TMay
Nov 11, 10:33 AM
Given the length of the original message and the terseness of Jobs' reply, it suggests that either he doesn't give a crap, or the iPad's virtual keyboard is a bit pants to type on.
All of his email responses are terse. Verbose is a bad thing if you are an executive, and frankly, people should strive for terse in business anyway.
Reminds me of an anecdote that I read of Tim Cook. In a meeting of Apple managers, he explained that there was a problem in one of the Chinese assemblies houses. A few minutes later, he looked at the engineer/manager and asked "Why are you still here?".
All of his email responses are terse. Verbose is a bad thing if you are an executive, and frankly, people should strive for terse in business anyway.
Reminds me of an anecdote that I read of Tim Cook. In a meeting of Apple managers, he explained that there was a problem in one of the Chinese assemblies houses. A few minutes later, he looked at the engineer/manager and asked "Why are you still here?".
MikeNemat
Apr 13, 04:12 PM
I'm working on a project to port the recently released Shairport tool that emulates an Airport Express to iOS and Mac OS X. (Disclaimer: this app is for personal use since it uses a leaked private key, I have no intention to release it on the app store). Ideally, my app will be more of a framework or library that anyone can use for their apps. Shairport is written in Perl/C so it is not suitable for "user-friendly" deployment to iOS and Mac OS X. My app will use OpenSSL for the AES and RSA encryption, ASyncSockets for HTTP and UDP networking, and nothing else. The idea is to make this a native app, no perl, no avahi, no libao, no software ALAC decoder.
As of now, I have the secure handshaking aspect of the RAOP protocol working as well as native Bonjour/Zeroconf/mDNS/Whatever you want to call it broadcasting working. I am able to respond to the RTSP requests OPTION, ANNOUNCE, and SETUP. iTunes will see my app as an Airport Express in the AirPlay list and will begin streaming audio in ALAC format to the app. I am successfully listening on the 3 UDP ports specified by the SETUP request, however, I'm at a bit of a loss on how to decrypt this with the AES keys from the SETUP request and how to feed this into CoreAudio.
Couple of questions to the community:
1) Are you working on anything similar, if so, perhaps we can collaborate? I would have no objections with starting an open-source project around this, however my code is at the uber-early proof of concept stage at this point.
2) Do you have experience using CoreAudio and the AudioFileStream format, if so, do you have an example you'd be willing to share?
3) Have you ever streamed audio to an Airport Express before? Is it a straight-up ALAC bitstream that reads bits from the file and spits it out as UDP packets? Are the headers intact?
4) Do you have an understanding of what the timing port and control ports are used for?
5) Have you looked at the shairport source code? Can you offer insights on how much of the back-end server and ALAC decoder code can be replaced by CoreAudio?
As of now, I have the secure handshaking aspect of the RAOP protocol working as well as native Bonjour/Zeroconf/mDNS/Whatever you want to call it broadcasting working. I am able to respond to the RTSP requests OPTION, ANNOUNCE, and SETUP. iTunes will see my app as an Airport Express in the AirPlay list and will begin streaming audio in ALAC format to the app. I am successfully listening on the 3 UDP ports specified by the SETUP request, however, I'm at a bit of a loss on how to decrypt this with the AES keys from the SETUP request and how to feed this into CoreAudio.
Couple of questions to the community:
1) Are you working on anything similar, if so, perhaps we can collaborate? I would have no objections with starting an open-source project around this, however my code is at the uber-early proof of concept stage at this point.
2) Do you have experience using CoreAudio and the AudioFileStream format, if so, do you have an example you'd be willing to share?
3) Have you ever streamed audio to an Airport Express before? Is it a straight-up ALAC bitstream that reads bits from the file and spits it out as UDP packets? Are the headers intact?
4) Do you have an understanding of what the timing port and control ports are used for?
5) Have you looked at the shairport source code? Can you offer insights on how much of the back-end server and ALAC decoder code can be replaced by CoreAudio?
AP_piano295
May 6, 10:33 AM
Your thinking seems to contradict yourself back and forth.
Are you really saying that because Japan had limited natural resources it was justified in seizing Korea, invading Manchuria, invading China, attacking the Soviets, invading Indonesia, and attacking any country that decided not to resupply Japan's war machine?
I'd say you're totally wrong in trying to justify Japan's war of expansion
My thinking is that war is bloody stupid exactly 100% of the time. It only happens because humans display a shockingly small amount of psychological development between the age of 5 and 45.
Of course my opinions don't count, the world's opinions are what actually matter. And historically speaking the "world" has no problem with war, in fact we seem pretty into it.
So according to the world's opinion I see nothing wrong with what Japan did. They wanted stuff they started a war, we threatened their war effort they started a war with us.
In terms of national politics I see nothing particularly wrong with that. In terms of being a human being I find it enormously disgusting.
Are you really saying that because Japan had limited natural resources it was justified in seizing Korea, invading Manchuria, invading China, attacking the Soviets, invading Indonesia, and attacking any country that decided not to resupply Japan's war machine?
I'd say you're totally wrong in trying to justify Japan's war of expansion
My thinking is that war is bloody stupid exactly 100% of the time. It only happens because humans display a shockingly small amount of psychological development between the age of 5 and 45.
Of course my opinions don't count, the world's opinions are what actually matter. And historically speaking the "world" has no problem with war, in fact we seem pretty into it.
So according to the world's opinion I see nothing wrong with what Japan did. They wanted stuff they started a war, we threatened their war effort they started a war with us.
In terms of national politics I see nothing particularly wrong with that. In terms of being a human being I find it enormously disgusting.
-1875-76.jpg "the painting supplies Grim")
Apple OC
Mar 28, 01:01 AM
the buyer does deserves to lose his money for his own stupidity.
everybody makes foolish mistakes ... I just don't understand you wishing the buyer gets ripped off.
here's hoping you never make a foolish lane change while driving and have to pay the sort of price you wish on others
everybody makes foolish mistakes ... I just don't understand you wishing the buyer gets ripped off.
here's hoping you never make a foolish lane change while driving and have to pay the sort of price you wish on others
more...
hayesk
Apr 4, 01:57 PM
And Apple having your address, phone number, e-mail address, creditcard is fine with you? And if yes, why is ok for Apple to have this information but not for the FT?
Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.
FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.
Email address is required to send me shipping notifications, and iTunes receipts. A Physical address and phone number is required to ship me their hardware I buy and verify which country's App Store I can shop in.
FT needs my address for what, now? I'm not subscribing to the print edition.
bigjohn
Jul 30, 01:21 AM
At this point, I couldn't really care less about Blu Ray or HD-DVD. I'd be more excited if Apple included Lightscribe or equivalent capability in their drives. Unlabeled discs are piled high on my desk.
use a sharpie :)
use a sharpie :)
more...
savoirfaire
Aug 29, 02:16 PM
Does anybody know of a piece of music i could use for my slideshow?
The sideshow contains picture of a camping trip in the summer holidays.
Thanks people.
For me, Holiday Road from National Lampoon's Vacation is the quintessential road trip song, but I don't know if that works for your slides.
The sideshow contains picture of a camping trip in the summer holidays.
Thanks people.
For me, Holiday Road from National Lampoon's Vacation is the quintessential road trip song, but I don't know if that works for your slides.
mikw4
Nov 16, 06:01 PM
Is there anything available for the ipod touch that will let me transfer/view/save pictures off my digital camera? Something like what is available for the ipad? Apple Ipad Camera Connector (http://store.apple.com/us/product/MC531?mco=MTczNzY0NDg). Or will that work with the touch? Thanks.
more...
gameface
May 2, 05:06 PM
I have an old iBook G4 and it tells me that no battery is installed even when there is a working battery in place, anyone have any clue to what is up?
Your battery is probably F-ed. Honestly, I can't believe it has lasted this long.
Your battery is probably F-ed. Honestly, I can't believe it has lasted this long.
Full of Win
Apr 28, 11:07 PM
Which Apple product uses a trace of stylus???
The concept for an Apple phone/computer from 1983.
http://www.frogdesign.com/images/1983_iphone.jpg
The concept for an Apple phone/computer from 1983.
http://www.frogdesign.com/images/1983_iphone.jpg
more...
mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Small White Car
Oct 9, 02:50 PM
http://twitter.com/atebits/status/4742759455
It'll be on the store shortly.
So after all the arguing back and forth here comes the time to vote with your money. Will you be buying it?
I am.
It'll be on the store shortly.
So after all the arguing back and forth here comes the time to vote with your money. Will you be buying it?
I am.
more...
Eye4Desyn
Apr 4, 11:39 AM
No sir, I don't like it. No matter how you slice it, prices going up with competition going down (T-Mo buyout) only means customer gets screwed. But more importantly, I see this as a hedge for Ma Bell. (Roughly) six months prior to VZW iPhone availability/announcement, ATT hiked up ETFs. Now this. Could be that the upcoming iPhone 5 is yet another killer product in that such a move would be a stop-gap for would-be early upgraders and ATT wanting to offset that subsidy. If timing of this were an indicator like the ETFs in relation to VZW iPhone, six months from now would be quasi-in-line with rumored iPhone 5 release.
braindog
Dec 8, 06:51 PM
Does anyone know if Apple will be offering this card separately? I picked up a Quad with the stock 6600 and need to add another card (to run two 30" displays).
Anyone know if the Quad specs allow for two 7800's in a Quad, or only one 7800 and one 6600 or 6800?
What would be the ultimate combination? 7800+6800?
Anyone know if the Quad specs allow for two 7800's in a Quad, or only one 7800 and one 6600 or 6800?
What would be the ultimate combination? 7800+6800?
more...
iRachel
Jan 9, 05:01 PM
I don't really care about the Apple TV - its not something I see myself using at this point.
I like the iPhone, though I think its a tad pricey, but I wouldn't be in the market for one before early next year, anyway. I might consider getting one at that point.
I was disappointed that there was nothing for the Mac! I wanted to see iLife and iWork '07 and more importantly, hear/see some information about Leopard!
I like the iPhone, though I think its a tad pricey, but I wouldn't be in the market for one before early next year, anyway. I might consider getting one at that point.
I was disappointed that there was nothing for the Mac! I wanted to see iLife and iWork '07 and more importantly, hear/see some information about Leopard!
stepbasin
Nov 17, 08:03 AM
Ok, here you go, my list of "Must Have" free apps:
TigerLaunch: This puts a little paw print near the clock at teh top of your screen and allows you to access all of your apps through it. Its quick, easy and very cool. Oh, and its customizable.
Desktop Manager: By far the most useful free app I have ever seen. This little gem allows you to run multiple desktops on OS X. It is great, free, and has very few bugs. It is cool beyond belief.
Konfabulator: The closest thing to Tiger's Dashboard feature. This widget launcher is free, cool and very well done. Great for webcams, weather alerts, stock quotes etc.
Tinker Tool, Onyx, System Optimizer and Cocktail all unlock hidden OS X features.
Teal and Gimp: A very poor man's photoshop.
Anyway, thats all. Let me know what you think of my list.
TigerLaunch: This puts a little paw print near the clock at teh top of your screen and allows you to access all of your apps through it. Its quick, easy and very cool. Oh, and its customizable.
Desktop Manager: By far the most useful free app I have ever seen. This little gem allows you to run multiple desktops on OS X. It is great, free, and has very few bugs. It is cool beyond belief.
Konfabulator: The closest thing to Tiger's Dashboard feature. This widget launcher is free, cool and very well done. Great for webcams, weather alerts, stock quotes etc.
Tinker Tool, Onyx, System Optimizer and Cocktail all unlock hidden OS X features.
Teal and Gimp: A very poor man's photoshop.
Anyway, thats all. Let me know what you think of my list.
more...
wordoflife
Dec 9, 08:24 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/10xeud4.png
eternlgladiator
Feb 18, 03:05 PM
interfacelift.com
it's a relatively recent one, so shouldn't take too long to find. :D
Awesome thank you very much
it's a relatively recent one, so shouldn't take too long to find. :D
Awesome thank you very much
66217
Jan 11, 02:27 PM
I don't understand the people that say they are extremely dissapointed with no Leopard or Mac mention. Or the people that say that they fear Apple is forgeting the Mac.
Come on, just 7 months ago they realesed Intel MaBook Pro's, then the Macbook (that is selling like crazy), and all the other Intel Macs. They announce Leopard, they give some pretty good demo's about it. So, what do you expect? All this takes time.
And about giving more attention to other products, just accept it, Mac's have been getting more popular, but they are reaching a limit. A limit that even if you don't like, there it is. And the limit is Windows presence. If Apple wants to break this limit they have to start making their prducts (all of them) more popular.
The iPod makes a lot of PC user swith to a Mac (I include myself here). The iPhone is the same (would be, I hope), Apple TV is the same as the iPhone, these are products that tempt PC users to switch.
Roco,:)
Come on, just 7 months ago they realesed Intel MaBook Pro's, then the Macbook (that is selling like crazy), and all the other Intel Macs. They announce Leopard, they give some pretty good demo's about it. So, what do you expect? All this takes time.
And about giving more attention to other products, just accept it, Mac's have been getting more popular, but they are reaching a limit. A limit that even if you don't like, there it is. And the limit is Windows presence. If Apple wants to break this limit they have to start making their prducts (all of them) more popular.
The iPod makes a lot of PC user swith to a Mac (I include myself here). The iPhone is the same (would be, I hope), Apple TV is the same as the iPhone, these are products that tempt PC users to switch.
Roco,:)
nomar383
Jun 23, 02:32 PM
Does anyone have a monitor or LCD TV that they want to sell? I have been looking around and decided to check here before making a purchase. Make me an offer, or suggest somewhere with a great deal on LCD monitors right now
mashinhead
May 5, 11:57 AM
Anyone notice the better sound in the new iMacs. Are there new speakers in there?
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
zen.state
Apr 4, 11:19 AM
The only drives that really go above 15 watts are the 10,000+ rpm like the raptor but even then it's maybe 22 watts. The WD black I boot from is about 14 watts but the green from WD or any low powered drive can be as low as 8-9 watts. The average would be about 12.
iMeowbot
Nov 30, 10:37 AM
Else why is Virgin Megastore and HMV still around?
The US branch of HMV didn't survive either.
The US branch of HMV didn't survive either.
No comments:
Post a Comment