorious 1920s swindler Charles Ponzi. All of these claims are nonsense.
Every year since 1984, Social Security has collected more in payroll taxes and other income than it pays in benefits and other expenses. (The authors of the 1983 Social Security reform law did this on purpose in order to help pre-fund some of the costs of the baby boomers� retirement.) These surpluses are invested in U.S. Treasury securities that are every bit as sound as the U.S. government securities held by investors around the globe; investors regard these securities as among the world�s very safest investments.
Investing the trust funds in Treasury securities is perfectly appropriate. The federal government borrows funds from Social Security to help finance its ongoing operations in the same way that consumers and businesses borrow money deposited in a bank to finance their spending. In neither case does this represent a �raid� on the funds. The bank depositor will get his or her money back when needed, and so will the Social Security trust funds.
As far back as 1938, independent advisors to Social Security firmly endorsed the investment of Social Security surpluses in Treasury securities, saying that it does �not involve any misuse of these moneys or endanger the safety of these funds.�
Moreover, Social Security is the �polar opposite of a Ponzi scheme,� says the man who quite literally wrote the book about Ponzi�s famous scam, Boston University professor Mitchell Zuckoff. The Social Security Administration�s historian has a piece on this topic as well.
Unlike the frauds of Ponzi � and, more recently, Bernard Madoff � Social Security does not promise unrealistically large financial returns and does not require unsustainable increases in the number of participants to remain solvent. Instead, for the past 75 years it has provided a foundation that workers can build on for retirement as well as social insurance protection to families whose breadwinner dies and workers who become disabled.
http://www.offthechartsblog.org/social-security-sense-and-nonsense/
See, also: Social Security a Ponzi scheme? No way. (http://money.cnn.com/2009/01/06/news/economy/social.security.fortune/index.htm?postversion=2009010715)
Dreadnought
Feb 9, 11:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
Guess I'll be overtaken in the next couple of days... On the other hand, I just noted that your output is less then a couple of day ago. So it will take another week before you overtake me! :p
If only I had it running this weekend.... ;) Watch out :p
1.5 weeks now, keeps getting better! ;)
Good luck with the house!
Guess I'll be overtaken in the next couple of days... On the other hand, I just noted that your output is less then a couple of day ago. So it will take another week before you overtake me! :p
If only I had it running this weekend.... ;) Watch out :p
1.5 weeks now, keeps getting better! ;)
Good luck with the house!
JDB1983
Dec 28, 12:38 PM
yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for windows run ah-so smoothly on macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)
enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.
Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)
it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.
Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.
qft
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (there is a world beyond the microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's old java, and many java apps require a very specific oracle jvm to run. There's .net. There's sharepoint. There's an ibm mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no os x drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with windows.)
enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, time machine is not an enterprise solution.
Tco? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (apple)? Huge fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out fail. (try getting support for os x leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for tiger or panther today. Then compare it to windows xp, an os from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on cupertino toys.)
it's much easier to integrate linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put mac os x boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like oracle and ibm actually use, sell and support linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large it department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a cto to bet the company's it future on nintendo wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the world health organization of the united nations, and it turned out to be impossible to integrate macs into their it environment. I had the only mac (a 20" core duo) in a world wide network because i was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then i quickly had to give up on os x and instead run windows on it in order to get my job as an it admin done and be able to use the it resources of the other who centers. Os x tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but windows vista and xp got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a mac that only runs windows. That's what you get for being an apple fanboy, which i admittedly was at that time.
Where i work now, two other people bought macs, and one of them has ordered windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out os x from his hard disk and replace it with windows. He's an engineer and not productive with os x, rather the opposite: Os x slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in apple land, i will now also move away from os x. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the apple hardware and their itunes store. If the web browser and itunes and maybe final cut studio, logic studio or the adobe creative suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then os x probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When apple brag about how cool it is to run windows in "boot camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run windows in virtualbox on linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support two operating systems to get one job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the mac still is not a full computing platform without microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case against migrating to mac os x.
qft
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 03:10 PM
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
taran420
Aug 8, 05:58 PM
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3168213/Biurko/Zrzut%20ekranu%202010-07-30%20%28godz.%2017.20.47%29.png
can i get that wall? please please please :p
thanks
can i get that wall? please please please :p
thanks
grafikat
Jan 18, 04:38 PM
W00t!
I hope that the iPhone lives up to the hype. I'm surprised there weren't more UMPCs at CES
I hope that the iPhone lives up to the hype. I'm surprised there weren't more UMPCs at CES
ChrisTX
Apr 28, 08:48 PM
That's not what my point is about. Did I argue that iPhone 4 isn't the top selling phone? It is.
But iOS is slipping and every time people starts saying wait for iPhone #, then iOS will gain again. iPhone # is released, it doesn't happen, people start talking about iPhone #+1.
Quality over Quantity. I'm sure Ford outsells BMW, but BMW is obviously the better choice.
But iOS is slipping and every time people starts saying wait for iPhone #, then iOS will gain again. iPhone # is released, it doesn't happen, people start talking about iPhone #+1.
Quality over Quantity. I'm sure Ford outsells BMW, but BMW is obviously the better choice.
Patmian212
May 26, 12:32 AM
Hi all,
I want to put my G4 400 mhz with 568mb ramto fold, will it be mad slow? Also I might put my ibook to fold at night, will heat be a problem?
Thanks
Patmian
I want to put my G4 400 mhz with 568mb ramto fold, will it be mad slow? Also I might put my ibook to fold at night, will heat be a problem?
Thanks
Patmian
ToM7
Apr 25, 02:49 AM
Apple should offer a free trade if you already have a black iPhone 4.
I promise to love :apple: if that happens
inspiron wallpaper.
I promise to love :apple: if that happens
marshallbedsaul
Mar 27, 03:33 PM
Not sure if this has been asked or mentioned, so how would a region section be.
Example
capital area
tri-state
Inspiron desktop wallpaper
Example
capital area
tri-state
whoami
Apr 27, 05:13 PM
Try enabling Certificate Revocation checking on your fully updated Mac OS X install and see how long it takes for Mac App Store to show up and how long it then takes to go through the various tabs.
Also for fun - try enabling password for the screensaver and 60 minute idle logout. Then put your laptop to sleep and come back 60 min later only to have hung login window that accepts no input - works that way every time for me.
For all the jabs they took at Windows - Apple's is most untested OS after Linux distros. Looks like they only do surface tests - only the defaults are covered.
just out of curiosity.. do you file bug reports?
i'm pretty guilty of not...
Also for fun - try enabling password for the screensaver and 60 minute idle logout. Then put your laptop to sleep and come back 60 min later only to have hung login window that accepts no input - works that way every time for me.
For all the jabs they took at Windows - Apple's is most untested OS after Linux distros. Looks like they only do surface tests - only the defaults are covered.
just out of curiosity.. do you file bug reports?
i'm pretty guilty of not...
skikid419
Jun 13, 05:34 PM
its definitely a contender
apparatchik
Mar 23, 02:53 PM
omg it gets worst...
kilowattradio
Aug 31, 05:17 AM
http://www.triblocal.com/Downers_Grove/detail/213194.html
An Apple customer left their baby in a car while they shopped. iPhone users notified the PD.
An Apple customer left their baby in a car while they shopped. iPhone users notified the PD.
Pavijan
Apr 1, 04:53 PM
Mine:
http://www.shrani.si/t/1k/wS/2UItcmNr/screen-shot-2011-04-01-a.jpg (http://www.shrani.si/?1k/wS/2UItcmNr/screen-shot-2011-04-01-a.png)
Click to supersize.
http://www.shrani.si/t/1k/wS/2UItcmNr/screen-shot-2011-04-01-a.jpg (http://www.shrani.si/?1k/wS/2UItcmNr/screen-shot-2011-04-01-a.png)
Click to supersize.
100Years
Apr 21, 01:11 PM
I thought I read somewhere on this forum, that these models can work just fine with only 1 processor installed....so this got me thinking -- if you only install 1 processor, then you could go with a generic LGA1366 i7 even though it only has a single QPI link. Is this right, or am I wrong?
No comments:
Post a Comment