Yeah this is really interesting. Especially because Apple are known for overpricing things. Does anyone else sort of get the feeling that they are losing money on the sales and making it back in app store? If they were doing that - it's a completely different to their usual strategy.
Actually, Apple apparently has a healthy profit margin in the iPads. iSuppli's teardown of the original iPads estimates the costs of materials + Manufacturing at $230 to $346, depending on the model. Of course that does not include R&D, marketing and support costs, and it may be a little "optimistic", but still it suggests that Apple could actually charge less for the same products and still make a profit.
The graphs seem to indicate that the cost is still north of $12,000 which isn't exactly cheap.
Dude, you are reading the graph incorrectly. Look carefully at the (logarithmic) scale: the cost is actually around $30,000 !! (No, those are not factorial signs, I am just expressing my shock by the 30 thousand figure.)
Yes, I know, that actually supports your point even more strongly: while the cost was reduced dramatically from $100 million, it seems to be leveling at a cost that is still way too high for many practical applications in the clinical field outside of research.
The reviewers tested five laptops. On the MobileMark 2007 test (which runs on Windows 7, for which the new MacBook Pros have not yet been optimized) the MacBook 15-inch (Thunderbolt) lasted 4 hours 40 minutes. That was much longer than the Dell XPS 15 (3:48), Asus N53DV-A1 (3:51), and Asus N53JF-XE1 (3:15). It was only outlasted by the HP Pavilion dv7-4283cl (5:46), a much inferior system that scored last or second-to-last in all the other tests, losing sometimes by a huge margin.
So I would say that yes, the new MB Pro has a very, very decent battery life especially for such a powerful portable machine.
100 mbps was WAY too slow even for the early years of the Internet! In the late nineties most of the people getting online had at least a 56 kbps modem, that is 560,000 times faster than 100 mbps.
Now, 100 Mbps, that's a different story. Most people have internet access in the vicinities of 10 Mbps, so most people would consider 100 Mbps very fast now, but I agree that our perception will likely be very different in just a few years..
Same thought I have not seen the prices yet, but I assume Apple used the product change for yet another pricehike like it has happend so often in the past.
Huh? In 2003 I bought a base model 15" Aluminum PowerBook when they first came out. The price at the time was $2000 (I did get an Edu discount, but that's beside the point).
Since then the base 15" PowerBook / MacBook Pro has always kept the same price through the upgrades except once, when the price actually went *down* to the current $1800.
Yea, it can be done; anything can be done with sufficient time, money, and skill.
Assuming it is as hard as you say (although by most accounts it is NOT hard at all):
We are talking about druglords here. That's one of the most profitable businesses in the world. They have all the money they would need to hire all the people with the necessary skills in Mexico for all the time needed to accomplish the task and perfect said skills.
If it is easier, faster, and most certainly cheaper to bring the arms from the US and modify them in Mexico, the will do it. Faster: absolutely. Easier: certainly easier than sending the drugs in the opposite direction, as the arms are still legal in the US and the drugs are illegal in both countries. Cheaper: most certainly cheaper than paying arms dealers for shipping black market (illegal) rifles from Africa, Middle East, Russia, or wherever they get them from.
Please have the courtesy of taking your time to read the article that both rubycodez and I linked. The same article that denies that 90% is the correct figure also says that the 17% figure presented by Fox News is also incorrect (not surprising, given the source).
They say that they do not have precise information on the total number of guns seized in Mexico in each year. But using the 29,000 figure used by Fox and others for 2007+2008, the actual percentage of guns proven to come from the US is between 34 and 36% (because it is between 9,950 and 10,347 guns, or twice the 5,114 guns reported by Fox News).
They ignore the detail that only a tiny fraction of guns captured are traced. And that that tiny fraction does NOT include the AK-47's captured (illegal in the USA), or any other assault rifles (also generally illegal in the USA).
What you can easily buy in the USA to resell (illegally) in Mexico is handguns and SEMI-automatic versions of those fully automatic weapons being used by the drugloards.
Yeah, but it is trivial to convert a semi-automatic version of an AK-47 to fully automatic, and the instructions are easily available in the internet (Google is your friend). Of course this is extremely illegal, but it's not like druglords care much about the legality of their actions.
The accurate statement is 90% of traceable guns that were submitted to the AFT were U.S. origin, and they were submitted because they were likely to be of U.S. origin.
Actually the part I emphasized in bold is incorrect also. From the FactCheck article you linked (emphasis mine):
Correction, April 22: We originally concluded that Obama’s 90 percent figure was “not true” and based on a “badly biased” sample of recovered guns. We are retracting both those characterizations, and we apologize to our readers for this error. We have rewritten the article throughout to correct this. Our error was to think we had confirmed that Mexican officials submit for tracing only those guns they believe likely to have come from the U.S. Law enforcement officials say they don’t know if that’s the case.
Installation of itunes requires a reboot of the system. I wonder why this is needed. Anyone?
Very strange. I just updated iTunes also, but in my case it did not ask me to reboot. Perhaps we are using different OSes or versions? (Mine is Snow Leopard 10.6.4, I was planning on updating to 10.6.5 later tonight because that one does require a reboot).
That seems somewhat silly, and I actually think you're wrong about the semantics.
What a coincidence, I think you are (very) wrong about the semantics!
What does "America" mean?
From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):
America (also the Americas): a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492. used as a name for the United States.
Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).
The most obvious answer (and ignoring the handful of towns around the world named America) is that it's an abbreviated form of "The United States of America."
Not obvious at all since the term America precedes the existence of the USA by over 270 years. In Waldssemuller's map the label "America" is well entrenched in the South American part of the generally unexplored territory (hint: third row, first column, near the top), and there was a reason for that (hint: first row, third column, right at the top: the guy who charted the South American coast but never visited North America). Even in much more modern maps that do include most of the territories the label America is placed next to South America (but probably only for layout reasons).
Of course, in the 1770's the people of a very small percentage of America gained independence and decided to call that small strip of land "The United States of America", a name as brain dead as calling a very small country in the middle of Africa "The Central African Republic".
Why is it brain dead? Because now Central African refers to either someone from that country, or from any other of the adjacent countries that by some criteria are located in the center of Africa. In fact, the case of the USA is even worse, as the new "America" wasn't even close to being near the center of the old America.
To what else could it possibly refer? [...] Likewise, if you're referring to both continents it doesn't make sense, because they -- the landmass as a whole -- is referred to as the Americas (pl).
The term "The Americas" was introduced into the English language precisely because of the conflict with the use of "America" to refer to the country.
It's possible that in a historical sense "America" (s) could be used to refer to the entire landmass, but this is most certainly not a modern usage. Deprecated!
Nope. As I showed you that definition of "America" is not only historical, but still in use. The fact that many Canadians and pretty much anyone from the rest of "The Americas" consider themselves "American" should clue you that the revisionist definition for the word is actually held by the minority worldwide.
So, if you were a Canadian it would make perfect sense to say you were either from North America or from the Americas. Neither statement is particularly useful nor descriptive but they would be accurate.
Could you please get out of your bubble and travel down to South America? You'd see that NO ONE there call USAians "americans" since that term is used to refer to themselves (USAians are usually called "yankees" or "United Statians")
Or "Gringos". While in its origin the word "Gringo" was used as an insult, it has lost that connotation a very long time ago. Sometimes it is used to refer to people of other English speaking countries, but that is very rare.
Or "North American". Of course that is technically incorrect as Canadians and Mexicans are also North American, but still it is frequently used to refer specifically to people from the US.
But you are right, the term "American" would be used to refer to people from South, Central, North America, or the Caribbean, not only from the USA.
Very interesting comments, but you still didn't answer dreadlord76's main question: Where are you getting the information that supports all these assertions about Foxconn?
We are not questioning if what you are saying is true, we just want to discriminate facts from educated guesses.
you can't get google maps on iOS because there's already a built-in maps app. it doesn't matter if the google maps app used the underlying iOS map services, it's that the google maps app duplicates the stock map app's functionality.
First, the "stock map app" itself uses Google Maps. Don't believe me? Look at the five-letter word at the lower left corner of the map screen here. That's why there is no Google Maps for iPhone, the Maps application itself is (at this time) Google maps.
But more to the point: How do you explain iPhone apps like MapQuest, Waze, and others, including those from GPS manufacturers, each of which provide their own mapping and driving directions technologies, clearly competing with the built-in maps app?
In fact, the OP said he uses (used?) Entourage, which means that he has a Mac (or at least had one recently).
One important thing the AC did not mention: You can easily export from Mail to mbox format (just select the messages you want and choose Save As... and "Raw Message Source" format). mbox is unlikely to go away any time soon, and is anyway text-based so the info will always be recoverable.
Having an exit strategy is crucial when choosing a format for your data, be it email, music, photos, word processing, etc.
Just create separate playlists -- there are playlist folders you can use as well. If you are talking about the file system organization, you can ask iTunes to leave the files alone, giving you full control over how your music files are organized.
What I want is something like this: Audio media ->Music -->Jazz --->Madeleine Peyroux [...]
Yes, and you can do exactly that by either of the ways that the GP poster suggested: playlist folders within playlist folders (see the File Menu and the left panel in iTunes), or by creating a structure of file system folders and telling iTunes to leave the files alone.
BTW, the file system organization (which seems to be what you want) has a huge drawback: you will frequently find files that you want in more than one category.
Examples: - Nat King Cole songs that are not Christmas songs. - Songs by Metal groups from the UK
You can do that very easily with playlist folders within playlist folders.
If any respectable open source team member had seen Javascript events being passed to the keyboard buffer, he or she would have screamed blue bloody murder and it would have become a priority one bug faster than you can say "the developer who wrote that shit has just lost code submission privileges on this project".
Given that most Safari developers working for Apple are very respectable Open Source team members that contribute heavily to WebKit, I will have to say that your assertion is simply not true.
So I checked apple.com, and the *upgrade* is only $29, but if you're running an older 10.4 system then you need the full OS. That costs $170.
No, that's Apple trying to recover some of the money they didn't get when you skipped Leopard by selling you a package that includes iWork and iLife. But you can simply buy the regular, $29 version of Snow Leopard and install it directly:
Did you really think they expected you to install Leopard and then Snow Leopard on top of it if you decided to make a clean install or if your drive crashed and you were installing on a new drive? Come on, they are not that evil!
Not to be overly pedantic, but I don't really see how it wasn't blatently obvious that they were talking about input resolution in the summary. They referred to the touch screen portion of the device when listing DPI, not display resolution.
The article said "2450 dpi touch resolution screen" which is relatively clear, if you know what they are talking about (most people don't).
But the summary said "2450 dpi resolution touch screen" which is very ambiguous, almost misleading.
A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container.
That's very odd. I can definitely export to H.264 + AAC in an MP4 container. Maybe it's because I'm still using Leopard (or QuickTime 7.6.6) ?
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah this is really interesting. Especially because Apple are known for overpricing things. Does anyone else sort of get the feeling that they are losing money on the sales and making it back in app store? If they were doing that - it's a completely different to their usual strategy.
Actually, Apple apparently has a healthy profit margin in the iPads. iSuppli's teardown of the original iPads estimates the costs of materials + Manufacturing at $230 to $346, depending on the model. Of course that does not include R&D, marketing and support costs, and it may be a little "optimistic", but still it suggests that Apple could actually charge less for the same products and still make a profit.
The graphs seem to indicate that the cost is still north of $12,000 which isn't exactly cheap.
Dude, you are reading the graph incorrectly. Look carefully at the (logarithmic) scale: the cost is actually around $30,000 !! (No, those are not factorial signs, I am just expressing my shock by the 30 thousand figure.)
Yes, I know, that actually supports your point even more strongly: while the cost was reduced dramatically from $100 million, it seems to be leveling at a cost that is still way too high for many practical applications in the clinical field outside of research.
I see you also didn't RTFA.
The reviewers tested five laptops. On the MobileMark 2007 test (which runs on Windows 7, for which the new MacBook Pros have not yet been optimized) the MacBook 15-inch (Thunderbolt) lasted 4 hours 40 minutes. That was much longer than the Dell XPS 15 (3:48), Asus N53DV-A1 (3:51), and Asus N53JF-XE1 (3:15). It was only outlasted by the HP Pavilion dv7-4283cl (5:46), a much inferior system that scored last or second-to-last in all the other tests, losing sometimes by a huge margin.
So I would say that yes, the new MB Pro has a very, very decent battery life especially for such a powerful portable machine.
100 mbps was WAY too slow even for the early years of the Internet! In the late nineties most of the people getting online had at least a 56 kbps modem, that is 560,000 times faster than 100 mbps.
Now, 100 Mbps, that's a different story. Most people have internet access in the vicinities of 10 Mbps, so most people would consider 100 Mbps very fast now, but I agree that our perception will likely be very different in just a few years..
Same thought I have not seen the prices yet, but I assume Apple used the product change for yet another pricehike like it has happend so often in the past.
Huh? In 2003 I bought a base model 15" Aluminum PowerBook when they first came out. The price at the time was $2000 (I did get an Edu discount, but that's beside the point).
Since then the base 15" PowerBook / MacBook Pro has always kept the same price through the upgrades except once, when the price actually went *down* to the current $1800.
Yea, it can be done; anything can be done with sufficient time, money, and skill.
Assuming it is as hard as you say (although by most accounts it is NOT hard at all):
We are talking about druglords here. That's one of the most profitable businesses in the world. They have all the money they would need to hire all the people with the necessary skills in Mexico for all the time needed to accomplish the task and perfect said skills.
If it is easier, faster, and most certainly cheaper to bring the arms from the US and modify them in Mexico, the will do it. Faster: absolutely. Easier: certainly easier than sending the drugs in the opposite direction, as the arms are still legal in the US and the drugs are illegal in both countries. Cheaper: most certainly cheaper than paying arms dealers for shipping black market (illegal) rifles from Africa, Middle East, Russia, or wherever they get them from.
Please have the courtesy of taking your time to read the article that both rubycodez and I linked. The same article that denies that 90% is the correct figure also says that the 17% figure presented by Fox News is also incorrect (not surprising, given the source).
They say that they do not have precise information on the total number of guns seized in Mexico in each year. But using the 29,000 figure used by Fox and others for 2007+2008, the actual percentage of guns proven to come from the US is between 34 and 36% (because it is between 9,950 and 10,347 guns, or twice the 5,114 guns reported by Fox News).
They ignore the detail that only a tiny fraction of guns captured are traced. And that that tiny fraction does NOT include the AK-47's captured (illegal in the USA), or any other assault rifles (also generally illegal in the USA).
What you can easily buy in the USA to resell (illegally) in Mexico is handguns and SEMI-automatic versions of those fully automatic weapons being used by the drugloards.
Yeah, but it is trivial to convert a semi-automatic version of an AK-47 to fully automatic, and the instructions are easily available in the internet (Google is your friend). Of course this is extremely illegal, but it's not like druglords care much about the legality of their actions.
The accurate statement is 90% of traceable guns that were submitted to the AFT were U.S. origin, and they were submitted because they were likely to be of U.S. origin.
Actually the part I emphasized in bold is incorrect also. From the FactCheck article you linked (emphasis mine):
Installation of itunes requires a reboot of the system. I wonder why this is needed. Anyone?
Very strange. I just updated iTunes also, but in my case it did not ask me to reboot. Perhaps we are using different OSes or versions? (Mine is Snow Leopard 10.6.4, I was planning on updating to 10.6.5 later tonight because that one does require a reboot).
That seems somewhat silly, and I actually think you're wrong about the semantics.
What a coincidence, I think you are (very) wrong about the semantics!
What does "America" mean?
From the New Oxford American (oh the irony!) Dictionary (emphasis mine):
America (also the Americas):
a landmass in the western hemisphere that consists of the continents of North and South America joined by the Isthmus of Panama. The continent was originally inhabited by American Indians and Inuits. The northeast coastline of North America was visited by Norse seamen in the 8th or 9th century, but for the modern world the continent was first reached by Christopher Columbus in 1492.
used as a name for the United States.
Note that the definition of the landmass precedes the definition of the USA. Similar precedence will be found also in Wikipedia, Merriam-Webster, and most other authoritative sources (admittedly not all, although all will acknowledge both meanings).
The most obvious answer (and ignoring the handful of towns around the world named America) is that it's an abbreviated form of "The United States of America."
Not obvious at all since the term America precedes the existence of the USA by over 270 years. In Waldssemuller's map the label "America" is well entrenched in the South American part of the generally unexplored territory (hint: third row, first column, near the top), and there was a reason for that (hint: first row, third column, right at the top: the guy who charted the South American coast but never visited North America). Even in much more modern maps that do include most of the territories the label America is placed next to South America (but probably only for layout reasons).
Of course, in the 1770's the people of a very small percentage of America gained independence and decided to call that small strip of land "The United States of America", a name as brain dead as calling a very small country in the middle of Africa "The Central African Republic".
Why is it brain dead? Because now Central African refers to either someone from that country, or from any other of the adjacent countries that by some criteria are located in the center of Africa. In fact, the case of the USA is even worse, as the new "America" wasn't even close to being near the center of the old America.
To what else could it possibly refer? [...] Likewise, if you're referring to both continents it doesn't make sense, because they -- the landmass as a whole -- is referred to as the Americas (pl).
The term "The Americas" was introduced into the English language precisely because of the conflict with the use of "America" to refer to the country.
It's possible that in a historical sense "America" (s) could be used to refer to the entire landmass, but this is most certainly not a modern usage. Deprecated!
Nope. As I showed you that definition of "America" is not only historical, but still in use. The fact that many Canadians and pretty much anyone from the rest of "The Americas" consider themselves "American" should clue you that the revisionist definition for the word is actually held by the minority worldwide.
So, if you were a Canadian it would make perfect sense to say you were either from North America or from the Americas. Neither statement is particularly useful nor descriptive but they would be accurate.
So when a German says he's fro
[I know it's offtopic]
Mmmmmmhhhhmmmmm...
Could you please get out of your bubble and travel down to South America? You'd see that NO ONE there call USAians "americans" since that term is used to refer to themselves (USAians are usually called "yankees" or "United Statians")
Or "Gringos". While in its origin the word "Gringo" was used as an insult, it has lost that connotation a very long time ago. Sometimes it is used to refer to people of other English speaking countries, but that is very rare.
Or "North American". Of course that is technically incorrect as Canadians and Mexicans are also North American, but still it is frequently used to refer specifically to people from the US.
But you are right, the term "American" would be used to refer to people from South, Central, North America, or the Caribbean, not only from the USA.
Very interesting comments, but you still didn't answer dreadlord76's main question: Where are you getting the information that supports all these assertions about Foxconn?
We are not questioning if what you are saying is true, we just want to discriminate facts from educated guesses.
you can't get google maps on iOS because there's already a built-in maps app. it doesn't matter if the google maps app used the underlying iOS map services, it's that the google maps app duplicates the stock map app's functionality.
First, the "stock map app" itself uses Google Maps. Don't believe me? Look at the five-letter word at the lower left corner of the map screen here. That's why there is no Google Maps for iPhone, the Maps application itself is (at this time) Google maps.
But more to the point: How do you explain iPhone apps like MapQuest, Waze, and others, including those from GPS manufacturers, each of which provide their own mapping and driving directions technologies, clearly competing with the built-in maps app?
I agree with this.
In fact, the OP said he uses (used?) Entourage, which means that he has a Mac (or at least had one recently).
One important thing the AC did not mention: You can easily export from Mail to mbox format (just select the messages you want and choose Save As... and "Raw Message Source" format). mbox is unlikely to go away any time soon, and is anyway text-based so the info will always be recoverable.
Having an exit strategy is crucial when choosing a format for your data, be it email, music, photos, word processing, etc.
Just create separate playlists -- there are playlist folders you can use as well. If you are talking about the file system organization, you can ask iTunes to leave the files alone, giving you full control over how your music files are organized.
What I want is something like this:
Audio media
->Music
-->Jazz
--->Madeleine Peyroux
[...]
Yes, and you can do exactly that by either of the ways that the GP poster suggested: playlist folders within playlist folders (see the File Menu and the left panel in iTunes), or by creating a structure of file system folders and telling iTunes to leave the files alone.
BTW, the file system organization (which seems to be what you want) has a huge drawback: you will frequently find files that you want in more than one category.
Examples:
- Nat King Cole songs that are not Christmas songs.
- Songs by Metal groups from the UK
You can do that very easily with playlist folders within playlist folders.
If any respectable open source team member had seen Javascript events being passed to the keyboard buffer, he or she would have screamed blue bloody murder and it would have become a priority one bug faster than you can say "the developer who wrote that shit has just lost code submission privileges on this project".
Given that most Safari developers working for Apple are very respectable Open Source team members that contribute heavily to WebKit, I will have to say that your assertion is simply not true.
Ah, well. Amusing. Equally amusing was this reply:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAOtC9QfXac
So I checked apple.com, and the *upgrade* is only $29, but if you're running an older 10.4 system then you need the full OS. That costs $170.
No, that's Apple trying to recover some of the money they didn't get when you skipped Leopard by selling you a package that includes iWork and iLife. But you can simply buy the regular, $29 version of Snow Leopard and install it directly:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=806789
Did you really think they expected you to install Leopard and then Snow Leopard on top of it if you decided to make a clean install or if your drive crashed and you were installing on a new drive? Come on, they are not that evil!
BULLSHIT!
http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/typography.php
http://developer.apple.com/safaridemos/photo-transitions.php
Enough said.
BULLSHIT!
I was able to run both demos without any complaint whatsoever using the latest nightly build of Chromium for the Mac:
http://img517.imageshack.us/img517/6917/screenshot02yl.jpg
Of course I didn't change the User Agent (apparently you need an extension that I don't have for that).
So, the problem may be that you are using an older version of a browser that still does not support these features.
Enough said.
Not to be overly pedantic, but I don't really see how it wasn't blatently obvious that they were talking about input resolution in the summary. They referred to the touch screen portion of the device when listing DPI, not display resolution.
The article said "2450 dpi touch resolution screen" which is relatively clear, if you know what they are talking about (most people don't).
But the summary said "2450 dpi resolution touch screen" which is very ambiguous, almost misleading.
So yeah, you are being rather pedantic.
Thomas Jefferson had some stronger words about the Christian faith in particular, but I couldn't find them offhand.
Absolutely true. Just go to Thomas Jefferson's page in Wikiquote and search for "Christ". You will find lots of examples perfectly documented.
Jesus, have you tried Russian cheese? Forget about it.
Hmmmm.... If I had mod points I might have modded you "Informative".
Newsflash: Apple iPad Reaches ‘1 Million Sold’ Twice as Fast as iPhone.
A bit offtopic, but yesterday I realized that while quicktime pro can export to MP4 as well as MOV, if you want to use H264, you need to use the MOV container.
That's very odd. I can definitely export to H.264 + AAC in an MP4 container. Maybe it's because I'm still using Leopard (or QuickTime 7.6.6) ?