SirStrumalot
May 4, 01:28 AM
It would be unlikely but cool if they let us upgrade to iOS5 after its unveiling at the WWDC.
wmk461
Jan 30, 12:13 AM
LOL! The market has stabilized, and the worst of the credit 'crisis' is over. The only recession concerns the housing market- which was inflated due to speculation.
Maybe a little less NPR would do you some good...
LOL... my friend, lets look at this logically. The United States debt surpasses every combined nations of Earth. Our currency is no longer backed by gold, 100% of our income tax pays the interest on our national debt. We transfered our producing companies to other countries. Most people have taken out equity loans on their homes and have maxed out their credit. The middle class will be no more and there is no getting out of our predicament. We are simply not producing enough money to ever get out of debt and with inflation out of control and devaluation of our currency a collapse will happen. In 1929 the good to debt ratio before the collapse was 1:16 as of 2006 it was sitting at 1:60. I have nothing to prove other than I'd cash out now and invest when this happens.
Maybe a little less NPR would do you some good...
LOL... my friend, lets look at this logically. The United States debt surpasses every combined nations of Earth. Our currency is no longer backed by gold, 100% of our income tax pays the interest on our national debt. We transfered our producing companies to other countries. Most people have taken out equity loans on their homes and have maxed out their credit. The middle class will be no more and there is no getting out of our predicament. We are simply not producing enough money to ever get out of debt and with inflation out of control and devaluation of our currency a collapse will happen. In 1929 the good to debt ratio before the collapse was 1:16 as of 2006 it was sitting at 1:60. I have nothing to prove other than I'd cash out now and invest when this happens.
lofight
Jan 30, 07:08 AM
I bought some Apple stock a few days ago. :D
:p hopefully it will go up..
:p hopefully it will go up..
Apple Corps
Apr 13, 05:48 PM
Sorry, refuse to see what ? You posted a TechCrunch article which refuted itself. You did not post an engadget story. What am I refusing to see exactly ? I'm reading the links you supplied. Supply links that at least support your position next time, and I won't "refuse to see it" like you say.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
Next, your Engadget article was refuted. Hardly justification to propose as fact that apple "envisionned" anything as far as Thunderbolt goes.
I'm not questioning that they played a role, be it major or minor, I'm questioning the importance Chuppa is giving Apple which his choice of "envision". All history of TB points to the contrary. Your engadget article is the first to say that Apple envisionned it and it was quickly refuted.
So again : Citation Needed.
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
more...
firestarter
May 1, 10:16 PM
Don't feel any real positive emotion out of it because of how long it took, and how the most damage of 9/11 came from our response in my opinion, but yay I guess? I don't believe he was very active in Al Qaeda anymore, and even if he was, he's an easy replacement.
I agree with both your points.
He will be easily replaced I guess... if Al Qaeda isn't already splintered so far that there's no leadership required.
The most significant effect of this will be on the psychology of the West, particularly in the US. Most of the negative effect of 'terrorism' has been inflicted by the US on itself.
I agree with both your points.
He will be easily replaced I guess... if Al Qaeda isn't already splintered so far that there's no leadership required.
The most significant effect of this will be on the psychology of the West, particularly in the US. Most of the negative effect of 'terrorism' has been inflicted by the US on itself.
jessica.
Sep 14, 09:19 PM
Jigsaw?? Is that you?! :eek:
LOL! I thought the same thing!
LOL! I thought the same thing!
more...
SciFrog
Oct 30, 07:20 PM
-16 is better for Intel processors.
mousemd
Apr 6, 12:33 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5145/5594223194_851eb8b215.jpg
more...
Eriden
Mar 15, 01:08 AM
I'm going to try to go to Brea around 8:30. You think that is early enough?
Find out what time the Brea mall opens, and be there when they unlock the doors. I was there at 10am Monday to pick up a smart cover for my iPad 2, and the line of hopefuls was about 250 people long.
Find out what time the Brea mall opens, and be there when they unlock the doors. I was there at 10am Monday to pick up a smart cover for my iPad 2, and the line of hopefuls was about 250 people long.
dsensi
May 2, 10:16 AM
OK, guys, I think you are right, touch screens are not the most desirable thing to see in an iMac, although I am sure they will implement it sooner or later, because it has an appeal nowadays to many customers - and it�s up to you if you use it or not. Time will answer this question.
But... what do you think about higher resolution screens? Specially for the 21,5 iMac. I currently own a notebook with 15.4 screen that has exactly the same amount of pixels of a 21.5 iMac (1920x1080). When I use the 21.5 iMac, the large pixel size bother me, while at the notebook pixels are almost invisible, and it�s a great pleasure to use it.
But... what do you think about higher resolution screens? Specially for the 21,5 iMac. I currently own a notebook with 15.4 screen that has exactly the same amount of pixels of a 21.5 iMac (1920x1080). When I use the 21.5 iMac, the large pixel size bother me, while at the notebook pixels are almost invisible, and it�s a great pleasure to use it.
more...
Pillar
Apr 10, 11:34 PM
Hello
AnthonyCM
Apr 28, 04:07 PM
At this point I'm sort of glad the iP5 won't (likely) come out until September. That'll give the white phone a few months of real world use. I'm curious if it'll still be white and pristine a few months from now.
more...
crees!
Jul 26, 01:23 PM
Has anybody thought these might all just be preventative filings? It's possible but they better not do this (not release such a product). I WANT this.
JAT
Apr 30, 08:58 AM
Amazon sells mostly LAME encoded 256kbs mp3 files, which are pretty comparable to the AAC files ITMS sells. AAC may have a slight advantage (for example see http://www.head-fi.org/forum/thread/271330/256-vbr-aac-vs-320-mp3-vs-256-vbr-mp3#post_3459768), but not much.
Si!
When are they gonna start selling lossless??
Is that true, about the 256bit? I thought they were still 128. That has kept me from even looking at Amazon.
Agree - christmas music is quite annoying.
And the selection of Saturnalia music is quite thin.
Well, since Christmas = Saturnalia, it's all Saturnalia music.
Top it off Mp3 is smaller at the same bit rate
And therefore lower quality.
Si!
When are they gonna start selling lossless??
Is that true, about the 256bit? I thought they were still 128. That has kept me from even looking at Amazon.
Agree - christmas music is quite annoying.
And the selection of Saturnalia music is quite thin.
Well, since Christmas = Saturnalia, it's all Saturnalia music.
Top it off Mp3 is smaller at the same bit rate
And therefore lower quality.
more...
D4F
Apr 15, 10:22 AM
Getting around 9-11% drain every hour on my 4. Standby and everything is off.
My year old HTC desire beats it by miles under load.
What a crap.
My year old HTC desire beats it by miles under load.
What a crap.
clintob
Oct 23, 04:07 PM
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
more...
Waybo
Apr 14, 08:58 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5102/5620879322_013331e346_b.jpg
C&C welcomed & appreciated, as always.
ISO 400, 21mm, f/4.5, 1/1000
C&C welcomed & appreciated, as always.
ISO 400, 21mm, f/4.5, 1/1000
thefunkymunky
Oct 24, 07:52 AM
The Mac in my sig is now up for sale.:rolleyes: :p
iJohnHenry
Mar 8, 04:27 PM
Who said we have to live til 105 years old?
Live, or merely exist?
I have met crazier "normal" people who weren't even on drugs!
I'm sorry, but I'm terrible with names.
Where was that again???
Live, or merely exist?
I have met crazier "normal" people who weren't even on drugs!
I'm sorry, but I'm terrible with names.
Where was that again???
renewed
Sep 15, 08:49 PM
In the UK, there's a 4GB Reach bundle. Only reason I mentioned it.
Yeah I heard about that on a news site. They were laughing about it since you can't do co-op with them. Ironic.
Mine is the 250 GB though so should be good to go.
Yeah I heard about that on a news site. They were laughing about it since you can't do co-op with them. Ironic.
Mine is the 250 GB though so should be good to go.
mattster16
Sep 30, 01:25 PM
.......I still can't make, receive, send or get text messages or mail during any sporting event in my city. It was the same when it first came out and it is the same last week at the game.
And it will always be that way unless the FCC allows more frequencies to be used for cell transmission. Data is breaking the system. A cell tower can only handle 50-300 'calls' at any given time due to frequency limitations (you can only time multiplex so much...). Data is even more of a bandwidth hog, harder to time multiplex w/o slowing down transmission drastically. People also use data much more often than voice now (especially the iPhone). When you have 10,000 people packed into a small area for an event what more can you expect? The area is probably covered by one tower (or if you're lucky a few small cell sites in the venue).
Unfortunately extending and increasing capacity of cell service isn't as simple as setting up a wireless router. Takes a bit more work and planning than that. It's also hard in the US due to FCC regulations/state regulations/city regulations and high public opposition to new cell towers.
And it will always be that way unless the FCC allows more frequencies to be used for cell transmission. Data is breaking the system. A cell tower can only handle 50-300 'calls' at any given time due to frequency limitations (you can only time multiplex so much...). Data is even more of a bandwidth hog, harder to time multiplex w/o slowing down transmission drastically. People also use data much more often than voice now (especially the iPhone). When you have 10,000 people packed into a small area for an event what more can you expect? The area is probably covered by one tower (or if you're lucky a few small cell sites in the venue).
Unfortunately extending and increasing capacity of cell service isn't as simple as setting up a wireless router. Takes a bit more work and planning than that. It's also hard in the US due to FCC regulations/state regulations/city regulations and high public opposition to new cell towers.
tny
Oct 6, 04:23 PM
You are assuming that the amount of spectrum available will never change. There's a reason they just shut off analog TV. Yes, spectrum is a finite resource, but they're shifting more to mobile voice/data very soon.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
You are also assuming that all the frequencies available to each tower are already in use on that tower - that the towers are saturated. I think that's an unlikely assumption, outside very dense areas like Manhattan and DC. (And in Manhattan, you probably don't have the whole "can't get towers approved because of community opposition" problem because the towers are just installed on or in existing buildings, albeit at some expense; and you probably need a denser tower population anyway because of all the ground clutter; so a denser tower population probably already exists).
I imagine that the transceivers used on the towers have channel limits - that each transceiver can only handle a certain number of handsets k, within the limits of the number of available frequency sets n (the phone doesn't just use one frequency; I'm pretty sure they are spread-spectrum devices, so you are better off thinking of frequency sets rather than frequencies), and that k <<< n . That would explain AT&T's claims that their ongoing upgrades will mitigate the problem - they may be upgrading the transceivers on the towers so that each tower can use more of the frequencies theoretically available than has been true so far.
The other cell companies also have to segregate their frequencies from one another. If T-Mobile (the other GSM/3G carrier) isn't having this problem, it means either a. their network utilization is a lot lower, or b. they're doing something right and AT&T is doing something wrong. That's also true with the CDMA carriers, of course, but I think they use different parts of the spectrum - and Verizon is a pretty big network.
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
[cropped out a lot of the quote]
When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
dornoforpyros
Jul 24, 11:43 PM
pfft, I don't wanna hover my fingers above the iPod...I wanna use my brain!
treyjustice
Apr 12, 09:31 AM
I'm fine sticking with my iphone 4 for a while longer. It is great and if they give or at least preview iOS 5.0 ill be very happy :)
No comments:
Post a Comment