fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
nydoofus
Aug 24, 01:07 PM
Apple PR release link
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-24-2006/0004421452&EDATE
http://www.prnewswire.com/news/index_mail.shtml?ACCT=104&STORY=/www/story/08-24-2006/0004421452&EDATE
TheSVD
Mar 10, 06:55 AM
Here's one more. Having grown up there, I'm quite familiar with the place as well. I should see it as a challenge but the familiarity makes it a difficult place for me to photograph.
http://blog.darinrogers.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/MG_9072.jpg (http://blog.darinrogers.net/blog/)
thats really, really good.. the black and white really suits it and the reflection in the water looks great too! beautiful image man :)
mine for today.. a bit of 'no real subject' photo, but i like the lines of the photo.. the fence & stairs leading up :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5016/5500196540_f8b9e8df77_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5500196540/)
Stairs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5500196540/) by TheSVD (http://www.flickr.com/people/svdphotography/), on Flickr
http://blog.darinrogers.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/MG_9072.jpg (http://blog.darinrogers.net/blog/)
thats really, really good.. the black and white really suits it and the reflection in the water looks great too! beautiful image man :)
mine for today.. a bit of 'no real subject' photo, but i like the lines of the photo.. the fence & stairs leading up :)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5016/5500196540_f8b9e8df77_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5500196540/)
Stairs (http://www.flickr.com/photos/svdphotography/5500196540/) by TheSVD (http://www.flickr.com/people/svdphotography/), on Flickr
iTravis
Apr 2, 01:54 AM
U Mad? :confused:
My sentiments exactly. . .
It probably was a typo though, I don't see how iPhone 4 users are complaining, if anything it's the people going to be off contract I.E the 3GS crowd.
Regardless if people want the latest in tech it's their business. I can't wait to upgrade though :p
My sentiments exactly. . .
It probably was a typo though, I don't see how iPhone 4 users are complaining, if anything it's the people going to be off contract I.E the 3GS crowd.
Regardless if people want the latest in tech it's their business. I can't wait to upgrade though :p
jclardy
May 5, 05:38 AM
No way. Going from awesome screen viewable at any viewing angle to crappy 3d screen viewable only when perfectly parallel? Nope.
Unless they have some awesome new glasses free tech that no one else n
Knows about I can't see this happening.
Unless they have some awesome new glasses free tech that no one else n
Knows about I can't see this happening.
Zombie Acorn
May 2, 11:00 AM
Its nothing to do with skin color and everything to do with a large portion growing up in single parent families that don't teach their children anything about being respectful human beings. I don't buy that racism causes this. It's their choice whether to remain a family after conceiving a child, money has little to do with it.
Edge100
Nov 27, 01:52 PM
Beatles are not my generation so I don't know a lot about them..but weren't they into free spirits and happiness and what not? Why are they all about suing and being greedy now?
Edit: which of them are even alive anymore to profit? Or is this the doing of their heirs?
"Paul and Bingo are still alive. John and Keith are dead." :)
They're "suing and being greedy" because they earned it. Their songs and likenesses are valuable, and they are entitled to revenues gained from them.
Edit: which of them are even alive anymore to profit? Or is this the doing of their heirs?
"Paul and Bingo are still alive. John and Keith are dead." :)
They're "suing and being greedy" because they earned it. Their songs and likenesses are valuable, and they are entitled to revenues gained from them.
William Gates
Mar 18, 02:37 PM
no, the touch will supplant the classic.
fishmoose
Mar 21, 02:49 PM
That's exactly why I don't have a wife. Yet! :D
You don't want a free iPad? :D
You don't want a free iPad? :D
MacFly123
Nov 3, 04:18 PM
Frankly, the vast majority of users, and developers, and content providers, DO NOT care what you personally want, no matter how much you roll your eyes.
Flash is on virtually every computer on Earth, and pretty soon it will be on virtually every smart phone as well. Except the iPhone, of course.
Flash works very well, for the vast majority of users. The fact that Apple has not expended the minimum effort required to get Flash working more efficiently in OS X, is mostly problem for only those relatively few of us, who prefer to use Mac OS.
(In my testing on OS 10.6.1, Safari is by far the worst of all browsers at handling Flash: it pushes the CPU to 77%, while Firefox and Camino stay at less than 49%. Safari is also by far the worst on Windows 7, where on the same video it runs to almost 30% of CPU, while IE8 is at 1%, and Firefox and Chrome are at 4%.
The vast majority of users enjoy what Flash provides.
And, Flash does things which would be impossible, or very hard, or prohibitively expensive, to do with other currently available technologies, and deploy them for all browsers and systems.
So, I repeat: the rest of the world DOES NOT care, that you, and a handful of weird backroom guys, have an irrational hatred of Flash. Move on.
The bottom line is, if Apple doesn't get Flash on the iPhone, it will quickly lose market share to Android. It's a HUGE missing feature, bigger than cut/paste and turn-by turn navigation and mms rolled together, and you can bet it will be advertised as such.
Agree to disagree!
However, it is not just me. Anyone that knows the history of the web and the technologies behind it including flash does not like Flash, and knows that it is an inefficient and unnecessary piece of crap. The fact that one of, if not the most powerful tech company on earth agrees might make you think twice! :rolleyes:
What do you think Apple stands to gain from this? They are pushing OPEN STANDARDS! And if Flash is such a gaping hole in the iPhone why would such a huge powerful company let a flagship product wilt when there is nothing to gain from it for them? Think about it, that is how crappy Flash is!
Personally I am happy that there is a company out there like Apple that will do whatever it takes to push progress and top of the line technology in ways that no other company has the balls to do! I am glad that they are determined to weed out inferior technology in the name of progress! They even obsolete their own products at the hight of them being the most popular gadgets on earth, and WHY?... Because they thought of something cooler. You know any other company with the balls to do that? No, they would just milk the product as long as they possibly can, and then serve a minor update that isn't too cost prohibitive.
Ya, I'll stick with Apple's M.O. Thanks! :p
Flash is on virtually every computer on Earth, and pretty soon it will be on virtually every smart phone as well. Except the iPhone, of course.
Flash works very well, for the vast majority of users. The fact that Apple has not expended the minimum effort required to get Flash working more efficiently in OS X, is mostly problem for only those relatively few of us, who prefer to use Mac OS.
(In my testing on OS 10.6.1, Safari is by far the worst of all browsers at handling Flash: it pushes the CPU to 77%, while Firefox and Camino stay at less than 49%. Safari is also by far the worst on Windows 7, where on the same video it runs to almost 30% of CPU, while IE8 is at 1%, and Firefox and Chrome are at 4%.
The vast majority of users enjoy what Flash provides.
And, Flash does things which would be impossible, or very hard, or prohibitively expensive, to do with other currently available technologies, and deploy them for all browsers and systems.
So, I repeat: the rest of the world DOES NOT care, that you, and a handful of weird backroom guys, have an irrational hatred of Flash. Move on.
The bottom line is, if Apple doesn't get Flash on the iPhone, it will quickly lose market share to Android. It's a HUGE missing feature, bigger than cut/paste and turn-by turn navigation and mms rolled together, and you can bet it will be advertised as such.
Agree to disagree!
However, it is not just me. Anyone that knows the history of the web and the technologies behind it including flash does not like Flash, and knows that it is an inefficient and unnecessary piece of crap. The fact that one of, if not the most powerful tech company on earth agrees might make you think twice! :rolleyes:
What do you think Apple stands to gain from this? They are pushing OPEN STANDARDS! And if Flash is such a gaping hole in the iPhone why would such a huge powerful company let a flagship product wilt when there is nothing to gain from it for them? Think about it, that is how crappy Flash is!
Personally I am happy that there is a company out there like Apple that will do whatever it takes to push progress and top of the line technology in ways that no other company has the balls to do! I am glad that they are determined to weed out inferior technology in the name of progress! They even obsolete their own products at the hight of them being the most popular gadgets on earth, and WHY?... Because they thought of something cooler. You know any other company with the balls to do that? No, they would just milk the product as long as they possibly can, and then serve a minor update that isn't too cost prohibitive.
Ya, I'll stick with Apple's M.O. Thanks! :p
MacinDoc
Sep 4, 10:42 PM
No, this is incorrect.
Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.
Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.
You're missing the point. If you have a Mac that meets the hardware requirements, you can purchase any version of OS X, there is no other software prerequisite. The fact that it is an "upgrade" is irrelevant, because you don't already to have any other software, other that what the computer originally shipped with.
For the people who thinks that Vista is too expensive:
Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.
Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.
What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:
Think again...
Robert Weston (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3) and Yuval Kossovsky (ComputerWorld) (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&source=NLT_MAC&nlid=62) both found the Mac Pro to be hundreds of dollars less than an equivalent Dell...
Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.
Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.
You're missing the point. If you have a Mac that meets the hardware requirements, you can purchase any version of OS X, there is no other software prerequisite. The fact that it is an "upgrade" is irrelevant, because you don't already to have any other software, other that what the computer originally shipped with.
For the people who thinks that Vista is too expensive:
Mac users: Spend more $ on hardware. Spend less $ on software.
Windows users: Spend more $ on software. Spend less $ on hardware.
What a shock the computing industry works both ways. :eek:
Think again...
Robert Weston (Associated Press) (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060823/ap_on_hi_te/tech_test_mac_pro_3) and Yuval Kossovsky (ComputerWorld) (http://www.computerworld.com/action/article.do?command=viewArticleBasic&articleId=9002545&source=NLT_MAC&nlid=62) both found the Mac Pro to be hundreds of dollars less than an equivalent Dell...
hazza.jockel
Oct 9, 01:10 PM
It would have been good to see Master Chief...
Master Chief is in the game. You just have to know where to look ;)
Master Chief is in the game. You just have to know where to look ;)
bill4588
Nov 8, 06:32 AM
If you're reading this Thread ;-) Let me wonder... and what about macbooks of different colors, to match the ipod nano?
well that's pretty cool :D
well that's pretty cool :D
AP_piano295
Mar 30, 10:55 AM
[confused]
The US is enforcing a no-fly zone over The Republic of Congo? Or were you just dodging the question?
The last time I checked the people of the Congo hadn't asked for US help. Or were you just attempting to confuse the issue?
The US is enforcing a no-fly zone over The Republic of Congo? Or were you just dodging the question?
The last time I checked the people of the Congo hadn't asked for US help. Or were you just attempting to confuse the issue?
Sydde
Mar 31, 12:51 AM
Here's a few quick ones.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
Quick, yes, but not very substantive. That third one, wtf is that? Sheesh.
"U.S. wants other nations to pitch in on Libya"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/us-wants-other-nations-to-pitch-in-on-libya/2011/03/30/AFh2IY6B_story.html
"European countries downsize military, increase social programs"
http://www.theeagleonline.com/news/story/european-countries-downsize-military-increase-social-programs/
"In an effort to decrease European government spending ... They are planning on reducing billions from their military budgets due to budget deficits."
http://propaganda-buster.blogspot.com/2011/02/european-military-hd.html
Quick, yes, but not very substantive. That third one, wtf is that? Sheesh.
mattwolfmatt
Mar 28, 01:26 PM
Because getting your iToy within eye sight of a 300 Lb round-belly hillbilly or 400 Lb woman in pink stretch pants and camel toe does not make for the best experience.
Uh, news flash, they still let those people in Apple Stores, too. Last I checked, this WAS America.
Uh, news flash, they still let those people in Apple Stores, too. Last I checked, this WAS America.
vitwi
Mar 12, 06:32 AM
like i said i think is down everywhere here in spain is down too
CAD4MAC
Mar 18, 01:34 PM
I had my 3rd gen iPod for years until it got stolen but it gave me over 3 years of love before all these 'posh' colour ones came out.
It was and still is the best mp3 player and they joy it brought me! If the iPod classic does go it'll be a sad day but that's evolution for you, the new ones are just as exciting!
That blog just goes to show that Job's was right and still is, with every new Apple product negative responses galore appear and yet we all end up buying one in the end!
http://bit.ly/CAD4MAC
It was and still is the best mp3 player and they joy it brought me! If the iPod classic does go it'll be a sad day but that's evolution for you, the new ones are just as exciting!
That blog just goes to show that Job's was right and still is, with every new Apple product negative responses galore appear and yet we all end up buying one in the end!
http://bit.ly/CAD4MAC
hansiedejong
Oct 25, 01:06 PM
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Screenshots/iPhone/Photo%20okt.%2025%2C%207%2049%2001%20PM.jpg?w=08862ee9
Philips Living Colors. MacBook Pro 13''. iPad (in Apple iPad case).
Taken with iPhone 4.
Philips Living Colors. MacBook Pro 13''. iPad (in Apple iPad case).
Taken with iPhone 4.
Retrograffica
Jan 11, 02:06 PM
After reading this article (http://gizmodo.com/343246/what-to-expect-at-macworld-2008-and-why-we-think-it-will-bigger-than-usual) I think that it's entirely possible that Apple are altering their branding. Also the lack of an Apple logo could be explained by the fact that everyone at the expo would recognise it as them anyway and it adds to the air of secrecy and mystery that they love to use in their marketing.
buffsldr
Oct 13, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by tfaz1
Well said. I have to agree with you.
Most friends and relatives bring up the clock speed and price. But when they see how the machine looks on my desk, when they step up to OS X and take it for a spin, they see why I could take a speed "loss" for all the luxury that Apple brings to the user experience.
Now, a lot of us rumor-heads are focused on bleeding-edge. And it kinda burns us that Intel/Athlon chips are closing in on 3GHz and we've just broken 1 gig. But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.
And I have to agree with you.
Apple is a business. They have shareholders that hold them accountable for their performance. They goal for them is to maximize profitability. To achieve this goal, apple has a marketing department. I know very little about marketing, but what I do tells me that the four P's of marketing are place, price, promotion, and product. My understanding is that "place" pertains to where you want to position yourself in the market. Do you want to sell high end, mid or low end? You get the idea. It is totally possible to sell a low end product, have less market share and still be more profitable than a company that sells high end and has more market share.
Bottom line, Apple does not exist to outperform pc's. They exist to make their share holders money. The original question was who should we blame? I am not sure that there is a problem. As one consumer, I would love to see macs outperform pc's, but before I am willing to accept there is a problem that will affect apple's profitability I would like to see a business case explaining how apple can make more money by fixing these alleged "problems". But, I really dont care. I use apple because i like it. when apple stops meeting my computer needs, i can go somewhere else, or do without.
Edvinow,l you do raise some thought provoking questions and I apprecaite that. My point was that just because we want more, doesnt necessarily means that a company's strategy is flawed. After all, you are dissappointed with some of what apple does, and they got your money didn't they :)
Well said. I have to agree with you.
Most friends and relatives bring up the clock speed and price. But when they see how the machine looks on my desk, when they step up to OS X and take it for a spin, they see why I could take a speed "loss" for all the luxury that Apple brings to the user experience.
Now, a lot of us rumor-heads are focused on bleeding-edge. And it kinda burns us that Intel/Athlon chips are closing in on 3GHz and we've just broken 1 gig. But we (rumor-heads) are the few, and PC marketing no longer seems to focus on speed. And I believe that Apple is slowly turing more heads out there.
And I have to agree with you.
Apple is a business. They have shareholders that hold them accountable for their performance. They goal for them is to maximize profitability. To achieve this goal, apple has a marketing department. I know very little about marketing, but what I do tells me that the four P's of marketing are place, price, promotion, and product. My understanding is that "place" pertains to where you want to position yourself in the market. Do you want to sell high end, mid or low end? You get the idea. It is totally possible to sell a low end product, have less market share and still be more profitable than a company that sells high end and has more market share.
Bottom line, Apple does not exist to outperform pc's. They exist to make their share holders money. The original question was who should we blame? I am not sure that there is a problem. As one consumer, I would love to see macs outperform pc's, but before I am willing to accept there is a problem that will affect apple's profitability I would like to see a business case explaining how apple can make more money by fixing these alleged "problems". But, I really dont care. I use apple because i like it. when apple stops meeting my computer needs, i can go somewhere else, or do without.
Edvinow,l you do raise some thought provoking questions and I apprecaite that. My point was that just because we want more, doesnt necessarily means that a company's strategy is flawed. After all, you are dissappointed with some of what apple does, and they got your money didn't they :)
hazza.jockel
Sep 28, 09:13 PM
I was excited to see that blood gulch had be remade but after playing it a few times i have to say its one of my least favourite maps. There are too many vehicles and not enough vehicles killing weapons. Usually one person will get in a tank and if he is able to take out the other tank theres no real way to stop them. Particularly if they just sit up the back taking long shots leaving you no real chance to get close. Bungie needed to put a spartan laser on the map somewhere.
IronLogik
Nov 12, 12:24 PM
I think the irony has to do with the approval process for Facebook applications (like all of those games people play on Facebook), not access to personal information.
I suspect a lot of that approval is related to security of the personal information obtained within Facebook. Don't applications have some access to that information? As a result, yea. The approval is pretty important.
The sandboxing done on the iPhone means no application can access other applications data, and the only access they have is to the address book. This could be mitigated by prompting the user to allow an app to be granted access to the address book in cases where the app wasn't approved by apple.
Security reasons are pretty small on most iPhone applications.
I suspect a lot of that approval is related to security of the personal information obtained within Facebook. Don't applications have some access to that information? As a result, yea. The approval is pretty important.
The sandboxing done on the iPhone means no application can access other applications data, and the only access they have is to the address book. This could be mitigated by prompting the user to allow an app to be granted access to the address book in cases where the app wasn't approved by apple.
Security reasons are pretty small on most iPhone applications.
iGary
Sep 6, 08:25 AM
Why not 4GB of RAM?
Không có nhận xét nào:
Đăng nhận xét