IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:50 AM
So you only payed $1600 for them, and now they're worth $125,000. You legend!! Good luck..
No, my cost basis is closer to $6,400.00. I paid an average of $16/share, before the two splits. Lest we forget, there were a lot of dark times between then and now. When it dropped 50% overnight on that terrible day in September 2000, I thought I was going to be physically ill. It took nerve to hang on through these moments, or complete idiocy. Your choice. Either way, it worked out.
No, my cost basis is closer to $6,400.00. I paid an average of $16/share, before the two splits. Lest we forget, there were a lot of dark times between then and now. When it dropped 50% overnight on that terrible day in September 2000, I thought I was going to be physically ill. It took nerve to hang on through these moments, or complete idiocy. Your choice. Either way, it worked out.
SuperBrown
Jan 15, 05:59 PM
Compare the MBA to this sony notebook with similar specs:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
sigamy
Mar 24, 04:10 PM
Don't forget that OS X is based on NeXTstep, which goes back to the mid 1980s.
I'm looking at my NeXTstation Color right now...
I'm looking at my NeXTstation Color right now...
iWonderwhy
Apr 12, 06:36 PM
Nice to see everything is civil around here. As soon as I read the title I thought this would become a troll thread lol.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:00 AM
This!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
Good point. I was a cashier at Powell's Books many years ago. If my till had been that much short I would have been out on my rear end before the day was over.
As others have said, good luck on the karma side, OP. You're going to need it.
Let the flaming continue!
You dont get second chances when your register is missing 300
Good point. I was a cashier at Powell's Books many years ago. If my till had been that much short I would have been out on my rear end before the day was over.
As others have said, good luck on the karma side, OP. You're going to need it.
Let the flaming continue!
Pressure
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Aye, international numbers would be good to see.
Good news for Apple :)
Good news for Apple :)
SockRolid
Apr 15, 01:13 PM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
Yes, the photoshopper got the perspective and angle wrong on text in the 3rd shot. Also, the volume switch hole shading is obviously off.
All that, plus the graininess of the image is exactly what you would get when you apply the "noise" filter in photoshop. Not what you would get from the natural low-light graininess of either high speed color film or digital cameras.
I'm not a photoshop pro, but I've photoshopped tons of color slides and digital images and all 3 of the images look fake to me. Having said that, as much as I love my '08 iPhone 3G, I think it's time for either a mostly-aluminum or zirconium dioxide redesign in 2010.
Apple has apparently patented some kind of zirconium dioxide manufacturing process for electronics enclosures. It's strong material, won't scratch, and is radio-transparent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium_dioxide
Yes, the photoshopper got the perspective and angle wrong on text in the 3rd shot. Also, the volume switch hole shading is obviously off.
All that, plus the graininess of the image is exactly what you would get when you apply the "noise" filter in photoshop. Not what you would get from the natural low-light graininess of either high speed color film or digital cameras.
I'm not a photoshop pro, but I've photoshopped tons of color slides and digital images and all 3 of the images look fake to me. Having said that, as much as I love my '08 iPhone 3G, I think it's time for either a mostly-aluminum or zirconium dioxide redesign in 2010.
Apple has apparently patented some kind of zirconium dioxide manufacturing process for electronics enclosures. It's strong material, won't scratch, and is radio-transparent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium_dioxide
ThaDoggg
Apr 23, 10:07 PM
How about establishing a "thanks" button? If we feel the post merits a thank you as it's really helpful we hit that.
v66jack
Apr 10, 05:21 PM
Meet my new desk mascot.
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
It even makes Angry Bird sounds!!!
http://twitpic.com/show/thumb/4hmpd9.jpg
It even makes Angry Bird sounds!!!
takao
Jan 12, 09:13 AM
so far i haven't seen much from "os x " on the iPhone except widgets which is hardly something which defines OS X for me
what revolutionary things does it really have what others don't have ? eyecandy and perhaps easier syncing ? a proximity sensor ? perhaps photo managment and Wlan (but without VOIP)
does the iphone sync with outlook ? if not: say good bye to the business market
it's a nice product, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive for a phone
what revolutionary things does it really have what others don't have ? eyecandy and perhaps easier syncing ? a proximity sensor ? perhaps photo managment and Wlan (but without VOIP)
does the iphone sync with outlook ? if not: say good bye to the business market
it's a nice product, don't get me wrong, but it's expensive for a phone
SMM
Jan 12, 07:11 PM
ok, now, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, who is lesser evil?
trust me, they are both evil, businesslike.
At least Bill have the biggest charity foundation.
No, Texas is evil. These are just businessmen.
trust me, they are both evil, businesslike.
At least Bill have the biggest charity foundation.
No, Texas is evil. These are just businessmen.
dukebound85
Apr 21, 01:13 PM
nice, seems like an offshoot of a rep system but applicable to the topic at hand. will be interesting to see how this turns out
Chundles
Sep 12, 07:57 AM
hate to ask a stupid, perhaps already answered a gagillion times, question but
is there a live feed of today's proceedings?
No, we will be able to watch it from Apple's website later in the day. Macrumorslive will be providing live text updates.
is there a live feed of today's proceedings?
No, we will be able to watch it from Apple's website later in the day. Macrumorslive will be providing live text updates.
Glideslope
Apr 25, 04:00 PM
How can you be so certain of this as to say "That is it. Period."? Sources plz?
Sources? Plz. :cool:
Sources? Plz. :cool:
rjohnstone
May 4, 11:52 AM
In my opinion, and that of Websters dictionary, I have an unlimited data plan, therefor I already do pay for it.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Wrong... and this is why no "good" lawyer would take your case.
You have unlimited access to data using the approved device and methods agreed to in the contract.
Discussion over, case dismissed.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Wrong... and this is why no "good" lawyer would take your case.
You have unlimited access to data using the approved device and methods agreed to in the contract.
Discussion over, case dismissed.
iVeBeenDrinkin'
Apr 7, 01:15 AM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Nice kit
davepoint
Aug 12, 04:31 PM
surely they wouldn't update the specs only to release something new in a month or so..
saving107
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
Continue to justify yourself, don't worry, your not the bad guy here, Best Buy is.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
Sdevante
Mar 17, 11:07 AM
Retail theft is on the books everywhere and rooted in old common law. The States only vary on degrees (ie classes of misdemeanors).
Not so. Where I am from (which I guess would be Chicago, Illinois, since I am the President), there is only one theft offense and nothing specific to retail. Under that statute, I'm not sure the OP would be subject to prosecution.
I stand by my initial statement that one should not be so quick to make blanket statements.
Not so. Where I am from (which I guess would be Chicago, Illinois, since I am the President), there is only one theft offense and nothing specific to retail. Under that statute, I'm not sure the OP would be subject to prosecution.
I stand by my initial statement that one should not be so quick to make blanket statements.
MrMac'n'Cheese
Apr 18, 07:30 PM
I find it highly unnecessary for the TSA to pat down kids, especially, kids younger than 8-9 yrs old.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
jhu
Oct 29, 08:28 PM
You have no idea what "free" means, do you? Free software has absolutely nothing to do with the money you pay to obtain it. Commercial software that you would pay thousands of dollars for can be a perfectly good example of "free" software.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
huh??
it's freedom of speech versus free beer. it all depends on the license the authors used for the code though.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
Frogurt
Oct 2, 09:17 PM
If Jon is able to get this working, selling Fairplay DRM files from other sites, it will be bad for buyers. Right now Apple forces the record companies into a set price format (ie $.99 per song etc.). The record companies have already fought with Apple over this during the last contract renegotiations, wanting to charge more for some material. Apple won because they have a near monopoly on the market, but if other stores can sell iPod compatible music Apple's bargaining power is gone and prices will rise. Ug, I can't believe I just defended a monopoly.
JeffDM
Oct 3, 11:11 AM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
It's currently the only way to get non-Disney movies onto an iPod and many other similar devices. It's also a way for users to get the videos they've paid for onto media devices that don't have a DVD drive. For the movie industry to say that they have to buy the movie again is completely ludicrous on their part.
His work allowed people to use the media and devices they paid for in the way that they want to use it. I would call that productive.
I know you probably don't agree with it but frankly, I think the movie industry is being too greedy here.
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
DVDJon is in the EU, which I don't think has such a law yet. The DMCA only applies to the US. Counterpart laws are in the works.
There might be some trouble if he decides to come to the US. Adobe had some Russian guy arrested when he came to the US for making a program that applied ROT13 to Adobe's "encrypted" files to make them useable.
He's just another guy trying to make a quick buck...
I think that's a bit of an ignorant comment. It's taken him long enough to get around to doing so, so I don't think "quick" applies. He's been breaking encryption systems for maybe ten years now, I'm not sure if he's made any money on it so far.
My knowledge on these areas is pretty slim but would Apple be able to license FairPlay content only or would that open up the risk of other companies creating MP3 players that could read FairPlay content and, hence, compete with the iPod? ...or is that some sore of seperate licensure?
I doubt that licencing the format would have to mean that it allows competing players. The licensing contracts can be very specific such that it allows only encryptors, not decryptors, and be limited to certain circumstances.