samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
reubs
Apr 6, 11:17 AM
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3282/photoapr06114008am.jpg (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/photoapr06114008am.jpg/)
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
SandynJosh
Apr 16, 11:15 PM
Apple has by far the most restrictive ecosystem. You can't even load applications that are not approved by Apple.
That's the truth! With an Andriod download I can easy get a free Trojan program along with the app I wanted.
The Trojans seem to work but many of the apps don't. Dam Apple to heck for not letting people load any old crapo they want into iTunes.
That's the truth! With an Andriod download I can easy get a free Trojan program along with the app I wanted.
The Trojans seem to work but many of the apps don't. Dam Apple to heck for not letting people load any old crapo they want into iTunes.
Winni
May 4, 02:59 AM
Just like communism
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
more...
Rodimus Prime
Apr 22, 06:57 PM
Whereas I agree with your post entirely, I get the feeling that you wouldn't be saying this if Apple were the only ones not to collect such data. You have bashed Google many times for the amount of data it collects, but as soon as Apple is to be seen to be doing it, it's all cool. A "non-issue.":rolleyes:
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
some how I think the only reason he is saying that is because Apple is the one doing it.
If it was anyone else LTD would be bashing it like no tomorrow.
My issue with it is the fact that it does not let you opt out. It would be one thing to freely give away that infomation. It is another not to be even given the option to opt out. On top of that the way Apple is doing it is even worse.
Google and Apple are in the wrong I feel. I just feel Apple is even more wrong than Google. Google at least only stores the last 50 cell towers and 200 wifi compared to Apple which keeps all of it locally.
TravisGood
Jan 5, 04:53 PM
It's hard to believe that you guys are making this effort to not "spoil".
Your sensitivity to readers who want an embargo on updates till they can view the QT stream first is unprecedented. I can hardly believe you're doing it! The niche purist audience you attract can't help but appreciate it.
Me? I'll be logged on to your live site for up-to-the-minute news!
Keep up the good work. Travis
Your sensitivity to readers who want an embargo on updates till they can view the QT stream first is unprecedented. I can hardly believe you're doing it! The niche purist audience you attract can't help but appreciate it.
Me? I'll be logged on to your live site for up-to-the-minute news!
Keep up the good work. Travis
more...
samcraig
May 2, 11:55 AM
The only way to remove the cache after 4.3.3 will be to disable location services. They wont have poor location service performance, they will have none. :rolleyes:
On or off - like the switch says. Makes sense and is logical.
On or off - like the switch says. Makes sense and is logical.
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 02:00 PM
Wow, so much for the spoiler free link. I just checked the page and saw WHAT THEY ANNOUNCED in some kind of news ticker!!!!!!!
Maybe next year.
:mad: I just refreshed before you said that and I saw that too. Ah, well. We don't know any details so the wait isn't completely lost.
Maybe next year.
:mad: I just refreshed before you said that and I saw that too. Ah, well. We don't know any details so the wait isn't completely lost.
more...
rdowns
Apr 21, 11:46 AM
arn,
What are we to do with people who will abuse of this new feature?
How will you know who is abusing it. I mean, I'll probably always give you -1 but how will you know? :p
What are we to do with people who will abuse of this new feature?
How will you know who is abusing it. I mean, I'll probably always give you -1 but how will you know? :p
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
more...
twoodcc
Apr 1, 10:48 AM
i hope that title isn't too long.
anyway, i'm finally getting out of this place and going back to my apartment tomorrow. so right now i have basically no folding output, but will get everything back up when i get back.
i found out from a friend that my power did go out a day after leaving to come here. i had everything setup and running perfect when i left, and bam! the power flickers and everything went down. i almost wanted to drive 14 hours back!
but instead i got another i7 system, which gives me 3 total. i should have them up and running hopefully by saturday.
i should be good for at least 70-75 PPD. i've been having problems with one of my i7 rigs, so only 2 of them will be doing the bigadv units until i have time to work on it.
but it still should be my best output yet.
anyway, i'm finally getting out of this place and going back to my apartment tomorrow. so right now i have basically no folding output, but will get everything back up when i get back.
i found out from a friend that my power did go out a day after leaving to come here. i had everything setup and running perfect when i left, and bam! the power flickers and everything went down. i almost wanted to drive 14 hours back!
but instead i got another i7 system, which gives me 3 total. i should have them up and running hopefully by saturday.
i should be good for at least 70-75 PPD. i've been having problems with one of my i7 rigs, so only 2 of them will be doing the bigadv units until i have time to work on it.
but it still should be my best output yet.
revjay
Sep 25, 11:34 AM
Just FYI, I'm running Aperture with 17k+ images on an iMac 24" 2.1ghz G5 - sometimes slow, but heck i'm doing it and drooling over the 1.5 update
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
more...
QuarterSwede
Oct 13, 08:19 PM
Just noticed something at work (large retailer). The iPod case is unusually empty of iPod videos. We may have 15 total when the case usual has 50-100. The iPod Nanos on the other hand are completely stocked full. Usually this only happens when Apple is going to release a new version and stops sending the store product. I know it sounds weird because they just upgraded the 5G but it was a very insignificant update. Just thought I'd add that to the rumor mill.
(L)
Apr 30, 12:28 AM
Hey knock it off with all the off topic Windows drivel. Winrumors forums would be a better place to dispute these matters.
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right. :o
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right. :o
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
more...
pivo6
Apr 22, 10:35 AM
All seems rather silly to me.
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
I realize that this is just a test run of this "feature", but I too wonder what has changed in order to come up with a reputation system.
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
I realize that this is just a test run of this "feature", but I too wonder what has changed in order to come up with a reputation system.
NAG
Jan 12, 05:59 PM
You do realize that Zod lost every time, right? :p
more...
munkery
Apr 17, 06:36 PM
How does Gnome 3.0 on Linux compare to the new UI in OSX Lion?
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
That's a pretty sick OS. I haven't ever run Fedora on a computer of mine, but my uncle swears by it. That video has convinced me to run it on my next box.
I like fedora over ubuntu. I haven't run fedora for a while, I think I'll take second look when the new version comes out.
I wish Ubuntu went with Gnome 3 over Unity. Fedora is great but it is more "free" than Ubuntu as Fedora includes fewer/no? proprietary drivers by default so it is a little bit more work to get running on some hardware.
The next Fedora may be worth the extra effort.
Here is a link for those looking to stay up to date on Win 8. http://www.winrumors.com/
Or, at least looking to retaliate?
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
That's a pretty sick OS. I haven't ever run Fedora on a computer of mine, but my uncle swears by it. That video has convinced me to run it on my next box.
I like fedora over ubuntu. I haven't run fedora for a while, I think I'll take second look when the new version comes out.
I wish Ubuntu went with Gnome 3 over Unity. Fedora is great but it is more "free" than Ubuntu as Fedora includes fewer/no? proprietary drivers by default so it is a little bit more work to get running on some hardware.
The next Fedora may be worth the extra effort.
Here is a link for those looking to stay up to date on Win 8. http://www.winrumors.com/
Or, at least looking to retaliate?
No1up
Mar 17, 01:38 AM
You seem like a joy to be around.
What you did is inexcusably wrong, what do you expect? The "stoner," as you so eloquently put it, probably lost his job, and you're trying to make excuses for yourself.
Grow up.
Oh and by the way, ever heard of projection? I'm pretty sure my sex life has nothing to do with this dumb site. You seem a little unsettled though. Just saying.
Well... The good in this, is that you saved cash, and if he did get fired you taught this boy a very valuable lesson, one in which he will not soon forget. He will find another job, he will grow up and use this story and be careful and attentive at his job.
What you did is inexcusably wrong, what do you expect? The "stoner," as you so eloquently put it, probably lost his job, and you're trying to make excuses for yourself.
Grow up.
Oh and by the way, ever heard of projection? I'm pretty sure my sex life has nothing to do with this dumb site. You seem a little unsettled though. Just saying.
Well... The good in this, is that you saved cash, and if he did get fired you taught this boy a very valuable lesson, one in which he will not soon forget. He will find another job, he will grow up and use this story and be careful and attentive at his job.
newamiga
Sep 12, 12:44 AM
Guys.. just a quick thought,, but remember when they released the iPod HiFi.. they didn't really play it up, but it can be addressed via Airtunes and the Airport Express. That means you can select it by name as a speaker set via iTunes. Now the thing that is missing is a remote device that can show off the album art and play the DRM protected files in remote areas of the house. Note that there are expensive solutions for doing this today, but they don't support DRM (Sonos). I am wondering if the supposed remote or all purpose device will bring this control throughout a house via wireless. This would make the iPod HiFi that much more valuable as a solution for streaming your music with full control throughout the house. It just seems like a logical leap, and one that would not take much technically to do. Now take that the next step and have it also control the output of the new Airport Express Video edition and have the preview on the remote or at least cover art.. stream the movie to where you want in the house.. I know the use of 802.11 in its current form may not be the best for this.. just thinking out loud.
CaoCao
Apr 17, 10:36 PM
Last night I was watching a program called The Real King's Speech, a documentary on Prince Albert's/King George VI's struggle to deal with his speech impediment.
At least twice it was mentioned that he was born left-handed and forced by his father (with regression therapy perhaps?) to use his right hand.
Precisely, some of the side effects of forced change are learning disorders, dyslexia, stuttering and other speech disorders.
At least twice it was mentioned that he was born left-handed and forced by his father (with regression therapy perhaps?) to use his right hand.
Precisely, some of the side effects of forced change are learning disorders, dyslexia, stuttering and other speech disorders.
miles01110
Apr 21, 02:43 PM
oh so Apple being sued isn't bad for Apple? and Apple sueing somebody isn't good for Apple because they are defending their patents? :rolleyes:
oh so those were the only two stories that received votes? :rolleyes:
oh so those were the only two stories that received votes? :rolleyes:
Crike .40
Nov 16, 03:09 PM
this may have been mentioned before, and if so I'm sorry.
But it is entirely possible that because of the sources checkered (to say the least) history that this is a piece of insided information that was misinterpretted.
It could entirely be the case that simply Apple is planning on buying more ATI video cards. This could be for use in iTV, or even dedicated graphics (please please please) in the lower end machines: MacBook/Mini.
just a thought, but possible I s'pose.
But it is entirely possible that because of the sources checkered (to say the least) history that this is a piece of insided information that was misinterpretted.
It could entirely be the case that simply Apple is planning on buying more ATI video cards. This could be for use in iTV, or even dedicated graphics (please please please) in the lower end machines: MacBook/Mini.
just a thought, but possible I s'pose.
pete0302
Jan 15, 02:02 PM
I am a Powerbook G4 user, and ready for a new computer. I was hoping that they would update the MacBook Pro, because I would definately buy one, but that doesn't look like thats going to happen anytime soon... ::mad:
nate13
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
agreed. Even though with the white one, I'd expect a 64GB available. Just makes sense; they used to have an ipod nano that only came in black in the largest size, if memory serves...
