mlrproducts
Aug 11, 09:33 AM
NO!!!! I'm broke and have the midrange MB. I just cannot stand them releasing the much faster processor (IE: not just mhz increase) in my computer this soon! Also, with my luck they'd switch to an nvidia chip at the same time...
Rodimus Prime
Mar 28, 11:43 AM
wasn't that samsung's fault with the custom UI they put on the phone and issues with 2.3?
even if it was not the custom UI there would still be blocking by AT&T claiming "testing" That and every phone has some underlining drivers and what not that is closed source that needs to be updated and what not.
And as I said before clearly it is not samsung's fault. Captivated is a GalaxyS phone.
Captivated is running android 2.1 while over in Europe it is getting the 2.3 updated. Tell me who is at fault there. Clearly not Samsung. Samsung has pointed the finger back at the carriers here multiple times.
Google release update. You have to give the manufactures at least 3 months to update their stuff then you get trapped in the carrier crap endlessly.
The manufactures are also finally starting to figure out that people do not want all that custom crap but at the same time you have to look at it from the manufactures point to view. The custom UI makes them seperate from everyone else. Other wise it would just different hardware and nothing else separting them. This way that all have their own custom UI. At least they are starting to figure out that all they need to control is the launcher and they can start backing out going as deep. This is good for us,.
even if it was not the custom UI there would still be blocking by AT&T claiming "testing" That and every phone has some underlining drivers and what not that is closed source that needs to be updated and what not.
And as I said before clearly it is not samsung's fault. Captivated is a GalaxyS phone.
Captivated is running android 2.1 while over in Europe it is getting the 2.3 updated. Tell me who is at fault there. Clearly not Samsung. Samsung has pointed the finger back at the carriers here multiple times.
Google release update. You have to give the manufactures at least 3 months to update their stuff then you get trapped in the carrier crap endlessly.
The manufactures are also finally starting to figure out that people do not want all that custom crap but at the same time you have to look at it from the manufactures point to view. The custom UI makes them seperate from everyone else. Other wise it would just different hardware and nothing else separting them. This way that all have their own custom UI. At least they are starting to figure out that all they need to control is the launcher and they can start backing out going as deep. This is good for us,.
CalBoy
May 3, 03:39 PM
I see no reason why 99, 99.5, and 100 are easier to track than 37.2, 37.5, and 37.7. As you said, we accept body temp to be 98.6 and 37.0 in Celsius. If decimals are difficult to remember, then clearly we should pick the scale that represents normal body temp as an integer, right? ;)
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
Perhaps your set of measuring cups is the additional piece of equipment. Indeed you wouldn't need them. For a recipe in SI, the only items you would need are an electronic balance, graduating measuring "cup," and a graduated cylinder. No series of cups or spoons required (although, they do of course come in metric for those so inclined).
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
It might seem that way to you, but the majority of the world uses weight to measure dry ingredients. For them it's just as easy.
Sure when you have a commercial quantity (which is also how companies bake in bulk-by weight), but not when you're making a dozen muffins or cupcakes. The smaller the quantity, the worse off you are with weighing each ingredient in terms of efficiency.
Why would you need alternative names? A recipe would call for "30ml" of any given liquid. There's no need to call it anything else.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
Well, no one would ask for a 237ml vessel because that's an arbitrary number based on a different system of units. But if you wanted, yes, you could measure that amount in a graduated measuring cup (or weigh it on your balance).
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
I suspect people would call it a "quarter liter," much like I would say "quarter gallon."
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
And no, you wouldn't call 500ml a "pint" because, well, why would you? :confused:
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
...But countries using SI do call 500ml a demi-liter ("demi" meaning "half").
Somehow I don't see that becoming popular pub lingo...
This is the case with Si units as well. 500, 250, 125, 75, etc. Though SI units can also be divided by any number you wish. Want to make 1/5 of the recipe? ...Just divide all the numbers by five.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
Not that OS X Panthera Leo doesn't have a nice ring to it, of course. ;)
No, but it is onerous for kids to learn SI units, which is a mandatory skill in this global world. Like I said, why teach kids two units of measure if one will suffice?
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
You could be right for international commerce where values have to be recalculated just for the US, but like I said, I think those things should be converted. I don't really care if I buy a 25 gram candy bar as opposed to a 1 ounce candy bar or a 350ml can of soda.
Perhaps true, but just because you switch to metric, doesn't mean you need to stop using tablespoons and teaspoons for measurements. It's all an approximation anyway, since there are far more than 2 different spoon sizes, and many of them look like they're pretty much equal in size to a tablespoon.
I'm sorry, but which tablespoons do you use that aren't tablespoons? The measuring spoons most people have at home for baking are very precise and have the fractions clearly marked on them.
Other than that, there's a teaspoon, tablespoon, and serving spoon (which you wouldn't use as a measurement). The sizes are very different for each of those and I don't think anyone who saw them side by side could confuse them.
So if you're cooking, do what everyone else does with their spoons; if you need a tablespoon, grab the big-ish one and estimate. If you needed more precision than that, why wouldn't you use ml? :confused:
Because it's a heck of a lot easier to think, "I need one xspoon of secret ingredient" than it is to think, "I need xml of secret ingredient." You think like a scientist (because you are one). Most people aren't. That's who the teaspoons and tablespoons are for.
tabaczka
Sep 15, 06:18 PM
I ordered my MBP today... the ship date isn't until the 20th? It said 24 hours on the site...
A clue?
Possibly?
A clue?
Possibly?
ValSalva
Apr 21, 08:01 PM
IMO the Mac Pro looks like an old granny these day's. It's in dire need of a refresh and looks totally out of line when compared to the rest of Apples range. And it's interesting to think that Apple is incapable of properly re-designing the computer because that's what you are saying effectively.
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder :D With the quality control of Apple these days my confidence in them being able to design such a small case with such high powered processors without cooling problems is low.
It would save money with the need for less raw materials.
If there was 1/2 the amount of raw materials in the case can you see the price going down by any more than a few dollars? Isn't most of the cost of a Mac Pro the components?
I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder :D With the quality control of Apple these days my confidence in them being able to design such a small case with such high powered processors without cooling problems is low.
It would save money with the need for less raw materials.
If there was 1/2 the amount of raw materials in the case can you see the price going down by any more than a few dollars? Isn't most of the cost of a Mac Pro the components?
mabaker
Mar 27, 06:57 AM
For the first time since the introduction of the iPhone Apple Computer is concentrating on the COMPUTER more than the iPhone. I for one hope they will nail Lion. :)
ten-oak-druid
Mar 29, 05:30 PM
I think amazon and the kindle are the only legitimate competitors to the ipad/itunes store. And I don't know if they are really direct competitors.
Anyway, amazon's kindle and overall user experience are not direct rip offs of Apple and that is refreshing.
Anyway, amazon's kindle and overall user experience are not direct rip offs of Apple and that is refreshing.
phatpat88
Jul 30, 02:12 AM
Frankly, I don't buy engaget's report.. a "tech-unsavvy friend" sounds like complete BS. All the pros that would do something like that for apple would certainly be tech savvy, they have to now...
Porchland
Sep 11, 09:18 AM
Seems to me the new 24" iMac is the "Media Player" - My two largest "monitors" are my 23" ACD and a 26" old skool TV. I watch DVDs on the ACD, as I get a little bit more picture and a lot more clarity than on my TV.
Seating accommodations in my office aren't as nice as the living room, but oh well...
It wouldn't be a huge leap for Apple to super-size the 24-inch iMac into 42-inch and 52-inch displays. The architecture of the iMac is well-suited to a plasma display.
Seating accommodations in my office aren't as nice as the living room, but oh well...
It wouldn't be a huge leap for Apple to super-size the 24-inch iMac into 42-inch and 52-inch displays. The architecture of the iMac is well-suited to a plasma display.
3CCD
Aug 12, 10:51 AM
I believe there's a an entirely new iMac in the works. The current design can't handle the heat Conroe will want to throw at it. And the Kentsfield 4-core processor will want even better cooling. Currently the iMac looks like it has a G5 inside. Apple doesn't like their Macs to look the same over too long a time.
Here's the Conroe processors I hope Apple will use in the all new iMac:
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) 20 $1699 & 23" $1999
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) 17" $1299
In January I hope they will offer a Kentsfield 4 core option in the 20 & 23" models - cause they are bigger and can cool Kentsfield much better than in the 17" enclosure - for an additional $500-$800 - pure guessing cause I don't know Kentsfield pricing yet.
Same is true for the MacBook Pro. It needs to go Black Anodized Aluminum with an easy HD swap out capability like the MacBook which is a radical redesign of the iBook. I think that the new iMac will follow on the heels of the MacBooks intro in September as well. Might even happen in Paris same day as MacBooks - September 12. :)
I feel so strongly about that MacBook Easy Switch HD feature, that I will not buy a MacBook Pro without it and may resort to the MacBook if they don't put that capability in the Pro model. That's a Pro feature in the MacBook. Makes the MacBook sort of a MacBook Pro Jr. Also note that the next MacBook will have a much better Integrated Graphics chipset that goes with Merom that can handle 3-D very well.
A newly redesigned iMac would be great. I agree 100% with you about the switchable HDs. I guess time will only tell. Hey how are those refurb Macs from the "save" page? Do all of Apple's warranties apply and does the unit come in a box as if a new one would come? Might not be a bad idea to save a few dollars and put the other amount towards a new display.
Here's the Conroe processors I hope Apple will use in the all new iMac:
Core 2 Duo E6700 - 2.67 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) 20 $1699 & 23" $1999
Core 2 Duo E6600 - 2.40 GHz (4 MiB L2, 1066 MHz FSB) 17" $1299
In January I hope they will offer a Kentsfield 4 core option in the 20 & 23" models - cause they are bigger and can cool Kentsfield much better than in the 17" enclosure - for an additional $500-$800 - pure guessing cause I don't know Kentsfield pricing yet.
Same is true for the MacBook Pro. It needs to go Black Anodized Aluminum with an easy HD swap out capability like the MacBook which is a radical redesign of the iBook. I think that the new iMac will follow on the heels of the MacBooks intro in September as well. Might even happen in Paris same day as MacBooks - September 12. :)
I feel so strongly about that MacBook Easy Switch HD feature, that I will not buy a MacBook Pro without it and may resort to the MacBook if they don't put that capability in the Pro model. That's a Pro feature in the MacBook. Makes the MacBook sort of a MacBook Pro Jr. Also note that the next MacBook will have a much better Integrated Graphics chipset that goes with Merom that can handle 3-D very well.
A newly redesigned iMac would be great. I agree 100% with you about the switchable HDs. I guess time will only tell. Hey how are those refurb Macs from the "save" page? Do all of Apple's warranties apply and does the unit come in a box as if a new one would come? Might not be a bad idea to save a few dollars and put the other amount towards a new display.
iStudentUK
Apr 11, 07:36 AM
This wasn't written by hand, it was typed out on a computer. You can save any other arguments you have on the subject, because they don't apply here based on your flawed premise.
To treat this as a programming line or whatever is a simplification. People don't think / they think __ . That is how we should interpret this equation, leading to 288.
To treat this as a programming line or whatever is a simplification. People don't think / they think __ . That is how we should interpret this equation, leading to 288.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 12:52 PM
it was a joke in reference to your snarky comment relax.
It might be a joke, but you did have a point. If you don't like the products Apple makes, buy something else. I don't like many choices Microsoft makes with their operating systems. I don't buy them.
It might be a joke, but you did have a point. If you don't like the products Apple makes, buy something else. I don't like many choices Microsoft makes with their operating systems. I don't buy them.
ChickenSwartz
Sep 16, 11:35 AM
Thats some optimistic reading mister. Not VERY reliable, just reliable. And the report is not connected to the newest rumor, it's something they heard about earlier this year and they're unable to confirm that it applies to the 25th. Oh well, maybe you read another article than me?
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
You are right, they have no evidence to point to the event on the 25th. The 12in was reported by them in MARCH say "we may expect this new Mac Book Pro to arrive late in the second quarter of this year." That hasn't happened. I think they have already f-ed up this lead and are re-reporting it with the slim hope that it will happen.
shaolindave
May 4, 06:02 PM
It'd be cool for Apple to start building a small, fast SSD "drive" (memory chips) into every Mac, that would be dedicated to the core System, and only the System. Small enough to be inexpensive, large enough to easily accommodate current and future System files, fast enough to be faster than any current hard drive. Make the drive say 32-64 GB, with two partitions. One partition holds the installed System, the other partition is just scratch space for downloaded and uninstalled software, including the System itself. Possibly this partition contains some minimal boot system in order to re-download and install the package from the app store in case the installation gets botched.
I would love this. I remember the old Commodore 64 days when the OS was on ROM chips and it was an instant boot. Nowadays that wouldn't be very practical with OS updates, but something similar would be great.
Imagine being able to do a complete system restore and have a barebones OS be unaffected.
I would love this. I remember the old Commodore 64 days when the OS was on ROM chips and it was an instant boot. Nowadays that wouldn't be very practical with OS updates, but something similar would be great.
Imagine being able to do a complete system restore and have a barebones OS be unaffected.
Don't panic
May 3, 08:43 PM
Yes but then we are in the sequence search then move as opposed to move then search.
From what was said in the rules, search then move is not desirable.
My vote is to move to another room and start searching it.
i second this motion. we could also split and move to and search two rooms, but it's probably best to wait for at least one up-level before we split.
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
Short Hairstyles: Short Hair
Short Hair Styles for Women
Short hairstyles for women
hair styles for women over 40.
From what was said in the rules, search then move is not desirable.
My vote is to move to another room and start searching it.
i second this motion. we could also split and move to and search two rooms, but it's probably best to wait for at least one up-level before we split.
which room is irrelevant.
another option, since from the GM's words the first round seems to be safe, would be to split in three groups: one goes to each of the adjacent rooms and then we all explore the thre next rooms. the next round we can converge back to the start room, explore it and be a single group again
the positive is that we find any treasure in the first 3 rooms, we expand the map, we also give less hint on where we can go next to mscriv.
the negative is that any treasure only applies to some of the people, and that we have to come back here to rejoin.
Eidorian
Jul 22, 04:15 PM
Agreed. A light, small, cheap Apple laptop targeted at students would be excellent, and an education iMac that's available to the public would be great too. Unlikely, but I'm with you on this one.
In other news, I expect the iMac to stay with an X1600 series card (because Apple have historically used the mid-range cards: 9600, X600, X1600 and possibly the rumored X2600s next year) so maybe an X1600 Pro and/or an XT. I also think that they should update the MacBook Pros graphics card because its a Pro laptop with a mid-range card so a Mobility X1800 would be nice.X600 Pro (iSight iMac G5 17") and X600 XT (iSight iMac G5 20") Hopefully we'll see a slight bump on the GPU.
In other news, I expect the iMac to stay with an X1600 series card (because Apple have historically used the mid-range cards: 9600, X600, X1600 and possibly the rumored X2600s next year) so maybe an X1600 Pro and/or an XT. I also think that they should update the MacBook Pros graphics card because its a Pro laptop with a mid-range card so a Mobility X1800 would be nice.X600 Pro (iSight iMac G5 17") and X600 XT (iSight iMac G5 20") Hopefully we'll see a slight bump on the GPU.
NoNothing
Apr 7, 11:19 AM
Nothing is stopping RIM from paying MORE than Apple to secure supply for their product.
Its simple supply and demand.
There is a limited supply and massive demand.
What does that do to price?
Not quite but close. You almost repeated what I wrote. Any company can pay more for the piece parts but then you price yourself out of the market. Look at how well that served the Xoom.
But what I am saying is this is not a monopoly power in play but a monopsony. They are really different dynamics in how they are controlled and play out.
Its simple supply and demand.
There is a limited supply and massive demand.
What does that do to price?
Not quite but close. You almost repeated what I wrote. Any company can pay more for the piece parts but then you price yourself out of the market. Look at how well that served the Xoom.
But what I am saying is this is not a monopoly power in play but a monopsony. They are really different dynamics in how they are controlled and play out.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 12:18 PM
You could be right. I've changed my mind a bunch of times before. But I'd like to hear your explanation for why a lower marginal tax rate has caused more people to enter poverty and unemployment.
Essentially my theory is (and it's not really mine but I've forgotten who deserves credit for it) that as tax rates drop, wealth concentrates and becomes less mobile. The free market ceases to operate because bargaining power, knowledge, and resources are all on one side, eventually causing 95% to be at the whim of the remaining 5.
This was essentially the status quo in places like pre-revolution France. It predominated societies until the reforms of the 20th Century. It was only then that we saw incomes improve for the masses. The historical record clearly shows that higher marginal tax rates are good because they don't allow the rich to rest on their laurels while at the same time helping out the unfortunate (who are then able to more fully participate in the economy).
Essentially my theory is (and it's not really mine but I've forgotten who deserves credit for it) that as tax rates drop, wealth concentrates and becomes less mobile. The free market ceases to operate because bargaining power, knowledge, and resources are all on one side, eventually causing 95% to be at the whim of the remaining 5.
This was essentially the status quo in places like pre-revolution France. It predominated societies until the reforms of the 20th Century. It was only then that we saw incomes improve for the masses. The historical record clearly shows that higher marginal tax rates are good because they don't allow the rich to rest on their laurels while at the same time helping out the unfortunate (who are then able to more fully participate in the economy).
seek3r
Apr 22, 12:40 AM
You are right, I fold. I know nothing about 19" racks (1.80 meters tall and 150 kg. in weight), and nothing about conditioned server rooms with dual power feeds at all. Flight cases with equipment I also know nothing about. I'm sorry I'm doubting your knowledge and insight.
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
You do realize "rack *mountable*" doesn't mean "has to be in a rack to function"?
Over the years I've had plenty of mountable equipment that for one reason or another didn't live in the machine room, or lived on a shelf in the machine room instead of on a rack (or on a table in the case of several servers and one particularly finicky disk array a while back).... Simply giving the option of rack mounting doesn't dictate it has to be racked remotely in your datacenter!
ChristianJapan
May 6, 06:17 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8J2 Safari/6533.18.5)
I could easy imagine a hybrid solution as many others. On source level there is for 85% of programs few changes required; given only using "official" APIs. Ok, that a guess.
An entry level iMac with eight ARM cores would easy serve all needs for most user incl some light image processing. Apple would have full control on HW/SW.
Advanced and power user will have intel&Arm dual solution, BTO. Similar to the hybrid GPU today.
Another more stupid idea could be that Intel put the ARM core in their own chip and run actually both at same time ... Just dreaming ...
I could easy imagine a hybrid solution as many others. On source level there is for 85% of programs few changes required; given only using "official" APIs. Ok, that a guess.
An entry level iMac with eight ARM cores would easy serve all needs for most user incl some light image processing. Apple would have full control on HW/SW.
Advanced and power user will have intel&Arm dual solution, BTO. Similar to the hybrid GPU today.
Another more stupid idea could be that Intel put the ARM core in their own chip and run actually both at same time ... Just dreaming ...
ticman
Jan 24, 03:58 PM
Regarding using a case with the tom tom kit--I bought a casemate (comes shiny and somewhat rubberized) and it fits fine in my tomtom car kit.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
check out the website. maybe it's a solution for you.
0815
Apr 5, 01:16 PM
lol.. That's funny but it's the inevitable of how the iPhone is being used. If it's deemed legal, Apple shouldn't get involved in Toyota's marketing scheme. Maybe Jobs shouldn't have made a mockery of that CEO (I forget his name) in the unveil party of the iPad 2.
I agree. While I thought it was an, lets say 'interesting' move by Toyota to do this - it is absolutely their decision to do so, since jailbreaking is not illegal.
Disclaimer: My iPhone is not jailbroken, did it a long time ago, toyed with it, didn't see the value for me and restored - but it is everyones decision to do what they want since it is not illegal. Of course there are apps that you could argue enable illegal stuff, but that is a different story.
I agree. While I thought it was an, lets say 'interesting' move by Toyota to do this - it is absolutely their decision to do so, since jailbreaking is not illegal.
Disclaimer: My iPhone is not jailbroken, did it a long time ago, toyed with it, didn't see the value for me and restored - but it is everyones decision to do what they want since it is not illegal. Of course there are apps that you could argue enable illegal stuff, but that is a different story.
NebulaClash
Mar 28, 09:57 AM
Why because it doesn't have a dual core processor, 1GB of RAM and a 3D screen with 5G radio?
It's the usual geek misconception of what a device needs. They are all about checklist items. And thus they are missing the fact that a major paradigm shift is occurring in this world where the far larger non-tech audience is now buying tech toys. This audience does not know much about specs, and cares even less. All they care about is cost (Apple is right there in phones), how their apps work (just great on the iPhone), choice of apps (no one has more choice than Apple), and what they have read or heard about (Apple is the advertising leader).
So geeks will continue to stamp their feet and pout about checklists that Apple is "failing" at. The rest of the world will keep happily using their amazing iPhones.
It's the usual geek misconception of what a device needs. They are all about checklist items. And thus they are missing the fact that a major paradigm shift is occurring in this world where the far larger non-tech audience is now buying tech toys. This audience does not know much about specs, and cares even less. All they care about is cost (Apple is right there in phones), how their apps work (just great on the iPhone), choice of apps (no one has more choice than Apple), and what they have read or heard about (Apple is the advertising leader).
So geeks will continue to stamp their feet and pout about checklists that Apple is "failing" at. The rest of the world will keep happily using their amazing iPhones.
nuckinfutz
May 7, 11:54 AM
Second, I'm not sure what you mean by "We're moving from this era where the expectation should be that Cloud services at a basic level should be incorporated into the product without the vendor resorting to advertisements." If you mean that we should get free Cloud services without ads then I think you're completely wrong and I'm most worried about sites that provide free services and have absolutely nothing but VC cash to pay for it. And if you mean we should have the option of paying for Cloud services to avoid ads, then fine, but you can do that with Gmail, so I don't see why you think MobileMe is any better than Gmail (from the privacy perspective).
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.
Lastly, I wouldn't lump Google and Facebook together when it comes to privacy. Sergey Brin and Larry Page have made very strong statements about their respect for their users and they understand that without the users they'd have no company. Eric has made a lame-brained comment or two, and Google Buzz screwed up, but they fixed it (and at least when you signed into Gmail they had the option to opt out of it).
Facebook is a whole different story. Their whole exec branch seems to disregard privacy and they've been rolling out auto-opt-in feature after feature that removes your privacy.
Eric Schmidt's comments about privacy are disconcerting to me
�If you have something that you don�t want anyone to know, maybe you shouldn�t be doing it in the first place.�
This is after the whole Google Buzz fiasco. There's money in trying to convince people to be open. Facebook and Google data mine consumer behavior to make money and consumers need to act like they got a good education and understand where they are being used.
The assumption that those that want privacy are doing something illegal is asinine.
Zuckerberg (Facebook) on privacy (http://www.readwriteweb.com/archives/facebooks_zuckerberg_says_the_age_of_privacy_is_ov.php)
Privacy is a lot like Laws. You give it up it's hard to get back.
Hey it's not a choice for everyone. I'm just at a point in my life where $6 and some change is going to put me out especially when my online data is not being mined for profit. I've been happier than I though I would with my MobileMe account. I'm on the west coast so i'm assuming my data center is in Cali and performance has been fine.