stukick
Apr 8, 05:42 PM
Best Buy still sucks.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 11:15 PM
Really, the only part i can accurately remember from MW2 is the DC section. I live in the south-east corner of PA so i've been to DC a few times (the DC zoo is one of my favorite places in the whole world). If i lived out west there would be nothing memorable about MW2.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
vincebio
Jan 9, 01:44 PM
[QUOTE=getalifemacfans;4722504]
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
DaveDaveDave
Apr 29, 03:24 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
There's a huge difference between merging in concepts of the UI, user-friendly software distribution, media access and what you describe.
It is very unlikely that Apple's engineering and marketing would destroy what they've worked to build for so long, IMHO. How are you so certain that they'll be bringing all the bad stuff along with the good stuff? Seriously - do you really think that Apple's talent are as utterly foolish that you make them out to be?
more...
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.
gregorsamsa
Jan 12, 06:29 PM
Well, if you haven't met any of these mindless droids, consider yourself lucky. I've met enough of them to be sufficiently spooked. I've got a couple of them on a forum I moderate; one has a link to Apple store in his signature and spends most of his time posting the most contrived lies about Windows you could imagine (how you cannot switch a PC on without being drowned in a barrage of viruses etc), and the rest of his time coercing PC users into switching. It's quite clear from his descriptions of Windows he hasn't touched a PC since circa 1996, and any assurances that Windows has come a long way in terms of stability and security since Win95 are met with a kind of "lalalalalalalala...." At one point he insisted that a Mac Mini G4 1.42GHz is much faster than any PC ever made. When faced with real life benchmark tests where a midrange PC blasted the Mini into oblivion, he maintained that it was due to poor knowledge of Mac optimization on the part of the developers (whom I know to be Mac enthusiasts who port the software to Windows). This is just one example, over the years I've stumbled across way too many to list here.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
It's great that people are enthusiastic about products, and most Mac users are regular joes who are just that, but it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
Regarding Steve, you're darn tootin' I don't know him. Only seen him in blurry keynote webcasts.
I consider your post to be spot on! I'm a Mac owner, but I must confess that I find most of my PC-owning friends to be refreshingly free of the type of smug, sycophantic, elitism some Mac people can't help but exhibit. Many PC owners I know wouldn't even recognize Steve Jobs, Steve Ballmer, etc. if they were introduced to them in the street.
Their sole concern is with having the best computer they can get for their individual needs, the software they can run, etc., not hero worship. Period. Some of them rate Macs quite highly. However, their view tends to be that, unless they're able to afford pro models, they're somewhat compelled to buy PCs because of graphical deficiencies in most consumer Macs.
Steve Jobs has achieved many great things & for that he surely deserves considerable respect. Some may consider him to be a genius. But if he's a genius, surely, like many other so-called geniuses, it's very likely that he's a flawed one. I don't mean flawed personally; after all, how would I know without knowing him? I mean it in the sense that the direction that he appears to be taking Apple in isn't, IMO (& that of many others), necessarily the best one.
That's just an opinion. I think that those who think that SJ & Apple are beyond criticism merely confirm the excellent points you've raised in your post.
more...
AnalyzeThis
Dec 16, 05:10 PM
Sure! What YEAR?
thegman1234
Jan 3, 01:09 AM
I love reading this, suddenly half of the forum is a network specialist and knows what Apple will and will not do. Of course you can't forget the Verizon's network will fail just because all you specialists say so. Oh and the LTE network is only available in limited areas...gotta start somewhere...
I actually claimed to know little to nothing technical about LTE or cell networks. I was stating what I had been told and was making opinionated judgements based on my own logic.
I actually claimed to know little to nothing technical about LTE or cell networks. I was stating what I had been told and was making opinionated judgements based on my own logic.
more...
infidel69
Apr 11, 12:22 PM
It'll be really cool if they release a free beta for a year or so like they did with W7. The W7 beta was very stable and knocked off a nice chunk of money from a new build (for a while anyway)
ten-oak-druid
Apr 9, 09:11 PM
I see you've been educated in the public school system :D
Your point? Do you deny General Lee surrendered on this date in 1865?
This was an important victory for the US.
Actually it looks like you are being sarcastic. LOL
Your point? Do you deny General Lee surrendered on this date in 1865?
This was an important victory for the US.
Actually it looks like you are being sarcastic. LOL
more...
tk421
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Woohoo!! This is the first time I can remember that Apple has had over 5% market share! :D
mkrishnan
Sep 7, 09:37 PM
Yeah I've got a copy. Actually, I downloaded it, but I was under the impression that the album itself wasn't out yet.
You mean from iTMS? Did you get it pre-order? Wasn't there some promise of some freebie remix or something with the pre-order? I probably should've. :(
Ahhhh, *sigh* I think I will listen to Family Business from Dropout while I wait. :)
You mean from iTMS? Did you get it pre-order? Wasn't there some promise of some freebie remix or something with the pre-order? I probably should've. :(
Ahhhh, *sigh* I think I will listen to Family Business from Dropout while I wait. :)
more...
zombitronic
Oct 6, 04:47 PM
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
wnurse
Aug 8, 12:25 AM
Did you bother to read my whole post? Or were you too excited upon you first glorious revelation?
And maybe I'm not familiar enough with the LCD production process, but I understood that the pixel size was part of the panel so a 24 inch slab would have more pixels than a 23 inch slab. Both monitors have the same resolution.
I also asked how Dell claims greater contrast ratio and brightness (800:1 and 300cd/m2 on the 20 inch) than the Apple? Either someone's lying, or they aren't using identical parts.
edit: BTW, I'm just asking some simple questions trying to clear up my own confusion, there's no need to be a prick
Who said anything about Dell claiming greater contrast. Which of my post said that Dell claimed greater contrast ratio and brightness?. I would never make that claim (The dell website claims that the Dell 24 inch is 700:1 contrast, same as the Apple panels, which just got that upgrade while the Dell panels where that for a while). As to brightness, Dell 24 inch is 400 cd/m2 while the apple 23 inch is also 400 cd/m2. I'm neither a Dell fanboy nor an apple fanboy (as i so fondly point out time after time, i have a apple power G5 mac with a 20 inch Dell monitor). I would never make claims such as Dell monitor is better than Apple monitor unless I knew that to be true.. I pointed out that they used the same panels. Yes, the size may be different but they come off the same manufacturing line. To see Dell specs, here is the link for the 24 inch http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-0863
They are the same panels except notice Dell has more features which puzzles me greatly. Apple wants to charge a premium for their monitor and that is fine with me but come on!!!.. have more features than the other guy please!!!.. you know how annonying it is for a Dell fanboy to come up to you and say.. hey, our monitor is the same but mine is better and cheaper (better in terms of more features, not brightness or contrast). If you think features don't matter, you are living in la la land. I like the fact that i can hook up more things to my Dell monitor than i could have with an apple monitor. If the apple monitor was more versatile and offered more features, i'd consider paying the premium but i am not gonna get an overpriced apple monitor cause stevie says so.. I don't see him offering me rides on his boat.. why the hell should i get trapped in his reality distortion field?. Give me something better and i will gladly hand over my money to Stevie so he can get a bigger boat (and without any complaints).
As to my first glorius revelation, you must be a newbie. you should search for my name in other apple forums. I don't suffer fools gladly (or people who reply to a post too quickly). When i post, i do not expect an instantaneous response. It's ok to google the information before you respond. I can wait!!. If you don't know or understand, say so but do not try to make a point about something you don't know about. You replied to one of my post about how wrong I was that dell and apple were using the same panel and now you claim you don't know about the lcd production process?.. and you complain about me being mean?.. you leave yourself open to such an attack when you start making statements you have no idea are true or not.
Google is a great resource.. I don't know everything either (i wish i did but unfortunately, time is finite and my brain only has so much capacity).. but I always research stuff on google before posting. It helps (also helps to view the company you are bashing website to see their monitor specs before posting).
BTW, since the apple 30 inch is definetly a better value than Dell 30 inch (although i am sure Michael will not take that lying down.. watch for dell to suddenly drop prices on their monitors) i am soliciting funds to my "get a apple 30 inch monitor" foundation. I get the feeling i will not be seeing your dollar. Oh well. Maybe I haven't antagonized everyone in all the forums and i can get some donations to my wonderful foundation (whoose sole purpose is to get me a 30 inch apple monitor).
And maybe I'm not familiar enough with the LCD production process, but I understood that the pixel size was part of the panel so a 24 inch slab would have more pixels than a 23 inch slab. Both monitors have the same resolution.
I also asked how Dell claims greater contrast ratio and brightness (800:1 and 300cd/m2 on the 20 inch) than the Apple? Either someone's lying, or they aren't using identical parts.
edit: BTW, I'm just asking some simple questions trying to clear up my own confusion, there's no need to be a prick
Who said anything about Dell claiming greater contrast. Which of my post said that Dell claimed greater contrast ratio and brightness?. I would never make that claim (The dell website claims that the Dell 24 inch is 700:1 contrast, same as the Apple panels, which just got that upgrade while the Dell panels where that for a while). As to brightness, Dell 24 inch is 400 cd/m2 while the apple 23 inch is also 400 cd/m2. I'm neither a Dell fanboy nor an apple fanboy (as i so fondly point out time after time, i have a apple power G5 mac with a 20 inch Dell monitor). I would never make claims such as Dell monitor is better than Apple monitor unless I knew that to be true.. I pointed out that they used the same panels. Yes, the size may be different but they come off the same manufacturing line. To see Dell specs, here is the link for the 24 inch http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=222-0863
They are the same panels except notice Dell has more features which puzzles me greatly. Apple wants to charge a premium for their monitor and that is fine with me but come on!!!.. have more features than the other guy please!!!.. you know how annonying it is for a Dell fanboy to come up to you and say.. hey, our monitor is the same but mine is better and cheaper (better in terms of more features, not brightness or contrast). If you think features don't matter, you are living in la la land. I like the fact that i can hook up more things to my Dell monitor than i could have with an apple monitor. If the apple monitor was more versatile and offered more features, i'd consider paying the premium but i am not gonna get an overpriced apple monitor cause stevie says so.. I don't see him offering me rides on his boat.. why the hell should i get trapped in his reality distortion field?. Give me something better and i will gladly hand over my money to Stevie so he can get a bigger boat (and without any complaints).
As to my first glorius revelation, you must be a newbie. you should search for my name in other apple forums. I don't suffer fools gladly (or people who reply to a post too quickly). When i post, i do not expect an instantaneous response. It's ok to google the information before you respond. I can wait!!. If you don't know or understand, say so but do not try to make a point about something you don't know about. You replied to one of my post about how wrong I was that dell and apple were using the same panel and now you claim you don't know about the lcd production process?.. and you complain about me being mean?.. you leave yourself open to such an attack when you start making statements you have no idea are true or not.
Google is a great resource.. I don't know everything either (i wish i did but unfortunately, time is finite and my brain only has so much capacity).. but I always research stuff on google before posting. It helps (also helps to view the company you are bashing website to see their monitor specs before posting).
BTW, since the apple 30 inch is definetly a better value than Dell 30 inch (although i am sure Michael will not take that lying down.. watch for dell to suddenly drop prices on their monitors) i am soliciting funds to my "get a apple 30 inch monitor" foundation. I get the feeling i will not be seeing your dollar. Oh well. Maybe I haven't antagonized everyone in all the forums and i can get some donations to my wonderful foundation (whoose sole purpose is to get me a 30 inch apple monitor).
more...
benjayman2
Apr 7, 12:17 AM
About damn time too...
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
I am literally glowing green. Hopefully one day I'll I'll be as pro as this pic is. Gah I can't hold it in OMGFJFC that is BAMF canon haul if I ever saw one.
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
I am literally glowing green. Hopefully one day I'll I'll be as pro as this pic is. Gah I can't hold it in OMGFJFC that is BAMF canon haul if I ever saw one.
JDOG_
Oct 19, 10:04 AM
This is great news, and that's a lot of macs! I can't help but think part of this is a big group of people waiting to buy a PC until it comes with Vista. Maybe I'm giving them too much credit, but if I could wait a couple months on the purchase to avoid an imminent ~$150+ O.S. upgrade I would. :cool:
more...
bugfaceuk
Apr 29, 05:43 PM
Or the new MacBook Air and all other Macs will move to 4GB standard.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
It's WAY too early to judge Lion's memory consumption. In my experience, only the final GM build (unsurprisingly) has ever had even a remotely similar memory profile to the final product experience.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
It's WAY too early to judge Lion's memory consumption. In my experience, only the final GM build (unsurprisingly) has ever had even a remotely similar memory profile to the final product experience.
thedude110
Sep 7, 10:31 PM
THis is a place where people are serious about what they are doing and what is going on.
Kanye West is also serious about what he's doing and what's going on.
Sigh ...
Kanye West is also serious about what he's doing and what's going on.
Sigh ...
Les Kern
Aug 4, 07:56 AM
This is why I do not see "electric cars" gaining mainstream popularity any time soon.
Because they don't want you to.
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
It's all a big scam, and most Americans don't even know they are the chumps.
Because they don't want you to.
We should have had electric cars for short-haul 20 years ago.
It's all a big scam, and most Americans don't even know they are the chumps.
MrTwinkles
Sep 28, 12:31 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
Many other houses lose their primary function when held in a certain way. Jobs will have to issue free tarps to cover each side of the house to cover up the problem. :p
Many other houses lose their primary function when held in a certain way. Jobs will have to issue free tarps to cover each side of the house to cover up the problem. :p
madmax_2069
Apr 4, 06:48 PM
WOW , that is what i call revenge
but B&E is B&E no matter how you look at it and is illegal.
i hope that things come threw and you get your 360 back and the people get nabbed
but B&E is B&E no matter how you look at it and is illegal.
i hope that things come threw and you get your 360 back and the people get nabbed
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:51 PM
I've been know to be cruel:D
quagmire
Jul 27, 03:51 PM
That's after the tax credit. The MSRP is $32,780.
And only has a range of 100 miles. Making it not a good primary vehicle for people. I know for trips to my aunts I would be screwed.
And only has a range of 100 miles. Making it not a good primary vehicle for people. I know for trips to my aunts I would be screwed.
kdarling
Oct 7, 08:44 AM
Surprised this hasn't been noted here yet...
USAToday interviewed (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2009-10-06-verizon-google-android_N.htm)the Verizon Wireless CEO about their new Android partnership, and got an extra comment:
Meantime, (the CEO) says, the carrier is continuing to talk with Apple about bringing the iPhone to Verizon. McAdam says Verizon would love to have the device, anytime Apple is ready. "It's up to them to decide."
Until then, he says, the two companies are having "lots of discussions" about Verizon's network and how it might affect Apple.
Real, or just pushing ATT's buttons so they have to pay Apple more? Who knows.
USAToday interviewed (http://www.usatoday.com/tech/wireless/2009-10-06-verizon-google-android_N.htm)the Verizon Wireless CEO about their new Android partnership, and got an extra comment:
Meantime, (the CEO) says, the carrier is continuing to talk with Apple about bringing the iPhone to Verizon. McAdam says Verizon would love to have the device, anytime Apple is ready. "It's up to them to decide."
Until then, he says, the two companies are having "lots of discussions" about Verizon's network and how it might affect Apple.
Real, or just pushing ATT's buttons so they have to pay Apple more? Who knows.
No comments:
Post a Comment