stevegmu
Jan 30, 01:57 PM
How does one buy stock anyway? (from the UK)
I have absolutely no idea on the subject, is it just a matter of buying a share at a couple of hundred dollars, watching Apple go through one of its "win" moments then selling it for a little profit ($50 or whatever) just as a starter? What about tax?
You can trade online from an e-commerce firm, such as this one--
http://www.iii.co.uk/about/
I have absolutely no idea on the subject, is it just a matter of buying a share at a couple of hundred dollars, watching Apple go through one of its "win" moments then selling it for a little profit ($50 or whatever) just as a starter? What about tax?
You can trade online from an e-commerce firm, such as this one--
http://www.iii.co.uk/about/
GroundLoop
Jan 25, 06:45 PM
The biggest cause of the stock drop was the quarterly earnings report. Essentially iPod sales in the US are flat (~5% growth year over year). That scared a lot of investors into thinking that the cash cow is almost milked dry. Then, on top of that, Apple gave an ultra-conservative estimate for Q2 base on the slowing economy and sales seasonality. Apples estimates for Q2 were WELL BELOW Wall Street's expectations.
Hickman
Hickman
Mr. Retrofire
Apr 15, 02:27 PM
App Sandboxing? Since when does Lion do that??
Even 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 do that, IIRC.
Even 10.4, 10.5 and 10.6 do that, IIRC.
bucho
Nov 3, 09:14 AM
Where's my email? :(
arnebanane
Apr 15, 03:20 AM
crane�
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_vG95AgWLPiQ/TZwal8lJjxI/AAAAAAAAF24/CJSffHeGHG0/s800/15.jpg
analog Pentax ME, iso 400, kodak b/w, scan from print
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/_vG95AgWLPiQ/TZwal8lJjxI/AAAAAAAAF24/CJSffHeGHG0/s800/15.jpg
analog Pentax ME, iso 400, kodak b/w, scan from print
LagunaSol
Apr 28, 06:19 PM
*long list of forgettable Android dreck with a few good models tossed in the mix*
Thats all i can think off.
Care to prove how these phones are "more reliable" than the iPhone?
This should be good.
Thats all i can think off.
Care to prove how these phones are "more reliable" than the iPhone?
This should be good.
trule
Jan 30, 04:30 PM
Gold goes up because of investor fears about market uncertainty and global uncertainty (and the bulk of global uncertainty is driven by US geopolitical actions).
Gold is special in that it is no ones liability. Why is that special, well "you" can borrow too much and go bankrupt, and if the bank you borrow from has too many bad loans it can go bankrupt, and then the bonds they issued become worthless, and even governments who debase their currency can go bankrupt. But gold is always gold, it cannot go bankrupt.
So when all of the above is happening right now, and it is, some people look at their paper money (cash, stock & bonds) and start to worry that all of it could go bankrupt...so they look for a little insurance in Gold, just incase the worse happens then they still have something of real value.
Gold is special in that it is no ones liability. Why is that special, well "you" can borrow too much and go bankrupt, and if the bank you borrow from has too many bad loans it can go bankrupt, and then the bonds they issued become worthless, and even governments who debase their currency can go bankrupt. But gold is always gold, it cannot go bankrupt.
So when all of the above is happening right now, and it is, some people look at their paper money (cash, stock & bonds) and start to worry that all of it could go bankrupt...so they look for a little insurance in Gold, just incase the worse happens then they still have something of real value.
ChazUK
May 1, 05:55 AM
No, you're right -- this is something totally subjective (seriously, not being snarky here [for once ;-)] )
I've just noticed that in every report I've read that has an "android slant", the phrase "smartphone OS" has been used. Whereas before, it seemed to be just "mobile OS".
I'm the first to admit that I may be reading a bit into it here. Does look suspiciously like a conspiracy theory from the outside, I imagine.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that the figure that really DOES matter is mobile platform OS share, not smartphone share. :-)
No worries, i enjoy the discussions!
Developers should shun every single report of Androids smartphone marketshare as the only thing they should worry about is total os instal base, anything else shouldn't matter to them!
(The smart phone os market share figure is used by a lot of pro Android sites as chest thumping material I will say) :)
I've just noticed that in every report I've read that has an "android slant", the phrase "smartphone OS" has been used. Whereas before, it seemed to be just "mobile OS".
I'm the first to admit that I may be reading a bit into it here. Does look suspiciously like a conspiracy theory from the outside, I imagine.
However, that doesn't change my opinion that the figure that really DOES matter is mobile platform OS share, not smartphone share. :-)
No worries, i enjoy the discussions!
Developers should shun every single report of Androids smartphone marketshare as the only thing they should worry about is total os instal base, anything else shouldn't matter to them!
(The smart phone os market share figure is used by a lot of pro Android sites as chest thumping material I will say) :)
mattster16
Sep 30, 12:20 PM
wow Matt, you must live in a special area of Minneapolis, because my experience with AT&T coverage in Minny is terrible! I was over in St. Louis Park just yesterday and my wife and I both had NO SERVICE until we got into Edina, and when my wife was in downtown at her patent lawyers office (IDC) she had 1 bar on Edge, and could not stay connected for more than 30 seconds before dropping the call. Thankfully in Prior Lake, I have decent coverage.
That's odd because I get great service in St. Louis Park (I'm in that area a lot) and I live and work downtown and get great service both indoors and out. I very rarely go below 5 bars anywhere I am in the metro area - I only experience diminished service along I-35 heading north to Duluth. My roommate has an iPhone as well and has the same experience I do. I've had AT&T now for about 3 years and have never had problems. I do agree that Sprint has great service as well in MN, I had them before the iPhone came out.
That's odd because I get great service in St. Louis Park (I'm in that area a lot) and I live and work downtown and get great service both indoors and out. I very rarely go below 5 bars anywhere I am in the metro area - I only experience diminished service along I-35 heading north to Duluth. My roommate has an iPhone as well and has the same experience I do. I've had AT&T now for about 3 years and have never had problems. I do agree that Sprint has great service as well in MN, I had them before the iPhone came out.
Jasperjax
Nov 28, 09:03 PM
Keeping it simple this year, a new toy & a book to curl up with lol
emotion
Oct 24, 08:48 AM
### Alienware is still significantly better in terms of performance specs. For $2700, you can build an Alienware with RAID HDs, etc. Biggest question for me is...is Apple still underclocking the GPU on the 15" model...??? To me, Apple's MBPs aren't as good as a value as their Mac Pro, but with this update, Apple's "in the ballpark"...and I would get the MBP over the Alienware...assuming Autodesk releases a UB of Maya soon. My two cents...
Does it come with the trolley needed to carry it? We're talking notebooks here :)
Does it come with the trolley needed to carry it? We're talking notebooks here :)
.jpg "cute love quotes pictures.")
Travis284
May 3, 11:41 PM
iOS 5 at WWDC and new iPhone hardware at an apple special event in September. You heard it here first.
chris975d
Apr 28, 04:42 PM
Confirmed by another OEM white iPhone owner.
https://twitter.com/mrkrazy1870/status/63719171464249344
Then the aftermarket replacement back manufacturers have actually known all along. Ha! And I thought my yellow and white backs were thicker (and wouldn't fit with all my cases) because they were cheap.
https://twitter.com/mrkrazy1870/status/63719171464249344
Then the aftermarket replacement back manufacturers have actually known all along. Ha! And I thought my yellow and white backs were thicker (and wouldn't fit with all my cases) because they were cheap.
clintob
Oct 23, 04:07 PM
This is actually an incorrect report that Microsoft has tried to correct, but it keeps getting reported.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
Not exactly. This is a correct report that Microsoft has tried to cloud and cover up. Essentially, Vista will be licensed on a two-machine basis, with some basic restrictions (like all software has). Nothing new there.
What's new, and what is actually a correct report, is that MS has addressed the use of their OS in a virtual environment which was never completely addressed before in their EULA and terms of use. Because virtual environments are technically different than system installs, it was a grey area. Now they are explicitly banning such use for users of any version other than the premium level. Whether or not it will be "technically" illegal, but still possible, or if it will be impossible without piracy, remains to be seen.
It's not particularly earth shattering or shocking one way or the other. All companies have their dirty little ways to make an extra buck or keep you paying them long after you should. Apple does it too.
From a business perspective, it's really not a terrible strategy by MS if they want to keep customers. The Intel Mac switch has opened the door for PC diehards to take the plunge to a Mac without the risk of being away from their cherished Windows environment. Making Vista difficult, or at least expensive, to install on these new Macs is actually not a bad strategy for MS to keep some customers iffy about making the switch. Sucks for us, but it's certainly not the first time it's been done, by MS, Apple, Adobe, or any other company.
SeanZy
Mar 11, 12:14 PM
Seriously that many people at Brea already? Wow... I work at 6... looks like I wont be getting one.
Eriden
Mar 16, 10:44 AM
How many wifi models did they have? Particularly 32GB. My friend got out of line, wondering if he would have gotten one.
IIRC, the manager said that they only had 16GB WiFi. But I had already tuned out at that point since I was there for AT&T, so I may have misheard.
IIRC, the manager said that they only had 16GB WiFi. But I had already tuned out at that point since I was there for AT&T, so I may have misheard.
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
Prof.
Sep 17, 03:55 PM
Telling myself it's an "Educational Purchase" makes me feel better about spending so much money lol.:D
http://grab.by/6rkO
http://grab.by/6rkO
firestarter
Apr 19, 04:38 PM
Now, you were complaining I used 100/100 in the CPU analogy? fine, I will change it. CPU will be 90/100 and GPU is 80/100 as the 30% increase in cpu and 30% decrease in gpu, we will see a difference of 117/100 and 56/100. Am I arguing that there will be nothing to be gained from a bump in processor speed? Definitely not! Who doesnt love the little extra power when we need it? Who doesnt want the latest in tech?
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU. Your '100 baseline' beneath which a GPU becomes unusable bears no relation to reality.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch). As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either. ;)
These are all random/nonsensical figures you've made up FX4568. Outside of gaming, there are prescious few apps that will be affected by a 30% decrease in GPU. Your '100 baseline' beneath which a GPU becomes unusable bears no relation to reality.
This will be even more true as Apple becomes better at optimising for Grand Central dispatch (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Central_Dispatch). As an example the new Final Cut Pro X is said to optimise and scale well across all sizes of systems. I'd expect a much faster processor to 'soak up' the GPU drop in this instance.
What im saying is that the downgrading of the GPU outweights the upgrading of the CPU in terms of OVERALL performance.
No. Outside of gaming, a larger proportion of processing is done in the CPU than the GPU, and improving the CPU will yield greater benefits.
But as of me and the I believe majority of MBA owners
You can only really talk for yourself and others in this thread that subscribe to that opinion. What evidence to you have that the majority would notice?
I would expect that most MBA owners aren't hardcore gamers - it's just not that sort of machine. Medium power graphic uses, like productivity apps or watching movies wouldn't be noticeably impacted.
Of course, I don't have any figures to back up that belief either. ;)
AtHomeBoy_2000
Jul 21, 11:01 AM
I work for a company called Prime Alliance Solutions and our entire company is migrating from Windows machine to macs running Parallels. We are also changing out our windows servers to a to Xserves. Most of the users have never used macs before but overall they have had an excellent experience!!! :) ... Things are changing specially if our Windows Centric Business is willing to go all Mac! I am soo stoked for APPLE!!
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.
marksman
Apr 28, 06:19 PM
The current 3GS with the cheapest plan you can get from AT&T would cost you 90% of what the same plan and a 4 would cost you.
Not sure what's amazing about that, and I'm pretty sure that when the 5 is out, the 4 will end up costing roughly the same.
Hardly amazing.
Unless you're math challenged.
Which anyone would be anyone who would consider such a deal for 3GS now or for a 4 when 5 is out.
Considering the number of 3GS still being sold, there's a lot of math challenged iOS users out there.
I don't know if you know how math works, but there are no discounts for not having a subsidy. You don't factor in the cost of service, that is not relevant. You will pay that regardless of the handset device. My regular iPhone would cost that.
What about someone with multiple accounts? The additional line is $10 a month. You failed to consider all the factors in your math.
For people buying an expensive smartphone getting the 3GS is a good deal. Notice how they sell more of them then any other smartphone besides the iPhone 4, even when Android handset makers give away their product.
Not sure what's amazing about that, and I'm pretty sure that when the 5 is out, the 4 will end up costing roughly the same.
Hardly amazing.
Unless you're math challenged.
Which anyone would be anyone who would consider such a deal for 3GS now or for a 4 when 5 is out.
Considering the number of 3GS still being sold, there's a lot of math challenged iOS users out there.
I don't know if you know how math works, but there are no discounts for not having a subsidy. You don't factor in the cost of service, that is not relevant. You will pay that regardless of the handset device. My regular iPhone would cost that.
What about someone with multiple accounts? The additional line is $10 a month. You failed to consider all the factors in your math.
For people buying an expensive smartphone getting the 3GS is a good deal. Notice how they sell more of them then any other smartphone besides the iPhone 4, even when Android handset makers give away their product.
GyroFX
May 3, 08:33 AM
just to compare i configured a dell xps desktop and the iMac beats it on price and performance
for a couple of months at least. :D
for a couple of months at least. :D
Sodner
Apr 25, 05:29 PM
Yeah!!!! New iMac here I come!!
spicyapple
Nov 3, 10:19 AM
An entire cottage industry around virtualization it seems is slowly springing up... more support for OSX means this is great news for Apple marketshare! :)
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar