I've been using the H-K iSub subwoofer with my old G3 iMac for years now and I really like it. But, H-K stopped selling it separately when Apple took the speakers out of the iMac with the table lamp design.
I wonder if it would work with the new flat-panel design since they have put the speaker back into the design. I've searched around a bit for an answer, but haven't found any information.
I suppose I should just wait until it's in the stores and bring my iSub down and plug it in.
So, let's see. I can get a complete, well-equipped G5 computer with a 20" monitor for $1899. Yet their stand-alone 20" monitor is $1299.
My first thought was "wow, that means the cost of building the computer part must be less than $600". Then I came to my senses and realized that it really means the stand-alone monitors must have huge profit margins. I've always felt that their monitors were the most overpriced products in their portfolio. I think this proves it.
No flames, please. I'm a major Mac-head. I just thought the cost difference between the products was revealing.
People regularly complain about the iPod's relatively small battery capacity. A video iPod would be much worse.
Ninety percent of the time, an iPod does nothing more than decode MP3's from a RAM cache and drive a pair of headphones.
If you add to that a backlit color LCD, a WiFi transceiver and video decoding, you'd be lucky to get an hour's worth of play time. For that reason, I don't expect to see a video iPod any time soon.
All these economic "experts" just crack me up the way they declare to know what the future holds. It's a joke. They act as though their economic theories are as strong as the physical laws. Guesses. That's all they are.
Outsourcing might create new and better jobs in the long run. But, it might not.
One thing's for sure. Telling people who have lost their job due to outsourcing (or insourcing, for that matter) that it's going to benefit them long term is insane. No one can predict that with any certainty. And, so far, they've been wrong.
Even worse, they make it sound as if the corporations are doing the laid-off worker a favor and/or they are doing it for the long term benefit of the country. Nonsense. They are doing it to cut costs today. They're shopping for labor outside the US for the same reason people shop at Walmart. To save a buck today. Tomorrow doesn't matter.
Neither the long term welfare of the American worker nor long term economic effects enter into their decision making process to outsource labor.
Love your sig. Animals is the best Pink Floyd album. But, you left out the best part of that line from the Dogs. It's the part that every corporate-ladder-climbing-scumbag engages in:
"You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to......So that when they turn their backs on you, you'll get the chance to put the knife in"
Micheal Moore openly admits his bias. He's said it over and over that the movie is an op-ed piece. And, news programs frequently use selective editing and out-of-context statements. It's not any harder to do via radio or TV than in a movie.
Many people have the mistaken impression that Fox News is politically neutral. "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide". C'mon, who is really trying to hide obvious bias? At least MM, admits to his bias.
In fact, I would be willing to bet more people will recognize the bias and opinion of this movie than are able to discern bias in radio and television news. Every criticism of MM could be just as easily made of every daily news broadcast, but somehow that doesn't warrant the hype you see over this movie.
I still see no difference between the two mediums other than the fact that TV and radio are more far reaching and can use the ultimate tool of propaganda: repetition. That is, say it enough times and people will start to believe it's true.
I wonder why people get so upset about two hour left-wing propaganda film that will be seen by less people than listen to Rush Limbaugh each week. Seriously, we have 24/7 right-wing propaganda with Fox News. Rush is on what?, three hours a day, five days a week? Not to mention Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, etc.
Why isn't the rest of the news media questioning the bias, innuendo and fabrications of these sources the way they are going after Michael Moore? Why is a two hour film so much more dangerous and worthy of great debate while round-the-clock right-wing propaganda goes mostly unchallenged?
Insightful?!? This is moderated as insightful? So, according to the smug, condescending pinhead, people over age 45 are incapable of rationally assessing issues regarding nuclear energy because they've all been been brainwashed by Hollywood? Get off your punkass high horse.
Nuclear energy may be the lesser of two evils, but to call it "environmentally friendly" is absurd. You would understand that were not young, stupid and brainwashed by modern propaganda.
Do you how you turn a tree-hugging-hippie-hating, pro-nuclear-engery-advocating, fox-news-watching-SUV-driving-yuppie-scumbag into a ranting Earth-first-type-Greenie? Tell them you're building a nuke plant at the end of their street. Not that they're scared of radiation or anything. It's because their $400,000 custom home is now worth squat and they've got $300,000 in principle yet to pay off. Even those who ridicule the "not-in-my-backyard" types cry foul when it's their backyard.
It's all about money. If the sea levels were to rise to the point where the mansions in Malibu and Cape Code were swept into the sea, you'd suddenly find a lot of believers. Same with nuclear energy. Many will proclaim it's safeness and environmental friendliness until the next Chernobyl happens. It may be our only alternative at this point, but to call it safe and good for the environment is just plain silly.
This is "insightful"? Do you know any Japanese people? Have you spent any time in Japan? My wife is Japanese and I've spent considerable time in Japan. I can assure you that they get angry and express that anger frequently. "Confused" is a strong word in their culture? Give me a break. You don't know what you're talking about.
I'll give you that not all of New Mexico can be considered beautiful, but there's a heck of a lot more to New Mexico than what you'll see while driving on I-40. Jeez. That's like judging California by what you see driving from Barstow to Sacramento. And, Texas is beautiful?!? What part exactly? I've been in just about every nook and cranny of that state and I never saw anything I would call beautiful. Next time you're in NM, take a drive in the mountains north of Santa Fe. There's a good reason why Texans come to NM when they go on vacation.
Nice sentiment, but I think you sent your letter to the wrong company. If Apple alone were setting the price, I'm sure it would be less than $0.50/song. You should send your letter to the big five record companies, not Apple. Here's what likely transpired during negotiations:
Apple: We refuse to sell songs for more than $0.99.
Record Company Cartel: Fine. We will no longer license our music to you.
Apple: Well, crap. We've stake our company's future on iTunes/iPod. OK, $1.25 it is.
The the owners of the content still have more power than the distributers.
Read the post. No one claimed that any processor was faster than another due to superior multitasking in OS X. He just said it allowed him to be more productive because he can continue to work while the processor performs heavy lifting in the background. If someone can perform multiple tasks simultaneously, then they are more productive. If you have wait for your PC to finish before moving on, you lose time and money.
BTW, pointing out an aspect were one system is superior to another does not make one a zealot.
It's true that OS X has far superior multi-tasking relative to Windows. When I do a processor intensive task on my Windows boxes, I have to walk away and let it finish. I'm not sure why more people don't bring this issue up. Being able to perform other tasks and have the system and other apps remain responsive while encoding video in the background is huge productivity enhancer.
Well, Quicktime is not the only reason. It's about selling iPods and increasing the sales volume at the iTunes music store.
But, what is missing from comments on both sides of this argument is the tremendous increase in Quicktime distribution that has resulted from iTunes, the iPod and the HP deal. Remember iTunes-installed=Quicktime-installed. And, that's the primary reason why Apple does not want to make a deal with Real. With the HP deal, Apple now has the second largest PC manufacturer in the world shipping Quicktime on every one of their PCs. Striking a deal with Real would reduce the number of potential Quicktime installations.
If Apple can continue to their current success, Quicktime will regain the number two spot in the media player wars. In other words, Apple's iPod/iTunes success has created a Quicktime distribution juggernaut. It's saving Quicktime from it's floundering third-place postion. That's what scares the hell out of Real and that's why Jobs told them to take a flying leap.
Alas, you still must mount the server first. Although much improved, the network browser is still not as good Windows (God, it pains me to say that since networking on Mac's used to be sooo easy). Also, I just discovered that once mounted, you can't browse the files from the Network icon, only from the Sidebar or Computer. Jeez! One step forward and two back. Oh, well.
Many times it is appropriate to be reject or be skeptical of sources. Often they come from biased sources like the AMA or the Harvard Medical School. Heck, I could show you studies from Philip-Morris that prove that cigarette smoking isn't harmful to your health.
So, let me rephrase my request. Show me a study from an independent and unbiased source that substantiates your claim. A made no claim that few lawsuits were BS, I only asked that you back up your claim.
Let's see here. All technologies developed by Microsoft and/or Intel are good and will be successful. All technologies developed by other companies or by standards bodies suck and will fail. That's the theme of everything this guy writes. He's has no technical background or engineering training at all, his opinions are lame and Slashdot should ignore him.
There is a big difference between implementing VoIP in the enterprise versus implementing it over the internet. Yes, VoIP works well in a closed environment within a corporation where you have complete control of the network. Implementing it on the internet is a far more difficult task.
Regardless, I think the original post was stating a truism from an efficiency point of view rather than a technological one. The disadvantage of circuit switch networks, at least the one that packet-switching is supposed to address, is that circuit-switched lines nail up a circuit and the bandwidth is committed even during intervals when no voice/data are transmitted. Packet-switching is supposedly more efficient since the circuit isn't nailed-up. Packets are transmitted "as-needed. However in practice, packet-switching is just as inefficient because once you add up the overhead and implement QoS, the bandwidth efficiency is often less than fifty percent.
All of this really doesn't matter in the public network. The phone companies have billions of dollars worth of paid-for, circuit-switched equipment. The migration to packet-switching in the public network is going to take a long, long time. Cisco has been trying to get them to budge for many years, but the truth is that the existing network is very good and far more reliable than anything Cisco or anybody else is offering.
Wow. That the best explanation I've heard. In fact, it's the only one that makes sense. Like I said in my post, I can usually surmise the reasoning behind a design decision, but I wasn't able to do that with this one.
That said, I'd still like navigation added to the menu because it's convenient and is virtually a de-facto standard. Heck, lately Apple breaks it's own user interface guidelines regularly so I don't see any reason for strict adherence in this case.
No, it does remain "inexplicable". The question I posed in post was "can anyone think of a good reason to leave out a very frequently used feature that is found in all other browsers?". Since no one has been able to provide a good answer, including you, I think I made my point. As for my wife, like me, she has grown used to using a very convenient feature. Jeez, this place is just full dimwitted smartasses.
As I stated in my post, I am aware of keyboard shortcuts for navigation and I do use them sometimes. But, I often prefer to navigate by the mouse alone. Navigation via the contextual menu is the best and most common way to do this. The decision to leave it out seems arbitrary and makes it difficult for the millions of folks who have grown used to the method.
Slashdot Mirror
I've been using the H-K iSub subwoofer with my old G3 iMac for years now and I really like it. But, H-K stopped selling it separately when Apple took the speakers out of the iMac with the table lamp design.
I wonder if it would work with the new flat-panel design since they have put the speaker back into the design. I've searched around a bit for an answer, but haven't found any information.
I suppose I should just wait until it's in the stores and bring my iSub down and plug it in.
...jeez, WMP 10's appearance is, like, a thousand times worse.
:-)
Like many long-time Mac users, I'm not happy with the brushed aluminum Apple is using for so many of their apps, including the Finder.
But, my God, WMP 10 is just awful in comparison.
Next time I find myself getting annoyed with OS X's faux-metal theme, I'm going to force myself to crank up my PC and launch WMP 10.
It's always important to remind yourself that things could be worse even on my minor, inconsequential matters.
You mean something like this?
s /A ppleStore.woa/72302/wo/6v6QCHjkLRe72TDatp81JD3IO7V /1.3.0.6.10.3.3.1.15.0
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObject
So, let's see. I can get a complete, well-equipped G5 computer with a 20" monitor for $1899. Yet their stand-alone 20" monitor is $1299.
My first thought was "wow, that means the cost of building the computer part must be less than $600". Then I came to my senses and realized that it really means the stand-alone monitors must have huge profit margins. I've always felt that their monitors were the most overpriced products in their portfolio. I think this proves it.
No flames, please. I'm a major Mac-head. I just thought the cost difference between the products was revealing.
People regularly complain about the iPod's relatively small battery capacity. A video iPod would be much worse.
Ninety percent of the time, an iPod does nothing more than decode MP3's from a RAM cache and drive a pair of headphones.
If you add to that a backlit color LCD, a WiFi transceiver and video decoding, you'd be lucky to get an hour's worth of play time. For that reason, I don't expect to see a video iPod any time soon.
All these economic "experts" just crack me up the way they declare to know what the future holds. It's a joke. They act as though their economic theories are as strong as the physical laws. Guesses. That's all they are.
Outsourcing might create new and better jobs in the long run. But, it might not.
One thing's for sure. Telling people who have lost their job due to outsourcing (or insourcing, for that matter) that it's going to benefit them long term is insane. No one can predict that with any certainty. And, so far, they've been wrong.
Even worse, they make it sound as if the corporations are doing the laid-off worker a favor and/or they are doing it for the long term benefit of the country. Nonsense. They are doing it to cut costs today. They're shopping for labor outside the US for the same reason people shop at Walmart. To save a buck today. Tomorrow doesn't matter.
Neither the long term welfare of the American worker nor long term economic effects enter into their decision making process to outsource labor.
Love your sig. Animals is the best Pink Floyd album. But, you left out the best part of that line from the Dogs. It's the part that every corporate-ladder-climbing-scumbag engages in:
...So that when they turn their backs on you, you'll get the chance to put the knife in"
"You have to be trusted by the people that you lie to...
Micheal Moore openly admits his bias. He's said it over and over that the movie is an op-ed piece. And, news programs frequently use selective editing and out-of-context statements. It's not any harder to do via radio or TV than in a movie.
Many people have the mistaken impression that Fox News is politically neutral. "Fair and Balanced" and "We report, you decide". C'mon, who is really trying to hide obvious bias? At least MM, admits to his bias.
In fact, I would be willing to bet more people will recognize the bias and opinion of this movie than are able to discern bias in radio and television news. Every criticism of MM could be just as easily made of every daily news broadcast, but somehow that doesn't warrant the hype you see over this movie.
I still see no difference between the two mediums other than the fact that TV and radio are more far reaching and can use the ultimate tool of propaganda: repetition. That is, say it enough times and people will start to believe it's true.
I wonder why people get so upset about two hour left-wing propaganda film that will be seen by less people than listen to Rush Limbaugh each week. Seriously, we have 24/7 right-wing propaganda with Fox News. Rush is on what?, three hours a day, five days a week? Not to mention Hannity, Savage, O'Reilly, etc.
Why isn't the rest of the news media questioning the bias, innuendo and fabrications of these sources the way they are going after Michael Moore? Why is a two hour film so much more dangerous and worthy of great debate while round-the-clock right-wing propaganda goes mostly unchallenged?
Insightful?!? This is moderated as insightful? So, according to the smug, condescending pinhead, people over age 45 are incapable of rationally assessing issues regarding nuclear energy because they've all been been brainwashed by Hollywood? Get off your punkass high horse.
Nuclear energy may be the lesser of two evils, but to call it "environmentally friendly" is absurd. You would understand that were not young, stupid and brainwashed by modern propaganda.
Do you how you turn a tree-hugging-hippie-hating, pro-nuclear-engery-advocating, fox-news-watching-SUV-driving-yuppie-scumbag into a ranting Earth-first-type-Greenie? Tell them you're building a nuke plant at the end of their street. Not that they're scared of radiation or anything. It's because their $400,000 custom home is now worth squat and they've got $300,000 in principle yet to pay off. Even those who ridicule the "not-in-my-backyard" types cry foul when it's their backyard.
It's all about money. If the sea levels were to rise to the point where the mansions in Malibu and Cape Code were swept into the sea, you'd suddenly find a lot of believers. Same with nuclear energy. Many will proclaim it's safeness and environmental friendliness until the next Chernobyl happens. It may be our only alternative at this point, but to call it safe and good for the environment is just plain silly.
This is "insightful"? Do you know any Japanese people? Have you spent any time in Japan? My wife is Japanese and I've spent considerable time in Japan. I can assure you that they get angry and express that anger frequently. "Confused" is a strong word in their culture? Give me a break. You don't know what you're talking about.
I'll give you that not all of New Mexico can be considered beautiful, but there's a heck of a lot more to New Mexico than what you'll see while driving on I-40. Jeez. That's like judging California by what you see driving from Barstow to Sacramento. And, Texas is beautiful?!? What part exactly? I've been in just about every nook and cranny of that state and I never saw anything I would call beautiful. Next time you're in NM, take a drive in the mountains north of Santa Fe. There's a good reason why Texans come to NM when they go on vacation.
Nice sentiment, but I think you sent your letter to the wrong company. If Apple alone were setting the price, I'm sure it would be less than $0.50/song. You should send your letter to the big five record companies, not Apple. Here's what likely transpired during negotiations:
Apple: We refuse to sell songs for more than $0.99.
Record Company Cartel: Fine. We will no longer license our music to you.
Apple: Well, crap. We've stake our company's future on iTunes/iPod. OK, $1.25 it is.
The the owners of the content still have more power than the distributers.
Read the post. No one claimed that any processor was faster than another due to superior multitasking in OS X. He just said it allowed him to be more productive because he can continue to work while the processor performs heavy lifting in the background. If someone can perform multiple tasks simultaneously, then they are more productive. If you have wait for your PC to finish before moving on, you lose time and money.
BTW, pointing out an aspect were one system is superior to another does not make one a zealot.
It's true that OS X has far superior multi-tasking relative to Windows. When I do a processor intensive task on my Windows boxes, I have to walk away and let it finish. I'm not sure why more people don't bring this issue up. Being able to perform other tasks and have the system and other apps remain responsive while encoding video in the background is huge productivity enhancer.
Well, Quicktime is not the only reason. It's about selling iPods and increasing the sales volume at the iTunes music store.
But, what is missing from comments on both sides of this argument is the tremendous increase in Quicktime distribution that has resulted from iTunes, the iPod and the HP deal. Remember iTunes-installed=Quicktime-installed. And, that's the primary reason why Apple does not want to make a deal with Real. With the HP deal, Apple now has the second largest PC manufacturer in the world shipping Quicktime on every one of their PCs. Striking a deal with Real would reduce the number of potential Quicktime installations.
If Apple can continue to their current success, Quicktime will regain the number two spot in the media player wars. In other words, Apple's iPod/iTunes success has created a Quicktime distribution juggernaut. It's saving Quicktime from it's floundering third-place postion. That's what scares the hell out of Real and that's why Jobs told them to take a flying leap.
Alas, you still must mount the server first. Although much improved, the network browser is still not as good Windows (God, it pains me to say that since networking on Mac's used to be sooo easy). Also, I just discovered that once mounted, you can't browse the files from the Network icon, only from the Sidebar or Computer. Jeez! One step forward and two back. Oh, well.
The 10.3 Finder's Network Browser now seems to be finished:
1 - Connected servers now appear on the Desktop and in the Sidebar when the preferences have been set for this option.
2 - Connected servers can be ejected via normal means.
3 - Password options are now present including Keychain functions.
4 - User folders no longer appear twice.
I'm a happy camper.
Also, a blurring problem when in edit mode in iPhoto 4 appears to be fixed as well.
Many times it is appropriate to be reject or be skeptical of sources. Often they come from biased sources like the AMA or the Harvard Medical School. Heck, I could show you studies from Philip-Morris that prove that cigarette smoking isn't harmful to your health.
So, let me rephrase my request. Show me a study from an independent and unbiased source that substantiates your claim. A made no claim that few lawsuits were BS, I only asked that you back up your claim.
"...but tons of malpractice cases are bullshit..."
Please cite the source of this information. And, "because the AMA says so" doesn't count.
Let's see here. All technologies developed by Microsoft and/or Intel are good and will be successful. All technologies developed by other companies or by standards bodies suck and will fail. That's the theme of everything this guy writes. He's has no technical background or engineering training at all, his opinions are lame and Slashdot should ignore him.
There is a big difference between implementing VoIP in the enterprise versus implementing it over the internet. Yes, VoIP works well in a closed environment within a corporation where you have complete control of the network. Implementing it on the internet is a far more difficult task.
Regardless, I think the original post was stating a truism from an efficiency point of view rather than a technological one. The disadvantage of circuit switch networks, at least the one that packet-switching is supposed to address, is that circuit-switched lines nail up a circuit and the bandwidth is committed even during intervals when no voice/data are transmitted. Packet-switching is supposedly more efficient since the circuit isn't nailed-up. Packets are transmitted "as-needed. However in practice, packet-switching is just as inefficient because once you add up the overhead and implement QoS, the bandwidth efficiency is often less than fifty percent.
All of this really doesn't matter in the public network. The phone companies have billions of dollars worth of paid-for, circuit-switched equipment. The migration to packet-switching in the public network is going to take a long, long time. Cisco has been trying to get them to budge for many years, but the truth is that the existing network is very good and far more reliable than anything Cisco or anybody else is offering.
Wow. That the best explanation I've heard. In fact, it's the only one that makes sense. Like I said in my post, I can usually surmise the reasoning behind a design decision, but I wasn't able to do that with this one.
That said, I'd still like navigation added to the menu because it's convenient and is virtually a de-facto standard. Heck, lately Apple breaks it's own user interface guidelines regularly so I don't see any reason for strict adherence in this case.
Thanks for the intelligent answer.
Cheers
No, it does remain "inexplicable". The question I posed in post was "can anyone think of a good reason to leave out a very frequently used feature that is found in all other browsers?". Since no one has been able to provide a good answer, including you, I think I made my point. As for my wife, like me, she has grown used to using a very convenient feature. Jeez, this place is just full dimwitted smartasses.
As I stated in my post, I am aware of keyboard shortcuts for navigation and I do use them sometimes. But, I often prefer to navigate by the mouse alone. Navigation via the contextual menu is the best and most common way to do this. The decision to leave it out seems arbitrary and makes it difficult for the millions of folks who have grown used to the method.