Cheffy Dave
Apr 6, 11:31 AM
ULV CPUs (17W) will go to 11.6". The TDP of 320M is not known but 9400M has TDP of 12W so it is quite safe to assume that the TDP is similar to that. That means current 11.6" MBA has TDP of 22W (includes CPU, GPU, chipset) while SB 11.6" MBA would have a TDP of 21W (17W for the CPU and ~4W for the PCH).
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Thanks HH for those stats!:cool:
13" will go with LV CPUs (25W). Again, currently it has 17W for the CPU and 12W for 320M. That's 29W. 25W CPU and ~4W for PCH gives you the same 29W.
11.6" - Core i5-2537M (option for Core i7-2657M)
13.3" - Core i7-2629M (option for Core i7-2649M)
Thanks HH for those stats!:cool:
JeffDM
Sep 16, 04:39 PM
You are right. However, you try to tell consumers "Well we are moving to 2.4Ghz chips" after you just had 2.66Ghz and 3.0Ghz chips. It isnt going to work.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
If today, Dell decided to move there whole line back to 1Ghz processors, nobody would buy. Unfortunetly the Ghz myth is a strong as its ever been. Taking a step backward is not an option.
It's already happened, just not in as a melodramatic way as you suggest (back to 1GHz? geez). AMD took a small step back, Hz wise when they introduced dual core, though it still advanced their "+" processor ratings I suppose that few noticed the actual clock reduction. Intel took a major step back Hz wise between Netburst and Core 2. The 5000 and 5100 series Xeon CPUs demonstrate this, you can get a Dell precision 690 with 3.73GHz Netburst based chips or the same 690 with 3.0GHz Core2 based chips.
So I don't think that a quad core Xeon running at 2.66GHz is going to be hurt too much in comparison to a dual core 3.0GHz, it's still a much more powerful processor.
Didn't you get the memo, PowerPC is dead. WTF does that have to do with anything? Do you just have this Pavlovian response to the word "Hyperthreading"?
PPC isn't dead, it's just not in new desktops anymore. IBM is making them (or at least co-designed them) for all the next generation game consoles and a lot of huge supercomputers.
ergle2
Sep 13, 01:00 PM
So Merom(Merom Santa Rosa)/Conroe/Woodcrest(Clovertown) are the end of the road of separate chips. No more mobile/desktop/sever chip... all are the same (should expect mobiles to have the lowest MHz, then desktop, then toping out with server)
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
I think you've misunderstood.
Merom/Conroe/Woodcrest are one microarch now. That's Intel's point -- the core is essentially the same. Then they package as appropriate for a given market. Merom is lower-voltage/lower-clockspeed, Woodcrest has the external pins for multi-processor exposed and has a higher FSB, etc.
There will still be different chips for different markets, but the arch is the same across the board. This is a significant difference from the Pentium-4/Pentium-M days, where the arch was very, very different.
The other big difference is the support chipsets -- the Xeon range use a different chipset that supports FBDIMM vs DDR2 for the Core 2 branded chips. This is the reason Intel kept the memory controller off the CPU die, so that they had more flexibility with memory types.
jaxstate
Jul 27, 11:27 AM
MacPro
Leopard
iTunes Movie store
Asteroid
Al Nano up to 8G
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
Leopard
iTunes Movie store
Asteroid
Al Nano up to 8G
MacPro
MBP, iMac processor update
Leopard Preview
I think those are the most likely marbles.
thatisme
Apr 27, 09:21 AM
Sleep walking a lot lately?
Nope. However, here are just a few threads detailing the behavior. I have to believe that this location issue is part of this problem... I guess we'll see when the "fix" is in....
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=989469&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=926618&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1064116&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1050560&highlight=att+data+usage
Nope. However, here are just a few threads detailing the behavior. I have to believe that this location issue is part of this problem... I guess we'll see when the "fix" is in....
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=989469&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=926618&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1064116&highlight=att+data+usage
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1050560&highlight=att+data+usage
pkson
Apr 19, 05:41 PM
After reading some of the lawsuit, I had to post this..
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010-11-04_174623.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pn_20101104170853.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/2010/11/galaxy-tab-released/
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/2010-11-04_174623.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/pn_20101104170853.jpg
http://pk.funnyseoul.com/2010/11/galaxy-tab-released/
NathanMuir
Feb 28, 06:36 PM
Well, I have nothing to say, but that the University has grounds for dismissal if difference of opinion arises.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
I agree, the situation in the OP was bound to happen sooner or later.
True, you can argue the gay card, but in this case, they college played the rights cards to get rid of him. Was it the best choice? No.
Still, it's the college's right on who teaches or not; and seeing how it's a Catholic Church college, I'd say it was bound to happen.
I agree, the situation in the OP was bound to happen sooner or later.
lgutie20
Mar 22, 02:04 PM
The trick with Apple is to innovate in aspects that no one else is considering. Example: "we need smart covers because protecting your tablet is a must and should be easy." Thus far this is an APPLE ONLY thing and it works like a charm.
There are other things they could do.
If Apple really wants to completely stand out (even with the crippled aspect that they don't support Flash) they really need to push for Thunderbolt on iOS devices.
It would sync data faster.
It would charge devices faster.
I know there is a lot of groundwork to be done first. All Apple computers should have the Thunderbolt I/O in order for the iOS devices to even consider Thunderbolt.
Time is not a luxury Apple has right now. They need to move faster than ever.
There are other things they could do.
If Apple really wants to completely stand out (even with the crippled aspect that they don't support Flash) they really need to push for Thunderbolt on iOS devices.
It would sync data faster.
It would charge devices faster.
I know there is a lot of groundwork to be done first. All Apple computers should have the Thunderbolt I/O in order for the iOS devices to even consider Thunderbolt.
Time is not a luxury Apple has right now. They need to move faster than ever.
bretm
Apr 11, 08:03 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
How about an interim update? All they need really is a software update to bring all the little widgets and candy that clutter up the androids. Their camera is still the best IMHO. And ease of syncing is still the best. And don't forget- it's an iPod. Seriously the android is just more complicated for most things. It doesn't do well (anything) with embedded QT and it's insanely lacking in consistency- which is why it's the love of techie IT types. They love to be in the know. It's PC vs Mac all over again.
How about an interim update? All they need really is a software update to bring all the little widgets and candy that clutter up the androids. Their camera is still the best IMHO. And ease of syncing is still the best. And don't forget- it's an iPod. Seriously the android is just more complicated for most things. It doesn't do well (anything) with embedded QT and it's insanely lacking in consistency- which is why it's the love of techie IT types. They love to be in the know. It's PC vs Mac all over again.
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 12:32 PM
So what would be good enough to convince you?
Nothing. These Birthers aren't going to give up their religion.
Nothing. These Birthers aren't going to give up their religion.
Nuck81
Nov 25, 10:44 PM
I hated Shift, it seemed to me to pretend to be a sim, at the same time acknowledging it was an arcade game. I can't stand AI that will try to get revenge anyway, as that should be black flagged. Race clean or gtfo IMO.
To each his own, I find it takes a little out of the race to drive against an AI programmed to blindly follow the predetermined race line.
But the driving itself feels magnificent on GT5. I'll spend most of my hours in Time Trial!!
To each his own, I find it takes a little out of the race to drive against an AI programmed to blindly follow the predetermined race line.
But the driving itself feels magnificent on GT5. I'll spend most of my hours in Time Trial!!
bonehead
Nov 28, 07:02 PM
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Two things.
1) Who says the people who actually make the music would get any of this money in the first place?
2) Digital distribution is more profitable per unit than CDs. There are no manufacturing or shipping costs.
Now who is it that wants something for nothing?
SevenInchScrew
Dec 9, 01:09 AM
DoFoT:
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
It depends on what you want from a game. If you care more about driving and tuning than painting and whatnot go buy GT5. Its all about driving and not much else.
I love it because i'm a bit of a car nerd. If you like cars you will like GT5. If you love cars you will love GT5, its just that simple.
I guess I'll throw in my counterpoint to that then, just to give him another opinion to mull over, because I love cars and don't love GT5....
The game is not real good. Every time I've played it, I can't help but think of how it could have been SOOO much better, if they just trimmed back on the crazy feature list a bit. The game tries to be everything to everyone who likes cars. But the problem with that is, trying to do many things means you'll never excel at any of them. Often the implementation of things in this game is a little weak or unfulfilling because of that. For example...
NASCAR is in, but is pretty plain and boring, and doesn't feel like a real cup race. If you like NASCAR, you'd be better served with a full game based on that.
Same with WRC stuff. Yes, the rally is pretty decent. But, I've played a bunch of REALLY awesome rally games before, and this is nowhere near as good.
Day and Night cycles, and Weather effects look amazing.... on the very few tracks that you can actually have them function on.
The sounds of the cars, just as with every GT game that has come before it, is terrible. Very few cars actually sound like their real-world version, and when you tune them up, they get even less distinctive.
The car list, while huge, is FILLED with cars that I have absolutely no desire to drive in a racing game. I get Kaz's intention, bringing in cars from many eras and different parts of the automotive spectrum to see them, and maybe appreciate them more. But this is a racing game at its core, and I don't ever want to race a VW Kombi.
And lastly, the menus are just pitiful. It really feels like they designed them first, all those years ago, and then never touched them again. So many games have come and gone with great menu systems, and this game took nothing away from them, because they are just awful in this game.
This game really had the potential to be amazing. If they got rid of NASCAR, WRC, Karts, etc, and took out about 4-500 of the boring, crappy cars, we'd be getting somewhere. Use the time and effort that those removed things would have occupied to make some manageable menus, more Premium cars, and get the Day-Night cycle and Weather on all tracks. That would have been great. But that isn't what we got.
Don't get me wrong, it is a good game. But GT games aren't supposed to just be good, they are supposed to be GREAT. But even after a 6 year wait, we only got pretty good.
But hey, as I've said on many occasions, it does make some DAMN GOOD screenshots. Almost unreal at times...
Click to HUGE-size
http://imgur.com/hLJ12.jpg
http://imgur.com/V06hb.jpg
http://imgur.com/Vciun.jpg
http://imgur.com/ZGPiF.jpg
http://imgur.com/IMrhk.jpg
dougny
Nov 28, 06:44 PM
(Did the music companies ask for money for every CD player or Tape Recorder sold? Nope)
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Actually, they do. They also got paid on every blank tape sold when cassettes were big. I think it is crazy for everyone to think that the music industry is greedy when it getting squeezed out of all of their revenue streams. So, Apple makes hundreds of millions off of their back on the itunes site, and a billion off of iPod sales, and they cannot share in the wealth?
It doesn't cost the consumer any more, why wouldn't you want the people who actually make the music you are listening to get compensated?
This debate is stale. People want something for nothing.
Zadillo
Aug 27, 05:38 PM
Hey for what its worth, i understand where you're coming from Zadillo BUT some people still find the joke funny and therefore it deserves to be told.
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
Fair enough, and I won't argue any more about it. I can't think of anything more tedious than a debate about whether a joke is funny or not...:)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 20, 08:32 AM
Samsung has no honor.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
It seems their problem is that they had access to Apple's design and so were able to copy more closely than is usually the case with Apple competitors.
milo
Jul 27, 03:29 PM
Actually, the merom in not completely compatible with the yonah chips. There will have to be some redesign on Apple's part that is supposed to delay the new MBPs. This article somewhat explains it:
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
I don't know that I buy that, especially considering they have no source, and people have already done merom swaps on shipping machines. If there is an issue, I'd guess it's only an issue in the soldered version.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Not really. My last machine had two, and I rarely used both. I think most people in the market for two optical drives are probably going to want the full pro tower anyway, and there's not that much profit from the second slot since most people will add the drive themselves instead of from Apple.
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development
But didn't MS sign a multiyear contract with apple committing to support?
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
http://blogs.zdnet.com/Apple/?p=249
I don't know that I buy that, especially considering they have no source, and people have already done merom swaps on shipping machines. If there is an issue, I'd guess it's only an issue in the soldered version.
As far as the 2nd optical slot goes, don't you think it's a pain to have only a single drive?
And especially when a second one probably adds less than $50-$75 to the system cost to the customer? (And extra profit potential for Apple?)
Not really. My last machine had two, and I rarely used both. I think most people in the market for two optical drives are probably going to want the full pro tower anyway, and there's not that much profit from the second slot since most people will add the drive themselves instead of from Apple.
MS will announce that they are dropping Mac development
But didn't MS sign a multiyear contract with apple committing to support?
I'm not sure why you're saying this price is way too low. The specs, so far as I can see, are quite similar to the current bottom-end iMac, which has an integrated screen, and it's price is only $300 more. It seems to me that this price is actually about right.
Also, I think that the name 'Mac' is a distinct possibility. Not saying I like it (or that I don't), or that it isn't simplistic, but I think that it's not unreasonable. FWIW, 'Mac Express' is nice, too, but I don't see Apple jumping on a name like that as quickly.
Maybe not way too low, but a bit low, especially when you compare specs to the $799 mini. The problem with MAC by itself as a name is that people will ask "what kind of mac" and the response is "Mac". It's a bad slapstick routine. It's like Ford selling a car called the Ford.
LarryB08
Apr 8, 08:24 AM
Reminds me of a true story - went into one of those pre-made sandwich shops because I need to feed a horde unexpectedly, and quickly. I asked for all their stock of three different kinds of sandwich. The woman behind the counter said "but sir what will we sell to other people!".
Bizarre way to run a business.
Scenario 1: Store expects 1000 customers. Customer 15 walks in and buys all the store's stock. The remaining 985 customer walk in through the day and are told we have nothing to sell you. These 98.5% of the daily customers never return to the store in the future.
Scenario 2: Store expects 1000 customers and rations stock to serve the needs of the greatest percentage of their daily customers as possible. The great majority of customers are happy and continue to patronize the store in the future.
Scenario 2 above does not seem so bizarre to me.
We are talking business here, business that needs to function over time and not just over one day. All I know is there are a lot of people here who are taking great pleasure trashing a store for their own personal reasons. But the store must serve their overall client base as best as possible and sometimes that may mean being unable to satisfy every specific request every day.
Bizarre way to run a business.
Scenario 1: Store expects 1000 customers. Customer 15 walks in and buys all the store's stock. The remaining 985 customer walk in through the day and are told we have nothing to sell you. These 98.5% of the daily customers never return to the store in the future.
Scenario 2: Store expects 1000 customers and rations stock to serve the needs of the greatest percentage of their daily customers as possible. The great majority of customers are happy and continue to patronize the store in the future.
Scenario 2 above does not seem so bizarre to me.
We are talking business here, business that needs to function over time and not just over one day. All I know is there are a lot of people here who are taking great pleasure trashing a store for their own personal reasons. But the store must serve their overall client base as best as possible and sometimes that may mean being unable to satisfy every specific request every day.
jonnysods
Mar 31, 02:43 PM
Suckaz. What a mess.
NicP
Aug 25, 09:38 PM
Apple support has been very average for me in Australia. I have 2 macbooks being repaired now, they both have multiple problems and have been at the repair place for over a week. I tried to get apple to just replace them but after being fowarded through several departments they told me no. When i have used dell support, I ring up and tell them what the problem is and someone comes to my house to fix the computer the next day. I thought apple was supposed to be better at support than dell?
Gugulino
Apr 6, 04:17 AM
Looking for some controversy are we?!!! :rolleyes:
No, I really think that iMovie is a good example of video-editing software. Did Apple changed FCP's look and feel in the last few years? No! It is outdated, that you have to admit for sure. iMovie has a far more modern UI, which should be adopted by FCP somehow. I didn't mean FCP should lose all its Pro-features. FCP could also adopt the easy way of handling your footage: In iMovie I see what I shot and can quickly add clips to the project without setting in and out points manually. And what about the precision-editor? For one project I abandoned FCP just because it has no precision editor.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
No, I really think that iMovie is a good example of video-editing software. Did Apple changed FCP's look and feel in the last few years? No! It is outdated, that you have to admit for sure. iMovie has a far more modern UI, which should be adopted by FCP somehow. I didn't mean FCP should lose all its Pro-features. FCP could also adopt the easy way of handling your footage: In iMovie I see what I shot and can quickly add clips to the project without setting in and out points manually. And what about the precision-editor? For one project I abandoned FCP just because it has no precision editor.
I think FCP could learn a lot from iMovie. And if the same man, who created iMovie, is also the chief of the Final Cut Studio Developer Team, it will happen!
SuperCachetes
Mar 23, 04:23 PM
"Is it your position that Libya represents a larger danger to American assets/security than Iraq? If not, is it your suggestion that America should be involved in every humanitarian crisis with brutal dictators worldwide, or at least those comparable to Libya? If so, why aren't we in North Korea? Why aren't we in any number of African nations?
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
I think this is a fair point, and it really doesn't matter if it's the United States making the calls, or the United Nations. We are essentially playing "God" with the other nations of the world. My complaint on the first page revolved around the lack of a quantifiable threshold for intervention. We inadvertently play favorites, and the world has every right to wonder about the motivation any time the USA takes action against a sovereign state. We should either stay out of ALL interference, or else put on the damn star-spangled cape and superhero tights and get to business already. Wherever evil is, we must go and fight it! :rolleyes:
Why you keep on referring to Iraq when the scale of action in scope of resources and time isn't remotely on the size of the Iraq invasion, is a complete mystery. If you're attempting to make this Obama's 'Iraq' folly, then you will fail. This will be off the front pages of US papers in terms of US engagement within a week or two.
Quite right. So far the whole Libya affair has a lot more in common with Desert Fox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing_of_Iraq_(December_1998)) than Iraq...
whatever
Nov 29, 12:42 PM
I'm certainly not on the record label's side on this, and I'm someone who almost never downloads anything online (not even free, MP3 of the week type tracks), but I think two important things we're glossing over are:
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
1 It is illegal to pirate music, regardless of whether or not a label gives their artists their fair share of profits.
2 Like it or not, most of the music on most people's portable music players is downloaded off of P2P. We "affluent" Mac users, who stay on the cutting edge of technology and come to places like MacRumors for heated exchanges about Apple news are not a typical cross section of music consumers.
I'd reckon most iPods are owned by the under 21 crowd, who've grown up with P2P as an ever-present option for music, and who swap songs with friends without thinking twice about it.
And as this generation gets older, things will only get worse for the labels, I figure.
On the other hand, at some point in time, this same generation will be in our courtrooms running the judicial system and in our capitol running our government, so it could be that some of these antiquated laws get modified for the digital age, but until then, refer back to Points 1 and 2 above and realize that despite how we may feel about the issue, it's illegal to download music freely and most people are doing it...
For starters, it's not illegal to download music freely. There are quite a few artists that allow free downloads of their music, so the first part of your statement "it's illegal to download music freely" is not correct. The second half of your statement ".... people are doing it....", assumes that everyone is guilty until they prove themselves innocent. Which is wrong.
I've been re-thinking my stance here. And if Apple decides to give a portion of their future iPod revenue to the music industry, then let them. I personally would never do it, but again, we're only talking a couple of dollars per iPod. Would Apple raise their prices on current models, most likely not. I would rather have Apple pay the iPod tax, instead of changing the iTunes Music Store's pricing model.
skunk
Mar 1, 04:31 PM
well it certainly isn't the renaissance mind, as leonardo and michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.+2. :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment