mdntcallr
Sep 25, 01:27 PM
can anyone link to the page that says tuesday is possibly macbook pro day?
i can't find it. And no i dont look as good aperture news as a bad thing, i am buying it.
i can't find it. And no i dont look as good aperture news as a bad thing, i am buying it.
JaSuS
Sep 29, 11:08 AM
So THAT'S what this house is! No wonder why there were no windows diagrammed in the blueprints!
In that case, the only thing a robber needs to do to get into the iHouse is jailbreak the security system :D
LOL........I love this thread!
:D Jailbreak the iHouse:cool:
In that case, the only thing a robber needs to do to get into the iHouse is jailbreak the security system :D
LOL........I love this thread!
:D Jailbreak the iHouse:cool:
Mord
Apr 27, 01:19 PM
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
DoFoT9
Jul 24, 11:35 PM
dang. i've had good luck with my apple extreme routers so far
yeh similar story here. no issues.
dang that's a lot of money. but fast speeds also. i don't think they even offer those speeds around here
im about 1.1km of cable away from the exchange, so i get good speeds :) too bad there is virtually only 1 ISP that provides said speeds :(
yeh similar story here. no issues.
dang that's a lot of money. but fast speeds also. i don't think they even offer those speeds around here
im about 1.1km of cable away from the exchange, so i get good speeds :) too bad there is virtually only 1 ISP that provides said speeds :(
more...
ctdonath
Oct 1, 08:59 AM
Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it. ... But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. ... If Jobs wanted a modern building ... then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
killuminati
Sep 7, 11:19 PM
Phat Pat, I never really thought of it that way but it really makes sense. Everyone in the audience has heard curses before and its really become a part of modern music in most genres. When you think about it, it really shouldn't offend anybody there because everyones mature, there arent little kids there.
Idno now that I think about it again it still seems kinda weird.
Idno now that I think about it again it still seems kinda weird.
more...
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Shintocam
Oct 17, 08:20 PM
Sure BluRay has more capacity to this point BUT I've watched several things on both a Toshiba HD-DVD and a Samsung BR player and everytime I come away with the same impression - HD-DVD simply looks better. Same TV (a Samsung LCD). I've read several reviews in home theatre mags too - the general consensus seems to be (from what I have seen) that Samsung messed up and their player needs some work. Similarly - the HD-DVD camp seems to have picked better transfers for their premier discs which is helping them along.
Add to this that HD-DVD players are half to one third the cost of a BR player and all the "on-paper" advantages for BR are starting to disappear. I'm not surprised if Apple is hedging their bets....
Add to this that HD-DVD players are half to one third the cost of a BR player and all the "on-paper" advantages for BR are starting to disappear. I'm not surprised if Apple is hedging their bets....
more...
JadedBen
Apr 16, 05:07 AM
I want My next iPhone to look like this,
222383
Also agreed. If they make that (with or without the black strip) i would buy one in a heartbeat.. plus i wouldn't have to buy another iPhone in years as i can't see how they could improve on a physical design like that imho.
Although i'd probably have to upgrade in 2013 when they drop the software support for it..
222383
Also agreed. If they make that (with or without the black strip) i would buy one in a heartbeat.. plus i wouldn't have to buy another iPhone in years as i can't see how they could improve on a physical design like that imho.
Although i'd probably have to upgrade in 2013 when they drop the software support for it..
idunn
Mar 25, 03:06 PM
'Consequently, Apple has chosen to position the next step in the evolution of Mac OS X as "Back to the Mac", an effort to bring some of the most popular features of iOS to the Mac platform for the first time while retaining the familiarity, flexibility, and horsepower of Mac OS X.'
- per 'Macrumors'
;) A lot of fantastic change in but 10 years. In looking back, I'm somewhat amazed at the evolution of Apple. Happy Birthday.
If still basically loyal to Apple, I would note, in hopefully helping the brand, certain lapses such as apparently quality control in some aspects of the new iPad2. Other areas as well. Just something to be mindful of, and with luck smoothed out soon.
As for OS X, I've wondered of late if the natural progression would not be a merging of iOS and OS X into one. Although it certainly should not be a merger in one direction only. Some of the discussions on the iPad forum concern those frustrated with the limitations of iOS for real work, such as lack of a real file system. Some have postulated, and surely rightly so, that the iPad is still a device best used in conjunction with something running OS X. The same would hold true for users of the iPhone, as likely very few who consider it their only computer. So, ideally, I could see the best traits of either OS merged into one better, and that expanded in capability.
In any event, if imperfect, Apple still the best, and much to love.
- per 'Macrumors'
;) A lot of fantastic change in but 10 years. In looking back, I'm somewhat amazed at the evolution of Apple. Happy Birthday.
If still basically loyal to Apple, I would note, in hopefully helping the brand, certain lapses such as apparently quality control in some aspects of the new iPad2. Other areas as well. Just something to be mindful of, and with luck smoothed out soon.
As for OS X, I've wondered of late if the natural progression would not be a merging of iOS and OS X into one. Although it certainly should not be a merger in one direction only. Some of the discussions on the iPad forum concern those frustrated with the limitations of iOS for real work, such as lack of a real file system. Some have postulated, and surely rightly so, that the iPad is still a device best used in conjunction with something running OS X. The same would hold true for users of the iPhone, as likely very few who consider it their only computer. So, ideally, I could see the best traits of either OS merged into one better, and that expanded in capability.
In any event, if imperfect, Apple still the best, and much to love.
more...
Apple 26.2
Mar 24, 03:18 PM
El numero diez para el OS X... felicidades!
digitalbiker
Oct 4, 10:11 AM
Clovertown doesn't ship until November so I'm thinking Apple could add a BTO option for them +$800 for Dual Quad 2.33GHz Clovertowns in December without rocking too many boats. Then the choice will be between 4 fast 3GHz cores (12GHz) or 8 slower 2.33GHz cores (18.64GHz) for the same $3,300.
FYI Each of those processors are priced precisely the same $851 - in case you thought 8 cores were going to cost more. They won't.
I'm afraid the new Intel Apple is going to be the same as the old PPC Apple.
Apple, (in the past), always blamed slow implementation of new processors and long shipping wait times on low Motorola or IBM processor yields.
Now Apple doesn't have the same excuse with Intel but I bet we don't see a Merom MBP or an Octo-MacPro until MacWorld SF or later.
Anyone taking bets!
FYI Each of those processors are priced precisely the same $851 - in case you thought 8 cores were going to cost more. They won't.
I'm afraid the new Intel Apple is going to be the same as the old PPC Apple.
Apple, (in the past), always blamed slow implementation of new processors and long shipping wait times on low Motorola or IBM processor yields.
Now Apple doesn't have the same excuse with Intel but I bet we don't see a Merom MBP or an Octo-MacPro until MacWorld SF or later.
Anyone taking bets!
more...
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 04:23 AM
Thanks for the responses guys, pretty much reinforces what I originally thought. Somebody actually owned themself yesterday, he kept going on about how Android phones get apps for free. " I got angry birds for free but you paid for it", when I asked him to show me Angry Birds running on his HTC it was running at around 2FPS, the lag made my eyes bleed. Lol It all turned very silent after that.
gorgeousninja
Apr 16, 11:53 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
No, that is exactly my point, people were not thinking along those lines at all. You can name any phone from the last ten years if you want, and you might as well include Alexander Graham-Bell, and Star Trek. When the iPhone debuted everyone got interested, but just saying that it was 'only because it was Apple' is being extremely disingenuous.
There were also many 'experts' saying that Apple were going to fall flat on it's face trying to take on the 'big boys' of Nokia and Motorola et al.
This is the same roundabout argument that has gone on since Apple started, 'Oh, it wasn't them it was Xerox, Riva, Sony, MS etc etc. Why is it so hard for some to give credit where it is due, and instead try to rubbish everything. It just seems so petty.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
No, that is exactly my point, people were not thinking along those lines at all. You can name any phone from the last ten years if you want, and you might as well include Alexander Graham-Bell, and Star Trek. When the iPhone debuted everyone got interested, but just saying that it was 'only because it was Apple' is being extremely disingenuous.
There were also many 'experts' saying that Apple were going to fall flat on it's face trying to take on the 'big boys' of Nokia and Motorola et al.
This is the same roundabout argument that has gone on since Apple started, 'Oh, it wasn't them it was Xerox, Riva, Sony, MS etc etc. Why is it so hard for some to give credit where it is due, and instead try to rubbish everything. It just seems so petty.
more...
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 02:02 AM
It's very hard to take anyone seriously who believes in fairy tales like karma.
Metaphor.
Metaphor.
Full of Win
Mar 24, 03:49 PM
I heard that Steve Jobs did not attend OS X's birthday party. Rather, he sent a thumb drive with a video of him at the developers conference a few years ago where he used a coffin to bury OS 9. Rumor is that writing on the thumb drive said "U R next NeXT - Steve"
more...
nsayer
Jul 21, 05:27 PM
It creates a constant -24dbm drop.
*TWEEEEEEET* Illegal use of units. 5 yard penalty. Repeat first down.
dB is a ratio unit, usable in the context of "...a 24 dB drop." dBm is an absolute unit - dB up from a milliwatt.
*TWEEEEEEET* Illegal use of units. 5 yard penalty. Repeat first down.
dB is a ratio unit, usable in the context of "...a 24 dB drop." dBm is an absolute unit - dB up from a milliwatt.
MacUser4_20
Sep 25, 01:26 PM
Great update, Great Feature-set, Apple IS listening, Thank you! Cannot wait to update 1.1.2 on my Mac! Thank you, thank you, thank you, APPLE!
scottishwildcat
Mar 28, 04:16 PM
What did you think they would do, rummage through all the non-app store apps on the Mac platform? Lol, some people are ridiculous.
Yes, hilarious. It beats me how they managed to give out the design awards every other year before the app store existed, it just couldn't have been physically possible.
Yes, hilarious. It beats me how they managed to give out the design awards every other year before the app store existed, it just couldn't have been physically possible.
Carouser
Sep 29, 11:27 AM
I would have a turntable in front of the garage. You can devote less space to the driveway area.
Turntables are for people who can't afford enough space or live in busy areas. They are a waste of time and energy. An optimally-sized driveway is a more elegant solution.
Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub?
Those things are for the new rich or the status-insecure. When you're sufficiently wealthy to actually do whatever you want that stuff is junk and a waste of time.
Turntables are for people who can't afford enough space or live in busy areas. They are a waste of time and energy. An optimally-sized driveway is a more elegant solution.
Also, to only have *1* walk-in in the master rather than 2 is not good. No home theater? Large gym with panoramic views? Sauna/steam room/? Sun room? Library? Detached guest suite or guest house (in-law/nanny quarters, etc.)? Swimming pool? Hot tub?
Those things are for the new rich or the status-insecure. When you're sufficiently wealthy to actually do whatever you want that stuff is junk and a waste of time.
utgerger
Jan 11, 02:56 PM
Since you seem quite confident about what might be announced next Tuesday I wonder if you know anything about a possible iPhone "2.0" - the next generation iPhone with 3G, GPS, 16/32GB, MMS, etc.?
As for the MacBook Pros: Do you know what this facelift might look like? Minor or major facelift?
Thanks ,
Sandrotto (that was my first post on this forum btw :-D )
MWSF won't be about a new iPhone.. its all about its current success, about its deployment into new markets and most importantly, the eminent release of its SDK.. from what I know, major iPhone update will happen sometime down the road.. maybe summer.. :confused:
MacBooks just got updated last november.. internals stay the same.. some cosmetic changes will happen otherwise it will look radically out of the Apple 2008 line..
MacBook Pros will definitely get a facelift.. Aluminum is definitely in along with the new keyboard.. but that's stuff we all know.. i don't have solid details on the pro line but its definitely slimmer with major black infusions.. (iMac)
it will basically be the big brother of MacBook Lite.. :)
ooops.. did i just spill something? something is definitely up in the air..
As for the MacBook Pros: Do you know what this facelift might look like? Minor or major facelift?
Thanks ,
Sandrotto (that was my first post on this forum btw :-D )
MWSF won't be about a new iPhone.. its all about its current success, about its deployment into new markets and most importantly, the eminent release of its SDK.. from what I know, major iPhone update will happen sometime down the road.. maybe summer.. :confused:
MacBooks just got updated last november.. internals stay the same.. some cosmetic changes will happen otherwise it will look radically out of the Apple 2008 line..
MacBook Pros will definitely get a facelift.. Aluminum is definitely in along with the new keyboard.. but that's stuff we all know.. i don't have solid details on the pro line but its definitely slimmer with major black infusions.. (iMac)
it will basically be the big brother of MacBook Lite.. :)
ooops.. did i just spill something? something is definitely up in the air..
m-dogg
Jan 5, 04:06 PM
This is a great idea for those that would like this option. MR rocks as always!
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
Me though, I prefer the frequent frantic checks to the site as I try to get all my 'real work' done at the office.
One year everyone was going out to lunch and I lied and said I had too much work to do...just so I could eat at my desk and get all the late-breaking news. My co-workers would think I was weird if I said why I really wasn't going...
Yes, I'm a geek. :p
DTphonehome
Oct 19, 04:00 PM
Original Investment - $94,070.00 for 11,500 shares
11,500 x 2 after the split last summer = 23,000 shares
23,000 x 78.71 at todays rate = $1,810,330.00
$1,810,330 - $94,070.00 = $1,716,260.00 stock worth.
I have not sold one share. Now who is laughing. Thank you iPod.
Damn, man, I'd hate to see your tax bill when you finally sell!
Anyway, share-dropping is not very gentlemanly, so I'll keep my figures to myself...but at this point I too have to hold back from selling simply to avoid the huge tax hit. Would be nice if Apple issued dividends though, especially now that they're flush. Make some cash without divesting of the principal.
11,500 x 2 after the split last summer = 23,000 shares
23,000 x 78.71 at todays rate = $1,810,330.00
$1,810,330 - $94,070.00 = $1,716,260.00 stock worth.
I have not sold one share. Now who is laughing. Thank you iPod.
Damn, man, I'd hate to see your tax bill when you finally sell!
Anyway, share-dropping is not very gentlemanly, so I'll keep my figures to myself...but at this point I too have to hold back from selling simply to avoid the huge tax hit. Would be nice if Apple issued dividends though, especially now that they're flush. Make some cash without divesting of the principal.
eemsTV
May 3, 09:25 PM
magic!
0 comments:
Post a Comment