Popeye206
Apr 12, 11:50 AM
If they build it from scratch, they could probably design the place with working conditions that don't make people as suicidal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104449&referrerid=51132).
Oh please... not this again! :rolleyes:
Oh please... not this again! :rolleyes:
Manic Mouse
Sep 6, 08:41 AM
Shouldn't the Conroe CPUs run at higher frequencies than the CPUs used in the iMacs?
Yup. PC's will be running faster, cheaper and slightly more powerful (per clock) chips. :confused:
Yup. PC's will be running faster, cheaper and slightly more powerful (per clock) chips. :confused:
AustinZ
Apr 12, 03:43 PM
Except China is like a plague of locusts consuming raw materials. All of the coal, petroleum, steel, concrete, etc. they are importing is coming from somewhere else, and procuring these things has negative environmental impact for where they�re sourced.
Because before China, no other country in the world with factories EVER sourced raw materials from other countries.
If countries in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere weren't mining, growing, and extracting materials for factories in China, they'd be sourcing materials for factories in India, America, Europe, South Asia, Japan, Korea, or elsewhere. Unfortunately these countries tend to have weak or corrupt governments that don't care about environmental degradation or can't do anything meaningful about it.
Maybe countries with factories that source raw materials from other countries have a responsibility to help those other countries develop mechanisms to protect their environment. But I've yet to see this happen on a meaningful scale anywhere.
Because before China, no other country in the world with factories EVER sourced raw materials from other countries.
If countries in Africa, the Middle East, and elsewhere weren't mining, growing, and extracting materials for factories in China, they'd be sourcing materials for factories in India, America, Europe, South Asia, Japan, Korea, or elsewhere. Unfortunately these countries tend to have weak or corrupt governments that don't care about environmental degradation or can't do anything meaningful about it.
Maybe countries with factories that source raw materials from other countries have a responsibility to help those other countries develop mechanisms to protect their environment. But I've yet to see this happen on a meaningful scale anywhere.
AP_piano295
Mar 30, 04:10 PM
I'm sure some of them have, sorta how some of the Libyan people have.
Side note:
I'm seriously worried what will become of the power vacuum when Qaddafi leaves. To think the rebel forces are somehow an actual organized group is absurd. The only thing unifying many of these people is the will to see Qaddafi fall. After that there will be a mad struggle for power, most likely in conjunction with half assed elections.
This whole Libya situation is going to blow up in the not too distant future. I forsee the civil war shifting after Qaddafi leaves into the rebel forces fighting amongst themselves.
I shudder to think what is going to happen if we arm them, hopefully Obama wasn't just talking out of his ass when he said we actually need to learn from history for once. Our country's cycle of support>arm>aid>turn against>support new group needs to stop, as it is directly responsible for much of the instability we've seen in the world over the last 20+ years. We create our own enemies to fight after they no longer serve our interests.
I've been unable to get a good grasp on what percentage of Libyans are against Qaddafi. The impression that I'm getting is that the majority (maybe a large majority) of the country really wants him out (though impressions can be very misleading).
Which in my eyes means the majority of Libya's citizenry is at risk of being out right massacred mainly because Qaddafi has the money to buy guns and soldiers.
Your concerns about a power vacuum and inter tribal fighting are certainly justified though :(.
Side note:
I'm seriously worried what will become of the power vacuum when Qaddafi leaves. To think the rebel forces are somehow an actual organized group is absurd. The only thing unifying many of these people is the will to see Qaddafi fall. After that there will be a mad struggle for power, most likely in conjunction with half assed elections.
This whole Libya situation is going to blow up in the not too distant future. I forsee the civil war shifting after Qaddafi leaves into the rebel forces fighting amongst themselves.
I shudder to think what is going to happen if we arm them, hopefully Obama wasn't just talking out of his ass when he said we actually need to learn from history for once. Our country's cycle of support>arm>aid>turn against>support new group needs to stop, as it is directly responsible for much of the instability we've seen in the world over the last 20+ years. We create our own enemies to fight after they no longer serve our interests.
I've been unable to get a good grasp on what percentage of Libyans are against Qaddafi. The impression that I'm getting is that the majority (maybe a large majority) of the country really wants him out (though impressions can be very misleading).
Which in my eyes means the majority of Libya's citizenry is at risk of being out right massacred mainly because Qaddafi has the money to buy guns and soldiers.
Your concerns about a power vacuum and inter tribal fighting are certainly justified though :(.
kevingaffney
May 5, 02:17 AM
Apple needs to step up to the plate with ios5. The iPhone as it is, is good enough for most punters. Tweaking the hardware won't make a huge difference. Ipad2 a perfect example, nice upgrade but not essential. iOS is beginning to look a little dated and needs a major update rather than a few tweaks
bboucher790
May 5, 01:39 PM
3D is an additional feature. If you wish to not use it, by all means, don't use it. Your experience will not change.
It will be the same as adjusting your brightness. Not everyone wants a super bright screen, just the same, not everyone wants to view their device in 3D. There is a zero chance Apple releases a 3D product without the means of turning it off.
Adjusting the 3DS's 3D capabilities is a slider away. If you want to play your games in 2D, the way you've always done, you can still do this with ease. 3D is an additional feature for times you may want to use 3D on your device (watching Avatar on a plane). It doesn't mean you're going to be forced to use 3D while reading the New York Times.
I think what people are annoyed with is the constant discussion of 3D in mainstream media. It IS annoying, and I wish for it to stop, but at the same time, I can't find a reason why this technology would be bad for the iPad / iPhone, as it's being added on to the interface, rather than replacing it.
It will be the same as adjusting your brightness. Not everyone wants a super bright screen, just the same, not everyone wants to view their device in 3D. There is a zero chance Apple releases a 3D product without the means of turning it off.
Adjusting the 3DS's 3D capabilities is a slider away. If you want to play your games in 2D, the way you've always done, you can still do this with ease. 3D is an additional feature for times you may want to use 3D on your device (watching Avatar on a plane). It doesn't mean you're going to be forced to use 3D while reading the New York Times.
I think what people are annoyed with is the constant discussion of 3D in mainstream media. It IS annoying, and I wish for it to stop, but at the same time, I can't find a reason why this technology would be bad for the iPad / iPhone, as it's being added on to the interface, rather than replacing it.
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Blue Velvet
Aug 29, 02:26 AM
Apologies if someone has already posted this but just spotted this in Google News. Please note that many of the prices quoted are either in Canadian or Australian dollars.
PRICING details for Microsoft's forthcoming Vista Windows release are starting to leak out, with both Microsoft's Canadian operation and online retailer Amazon publishing prices online.
Amazon.com is listing pre-order copies of Windows Vista Ultimate for $US399 ($524), saying the product would be released on January 30, 2007.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's Canadian operation has inadvertently leaked prices for the forthcoming Windows Vista release.
According to posts on tech forum site Neowin.net, the Canadian website listed Windows Vista Ultimate for $C499 ($590). The Home Platinum edition was priced at $C299 and the Home Premium Upgrade version at $C199.
The Canadian website currently lists Windows XP Professional for a retail price of $C499. Microsoft Australia lists the same product for $479.
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20291440%5E15321%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
If these reports turn out to have any basis in reality, please let's not hear any more complaining about how expensive OSX is.
Edit: More links...
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34770
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ms_vista_canada/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6110267.html
PRICING details for Microsoft's forthcoming Vista Windows release are starting to leak out, with both Microsoft's Canadian operation and online retailer Amazon publishing prices online.
Amazon.com is listing pre-order copies of Windows Vista Ultimate for $US399 ($524), saying the product would be released on January 30, 2007.
Meanwhile, Microsoft's Canadian operation has inadvertently leaked prices for the forthcoming Windows Vista release.
According to posts on tech forum site Neowin.net, the Canadian website listed Windows Vista Ultimate for $C499 ($590). The Home Platinum edition was priced at $C299 and the Home Premium Upgrade version at $C199.
The Canadian website currently lists Windows XP Professional for a retail price of $C499. Microsoft Australia lists the same product for $479.
http://australianit.news.com.au/articles/0,7204,20291440%5E15321%5E%5Enbv%5E,00.html
If these reports turn out to have any basis in reality, please let's not hear any more complaining about how expensive OSX is.
Edit: More links...
http://www.neowin.net/index.php?act=view&id=34770
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2006/08/29/ms_vista_canada/
http://news.zdnet.com/2100-3513_22-6110267.html
Ugg
Mar 29, 11:38 AM
I've always felt that WW2 was justified though the way we ended the war was unfortunate and un-necessary.
I'm also generally in support of intervening to stop genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Unnecessary Wars:
Revolutionary
War 1812
Civil War
Spanish American War
WW1
Korean War
Vietnam War
Desert Storm (Iraq 1.0) maybe necessary but easily avoided
Afghanistan
Iraq War
Interesting list.
I'd assume that you are also not a supporter of the USA's forays south of our border during the last century and a half.
I wonder what Rand thinks about the sale of US military goods to foreign countries? Surely the sale of such, especially to militant countries like Iraq, Libya, Israel, etc, violates his sacrosanct policy of non-intervention.
I'm also generally in support of intervening to stop genocide/ethnic cleansing.
Unnecessary Wars:
Revolutionary
War 1812
Civil War
Spanish American War
WW1
Korean War
Vietnam War
Desert Storm (Iraq 1.0) maybe necessary but easily avoided
Afghanistan
Iraq War
Interesting list.
I'd assume that you are also not a supporter of the USA's forays south of our border during the last century and a half.
I wonder what Rand thinks about the sale of US military goods to foreign countries? Surely the sale of such, especially to militant countries like Iraq, Libya, Israel, etc, violates his sacrosanct policy of non-intervention.
NT1440
Oct 10, 03:32 PM
Cleaned up a bit:
ReanimationLP
Aug 3, 09:15 PM
Heh, I'm willing to bet that the Leopard discs will be up on a BT site within a weeks time. :rolleyes:
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 4, 06:27 PM
If you try going to:
www.apple.com/movies
it gives you a page that says:
403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
Does this mean anything?
Nope; been there for years.
www.apple.com/movies
it gives you a page that says:
403 Forbidden
You don't have permission to access /movies on this server.
Does this mean anything?
Nope; been there for years.
SevenInchScrew
Sep 14, 12:04 PM
It's go time!!!
http://i51.tinypic.com/334uhbo.jpg
http://i51.tinypic.com/334uhbo.jpg
treblah
Aug 3, 04:59 PM
I doubt it since this is the World Wide DEVELOPERS Conference...I wouldnt classify an imac as a developmental machine.
Although they did give all the developers who 'rented' the 'Intel Development Kit' from WWDC '05 a Intel iMac when they were released in January. ;)
Also, kids, this is what we should be discussing:
Although they did give all the developers who 'rented' the 'Intel Development Kit' from WWDC '05 a Intel iMac when they were released in January. ;)
Also, kids, this is what we should be discussing:
Soura2112
Apr 14, 02:33 PM
Hopefully when you download FCX from the App store it does not mess with FCP 7, so then you will have everything FCP 7 has and also FCX, best of both worlds.
Yes I know the "pros" want more, always will. I don't consider myself a pro, I commented before on my projects only 30% are paid jobs, while 70% is fun or free jobs I do for friends hoping for some word of mouth to spread. For what I do FCX new power will take advantage of my 8 Core Pro, while hopefully making all my projects look even better. So for an amuture this is great especially the price tag.
Like almost everyone here I dislike iMovie 11 and rarely use it, not even sure I used it for a simple project since iMovie 10 since I disliked that also, though I played with it enough to use it fully if needed.
I'm most curious about the learning curve, I know both iMovie and FCP so I just hope this is an easy transition so my work keeps moving and I want that paid % to go up.
Yes I know the "pros" want more, always will. I don't consider myself a pro, I commented before on my projects only 30% are paid jobs, while 70% is fun or free jobs I do for friends hoping for some word of mouth to spread. For what I do FCX new power will take advantage of my 8 Core Pro, while hopefully making all my projects look even better. So for an amuture this is great especially the price tag.
Like almost everyone here I dislike iMovie 11 and rarely use it, not even sure I used it for a simple project since iMovie 10 since I disliked that also, though I played with it enough to use it fully if needed.
I'm most curious about the learning curve, I know both iMovie and FCP so I just hope this is an easy transition so my work keeps moving and I want that paid % to go up.
buddhagoth
Aug 24, 03:43 PM
I sincerely hope everyone else is having a much better experience than I/
- Quil
Heya Quilentro:
Sorry to hear about your experience. No company is perfect and every one screws up sometime or other. In my years of experience with Apple, they seem to screw up a whole lot less than any other computer maker I've ever dealt with. For instance, I had to sue a certain Texas company to get them to honor their warranty. Never had to do that with Apple. :)
Cordially,
B.G., waiting for the support site to right itself so he can get a new battery for the 12" PB.
- Quil
Heya Quilentro:
Sorry to hear about your experience. No company is perfect and every one screws up sometime or other. In my years of experience with Apple, they seem to screw up a whole lot less than any other computer maker I've ever dealt with. For instance, I had to sue a certain Texas company to get them to honor their warranty. Never had to do that with Apple. :)
Cordially,
B.G., waiting for the support site to right itself so he can get a new battery for the 12" PB.
nemaslov
Sep 4, 01:05 PM
It has been a year an a half or more since the 60GB iPod was released and over a year since we've been hearing about an 80GB version. I know i am in the minority who wants a larger one. Me for music only but I assume you video people will need more memory eventually anyway. Hey how about a 100GB version! I never jumped to the iPod video since they never expanded it's memory...:rolleyes:
PowerGamerX
Oct 12, 04:29 PM
I am a fan of mechanical keyboards. They are clunky and loud, but allows me to type very fast. Also, I'll probably type the apple keyboard to death in less than a month because I tend to bang on the keys.
The model I have now is Happy Hacking Keyboard Lite for Mac. The touch is fairly good but it has an eccentric layout that makes is difficult for me to blind-touch the command key. I hope to get a Matias Tactile Pro 3 soon.
I like noisy keyboards. I remember an old IBM computer I had...
CLACK CLACK CLICKITY CLACK
The model I have now is Happy Hacking Keyboard Lite for Mac. The touch is fairly good but it has an eccentric layout that makes is difficult for me to blind-touch the command key. I hope to get a Matias Tactile Pro 3 soon.
I like noisy keyboards. I remember an old IBM computer I had...
CLACK CLACK CLICKITY CLACK
SevenInchScrew
Oct 2, 12:00 AM
One great thing I realized the other day is that the drop shield power up or whatever its called also restores your health which is awsome.
Yea, they wanted to combine some of the old Equipment items from Halo 3 to make them more useful. Drop Shield is a mix of the old Bubble Shield and the Regen. Active Camo mixes the old Camo and the Radar Jammer. But while it does make you invisible and jam your enemies radar, it also muffles your audio and jams your radar as well. Also, the Armor Lock puts off an EMP like effect, much like the old Power Drain, though you are obviously stuck in one place when using it. Lots of risk-reward involved in them.
I wasn't really sure how I would like the Armor Abilities, and the limited time I got with the Beta back in May didn't really help, since they were all a little broken then. But now, after playing quite a lot of Reach, I'm really enjoying them. It is really nice to always have them to use. The one-time use of the old equipment really did hinder their usage, so I can see why Bungie wanted to change. Sprint is my go-to piece, but I use Drop Shield a lot when playing Firefight.
Yea, they wanted to combine some of the old Equipment items from Halo 3 to make them more useful. Drop Shield is a mix of the old Bubble Shield and the Regen. Active Camo mixes the old Camo and the Radar Jammer. But while it does make you invisible and jam your enemies radar, it also muffles your audio and jams your radar as well. Also, the Armor Lock puts off an EMP like effect, much like the old Power Drain, though you are obviously stuck in one place when using it. Lots of risk-reward involved in them.
I wasn't really sure how I would like the Armor Abilities, and the limited time I got with the Beta back in May didn't really help, since they were all a little broken then. But now, after playing quite a lot of Reach, I'm really enjoying them. It is really nice to always have them to use. The one-time use of the old equipment really did hinder their usage, so I can see why Bungie wanted to change. Sprint is my go-to piece, but I use Drop Shield a lot when playing Firefight.
i4Collin
Apr 4, 01:46 PM
This is the first, and last time Apple will ask for Sony's help.
dan-o-mac
Sep 12, 05:24 PM
It's a real pity the black one has to be 8GB. Why can't we have all the colours or have it white?
Greed on Apple's part might be the reason. I'm sure they will wait a few months after everyone has bought the 4GB in color, then announce 8GB iPod Nanos in color.
Greed on Apple's part might be the reason. I'm sure they will wait a few months after everyone has bought the 4GB in color, then announce 8GB iPod Nanos in color.
mcmlxix
Apr 12, 02:36 PM
They make cars in the US, and domestic cars are typically less expensive than foreign ones. This argument really doesn't fly.
But what's the difference in cost of shipping a car versus an iPhone across the Pacific?
But what's the difference in cost of shipping a car versus an iPhone across the Pacific?
aardwolf
Mar 25, 12:37 PM
http://ios.e-lite.org/
alent1234
Mar 25, 01:17 PM
Mine shows 650.2MB...hmmmm interesting
different files for every piece of hardware, fragmentation
different files for every piece of hardware, fragmentation
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий