rdowns
Apr 25, 08:57 AM
I was going to ask what the D stands for but I guess that's kind of obvious.
samiwas
Apr 18, 04:56 PM
Of course that is ridiculous, and I totally agree there should be a line, but where do we draw it? Who gets to draw it?
Ummm...that was pretty much the point....:confused:
The line should be drawn by universal standard workers laws that prevent an employer from needlessly abusing their employees (timewise) without just compensation.
For instance, when I'm working on a union job (yeah, those awful unions protecting workers and stuff), anything over 8 hours a day is time+half. Anything between midnight and 6am is double-time. More than 40 hours in a 7-day period is time+half. Sunday is time+half. The employer has a right to decide when he wants his job done, and he can pay the price for it. The problem is that most employers choose ridiculous timelines and budgets, and the people working for them are stuck having to work the hours to complete something beyond their control. Without some sort of workers protection laws, this will only get worse and worse.
Of course, there are jobs that have to get done in a certain amount of time (as I referenced above), and some people may alter their speed and go slower to push into that overtime (of course this happens...I've seen it firsthand and abhor the practice). But that's no different than an employer dumping a new workload onto someone on Friday afternoon and saying "Yeeeaahh...I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow. Oh, and I almost forgot, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? We, uh, lost some people this week, and, uh, we have to sort of play catch up. Thanks!"
So, do you prefer a world where the employer has all the control and can make his employees do whatever he wants for whatever he wants to pay (or they can quit/be fired), or a world where employees have some sort of power to require fair compensation for extraordinary work periods? I know which I prefer, and I'm pretty sure I know which you prefer.
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
What does the hotshot trader making a killing have to do with anything? What if the trader is working 80 hours a week and not making a killing? Is the trader WANTING to work 80 hours, or is his firm requiring him to work 80 hours? Are they compensating him or is he just working for the man making the killing for his company but not really seeing the results for himself? I guess if someone WANTS to work 80 hours for free, you can let them...but it should never be a required part of the job.
Ummm...that was pretty much the point....:confused:
The line should be drawn by universal standard workers laws that prevent an employer from needlessly abusing their employees (timewise) without just compensation.
For instance, when I'm working on a union job (yeah, those awful unions protecting workers and stuff), anything over 8 hours a day is time+half. Anything between midnight and 6am is double-time. More than 40 hours in a 7-day period is time+half. Sunday is time+half. The employer has a right to decide when he wants his job done, and he can pay the price for it. The problem is that most employers choose ridiculous timelines and budgets, and the people working for them are stuck having to work the hours to complete something beyond their control. Without some sort of workers protection laws, this will only get worse and worse.
Of course, there are jobs that have to get done in a certain amount of time (as I referenced above), and some people may alter their speed and go slower to push into that overtime (of course this happens...I've seen it firsthand and abhor the practice). But that's no different than an employer dumping a new workload onto someone on Friday afternoon and saying "Yeeeaahh...I'm gonna need you to go ahead and come in tomorrow. Oh, and I almost forgot, I'm also gonna need you to go ahead and come in on Sunday, too, okay? We, uh, lost some people this week, and, uh, we have to sort of play catch up. Thanks!"
So, do you prefer a world where the employer has all the control and can make his employees do whatever he wants for whatever he wants to pay (or they can quit/be fired), or a world where employees have some sort of power to require fair compensation for extraordinary work periods? I know which I prefer, and I'm pretty sure I know which you prefer.
What about a hotshot stock trader making a killing working 80+ hours a week on salary. Should we be allowed to work this much without overtime?
I realize it is an obscure analogy, but it is valid nonetheless.
What does the hotshot trader making a killing have to do with anything? What if the trader is working 80 hours a week and not making a killing? Is the trader WANTING to work 80 hours, or is his firm requiring him to work 80 hours? Are they compensating him or is he just working for the man making the killing for his company but not really seeing the results for himself? I guess if someone WANTS to work 80 hours for free, you can let them...but it should never be a required part of the job.
alent1234
Mar 10, 10:04 AM
How would Safari be able to install that stuff? Forgive me for not knowing, but I haven't seen anything that allowed you to install software, or any executable code, from iOS Safari. Not with Apple's model. Maybe jailbroken, but that's a different story.
you don't remember www.jailbreakme.com last year? you swipe and it installs all kinds of code on your iphone
you don't remember www.jailbreakme.com last year? you swipe and it installs all kinds of code on your iphone
Multimedia
Sep 10, 08:44 AM
quad core macbook pro anyone ?Probably not for two more years. :( It's not even mentioned in any of the published Intel roadmaps yet.
roadbloc
Jan 1, 10:26 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
Yes. Absolutely. A closed filesystem where you're only able to download anything significant through a moderated app store is going to be riddled with viruses. :rolleyes:
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:00 AM
Sure, your entire post just screams at what a safe driver you are. :rolleyes:I bet if your parents saw a post like this they would take away your car. You are a menace.
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
miketcool
Nov 15, 01:21 PM
To quote Mugatu from Zoolander:
http://piggington.com/files/images/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg
Really? RA used Apple Dev tools and the App Store folks put up a fight for 3 months. RA didn't break any rules and Apple doesn't have a cohesive process. RA walked away over Apple's policy conflicts, and people are defending Apple. Seriously, this behavior is still continuing at Apple, and it needs to change.
My head hurts, I'm going to go lay down...
http://piggington.com/files/images/zoolander-mugatu-crazy-pills.jpg
Really? RA used Apple Dev tools and the App Store folks put up a fight for 3 months. RA didn't break any rules and Apple doesn't have a cohesive process. RA walked away over Apple's policy conflicts, and people are defending Apple. Seriously, this behavior is still continuing at Apple, and it needs to change.
My head hurts, I'm going to go lay down...
MasterTick
Apr 4, 12:51 PM
Coming from a "Gun Person" (Own a HK .45 USP Tactical w/ GEMTECH Suppressor)
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
...All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being. I only hope that the guard did not instigate the shooting.
If you read the article you would see it was justified.
Fraaaa
May 3, 01:37 PM
I think there is an error on the iMac performance page.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
It shows:
For i5
283912
Then for i7
283913
Shouldn't it show faster performance for the i7?:confused:
I sent an email to someone who works on their website asking them to double check that.:D
I thught was strange as well at first, but I believe that the comparison is between i5 1st gen vs 2nd gen and i7 1st gen vs 2nd gen.
freebooter
Oct 27, 11:34 AM
ridiculous
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
coporate types acting like the aritocracy
let information flow
let freedom reign
twoodcc
Oct 27, 11:00 AM
i'm not sure what to think about this. seems that i don't like them though
Makosuke
Nov 13, 02:01 PM
With policies like this, the App Store might just eventually die.Yeah, right. It would take a whole lot more than a few dozen (heck, a few HUNDRED) cheesed-off developers to kill the app store. If they turned all development off today, it would still be successful.
That said, when Rogue Amoeba jumps ship over what seems a pretty blatant case of policy clashing with logic and common sense, that's a bad sign that you're doing stuff wrong.
It's not 100% black and white, but really, Apple should be doing a better job than this. They do seem to be gradually improving--there have been many signs that they ARE listening to the complaints, and moving toward addressing at least some of them--but the company should be doing more.
If anything, I'd much rather the app store approval process were brutally exclusionary about apps with bugs or ugly/non-"iPhone-like" UIs than nit-picking branding issues.
Basically, if the walled garden had a bouncer who was a style-nazi I'd be much happier than the relatively lenient lawyer currently standing at the gate.
That said, when Rogue Amoeba jumps ship over what seems a pretty blatant case of policy clashing with logic and common sense, that's a bad sign that you're doing stuff wrong.
It's not 100% black and white, but really, Apple should be doing a better job than this. They do seem to be gradually improving--there have been many signs that they ARE listening to the complaints, and moving toward addressing at least some of them--but the company should be doing more.
If anything, I'd much rather the app store approval process were brutally exclusionary about apps with bugs or ugly/non-"iPhone-like" UIs than nit-picking branding issues.
Basically, if the walled garden had a bouncer who was a style-nazi I'd be much happier than the relatively lenient lawyer currently standing at the gate.
prady16
Sep 26, 12:01 PM
You got customer service from Verizon? Is this before or after they tacked on the taxes that aren't being collected anymore? Or crippled the Bluetooth on their phones? Or put a terrible GUI on their phones? Or any other number of things that they've done that are anti-consumer?
QFT
QFT
kdarling
Apr 19, 09:20 AM
This doesn't look like an iPhone 3GS? :confused:
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
Salesperson: May I help you?
LagunaSol: Yes, I'd like to buy that big white iPhone 3GS over there.
Salesperson: (confused) Uh, you mean the Galaxy Tab?
LagunaSol: No, no, the 3GS. It's right there.
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
LagunaSol: I don't care, it's a big 3GS, I can tell !
Salesperson: Yeah... okay.
You must be a barrel of laughs on a shopping trip:
Salesperson: May I help you?
LagunaSol: Yes, I'd like to buy that big white iPhone 3GS over there.
Salesperson: (confused) Uh, you mean the Galaxy Tab?
LagunaSol: No, no, the 3GS. It's right there.
Salesperson: Sir, they're only vaguely the same shape.
LagunaSol: I don't care, it's a big 3GS, I can tell !
Salesperson: Yeah... okay.
Stella
Apr 19, 06:54 AM
What else would you expect to hear? No company would just bow down and give up....
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
that's because samsung supplies all these companies with parts for their phones. Sue Samsung, risk getting the shaft on internals! We'll see what happens.
Samsung couldn't pull out on any existing deals, otherwise they'd be in breach of contract.
Chundles
Sep 8, 09:13 AM
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Hell no, Leopard will run on G4s, G5s, Core Duos, Core 2 Duos, maybe even the old G3s but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
Hell no, Leopard will run on G4s, G5s, Core Duos, Core 2 Duos, maybe even the old G3s but we'll have to wait and see on that one.
MacRumors
Apr 25, 12:50 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/25/next-macbook-pro-to-get-new-case-design/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/013535-mbp.jpg
Iveco 35-10, Platós+Ponyvás
Iveco 35c. Outro 35c 13
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/25/013535-mbp.jpg
bluewire
Sep 9, 09:11 PM
Driving 1.5 hours to the Apple store this morning and the same on the way back. But I am not buying yet, just looking and getting a feel for the entire line. Oh I forgot.... and turning green with envy. Boy is going to be hard.
I've been calling around, there are 3 stores near me but none have a 24" iMac for me to look at yet. :( I'm looking to see what the annoucement is on Tuesday is...Cube redux? :eek:
I've been calling around, there are 3 stores near me but none have a 24" iMac for me to look at yet. :( I'm looking to see what the annoucement is on Tuesday is...Cube redux? :eek:
iMacZealot
Sep 21, 05:32 PM
Great breakdown, peharri. :)
johnnymg
Mar 22, 02:34 PM
What about the Mac Pro? It's way past due, would that come first, before the iMac?
The Mac Pro is NOT overdue! No update until spring 2012 when SB server chips are readily available.
The Mac Pro is NOT overdue! No update until spring 2012 when SB server chips are readily available.
ChrisA
Oct 12, 12:54 PM
They might as well add a Core 2 Duo Mac Book Pro too.
My gues is that all these whiners would not even notice if you snuck in at night and swapped out ther procesor for a C2D chip. They'd just wake up the next moring fire up the computer and never even notice.
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
My gues is that all these whiners would not even notice if you snuck in at night and swapped out ther procesor for a C2D chip. They'd just wake up the next moring fire up the computer and never even notice.
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
macintel4me
Sep 4, 07:05 PM
I'm confused. Movie downloads for $10?!? What happened to the whole "Jobs is hammered by the movie industry into movie rentals only" ?!? This CANNOT possibly mean renting a movie for $10!! :eek:
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
My bet is that it's low-res/iPod quality video for purchase. Apple/Steve Jobs have yet to get into the home theater business. So far it's been the mobile entertainment business only. Movie rentals (or purchase for that matter) at home theater quality is a whole other enchilada.
Watching 320x240 movie on my 42" plasma would sort of suck and not be competitive as others have metioned. Would I buy a $10 movie to watch on my iPod? mmm....probably a few to keep me entertained on the treadmill and my son entertained on roadtrips.
Eraserhead
Nov 13, 03:48 PM
Again, as I have said previously, the way these images/icons came about was USING OS X APIs.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
That's how they're wrong.
w00master
Exactly. Losing the maker of the Facebook app and Rouge Amoeba in one day is really bad.
asxtb
Sep 5, 07:56 AM
I really doubt that Apple will put a TV tuner in this thing (if it's real). Think about it -
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.
Point 1 - If Apple puts a tuner in then they have to deal with the myriad of different types of TV.
Point 2 - THEY SELL TV SHOWS!
Does Steve want you to Tivo the new episode of "The Office" on your "MediaMac/Airport Express Video/Super iPod" or does he want you to come to the iTunes store and download it for $2? Apple, despite most of our (including my own) beliefs is a business and they have to think of the $$$ first.
Why give something away when you can make money off it? That's still my theory as to why the mini didn't have a tuner from the start.
As you said, Apple is a business and they have to think of the money first. Let's say they sell a media center for $300. That's $300. Upfront. They put it in the bank and turn it into $400. Taking that initial $300, that is 150 TV shows. That's a lot of TV shows. And that money will be gradually trickling in. Being a business, Apple wants your money now, not a couple bucks here and a couple bucks there. Plus there will be a lot of people that won't buy the media center and will continue buying the shows from iTunes.