Best Trend Tattoos Design

EDIT - And don't say "Common" when you mean "Come on."

I stand corrected - probably should have said 'C'mon'.

If its only downloadable movies I think there will be Nothing for Aus, so I will join you in the 'meh'.

Yes, actualy all the worlds puppies will die


Everyone waiting on the Core 2 Duo MacBook needs to get a clue.

It's the same folks who were falling over waiting to WWDC to come so they could order their Core 2 Duo MacBooks after the keynote!

Apple IS NOT going to move the MacBook to a Core 2 Duo until they've updated:

1) MacBook Pro

2) iMac

3) Maybe even Mac Mini, since it's been out forever!

The MacBook is barely three months old. It may get a speed bump and/or price cut soon, but won't get a new chip.

All of you saying Apple has to upgrade it to a Core 2 Duo to complete with Dell, HP, etc - why? Why do they HAVE to? Will they explode if they don't? Will the sun stop shining? Will all the world's puppies die?

Of course they'll upgrade it eventually. That doesn't mean it needs to be upgraded as soon as the chips are available. If you look at other PC maker's sites, most of their machines don't even have the Core Duo chips yet; there's no rush.

You can't claim Apple will inevitable act a certain way now that they're on Intel chips; you don't know that. They have no history of using Intel chips. Just because your bright minds think it would be a good idea to move the MB line to the latest and greatest chip whenever a new one is released by Intel because "that's what the other guys are doing," it doesn't mean Apple agrees with you.

What we DO know for a fact is Apple like to differentiate between consumer and pro lines, and Apple has never been one to put the latest chips into the iMac or Mac Mini level machines - and I don't see either of that changing.

I dunno, i still think its a stupid idea, not to mention how expensive it will be.

inevitable as android devices are available everywhere and in every price segment. remember, half of all American workers earn $505 or less per week.

This argument is getting old now. As usual, iFans are in denial.

Apple is partnering with an air-time provider so they will not get to keep much of the per-month fee, they will have to make money up front with hardware sales unless they can offer some non airtime monthly service like .mac


No. I don't see apple "partnering" with anyone. This will be an Apple phone... the carriers will line up to sell the next hot thing. If Apple "partners" with Cingular.. the phone loses part of its apple identity... I don't see it happening. Plus it invites someone else to the table.. I don't understand why Apple would do this.

Ah gotcha, with the max/min talk. NM.

ClamXAV is free and it's pretty good if you think you need it. Plus it's open source (I think).

ClamXav also is much lighter on system resources because it does not have real-time scanning.

It real-time scans emails (optional) and the specific folders you tell the sentry to watch; both via resource friendly daemons that launch ClamXav in the background when they detect changes in those areas. It does not real-time scan exhaustively (running processes & entire filesystem) but, at this point in time, this level of real-time scanning is not required on Macs.

The benefit of the lack of true real-time scanning is much less resource consumption.

EDIT: To clarify, email scanning needs to be set up with the Sentry. The option to scan email in the preferences is an option to scan the contents of mbox folders as individual items; not an option to real-time scan email. Add ~/Library/Mail and ~/Library/ Mail Downloads to real-time scan email for Mail.app.

Too late for that: http://www.spokeo.com/

Scary, and seems to be US only.

I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.

Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?

They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.

Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-

If you want premium content, you pay for it.

That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)


People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.

True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.

I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.

80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.

Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.

You (and others) are aware that "Developer Previews", when available, have always predated the Beta releases? It's not even a beta.

Apple says they will release Lion in summer, only Dev Previews have appeared so far, and suddenly people think it plausible for Apple to release a GM build in March?

And btw, I'm really disappointed in the reporting of the ludicrous "GM" rumour as it's pretty obviously wrong - usually MacRumors curates their news better than this.

Apparently they claim to know than they do, which is typical. Your observations are spot on.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was my understanding that Yonah and Merom were being priced identically (at same clock speed) by Intel.

Yes, but after the Merom release the prices of Yonah will be cheaper.

Now we need someone to test it on an iPod touch, I'd be thrilled to see it work on an iPod. On the other hand, at that price (car kit + app) you can get a very decent Tomtom dedicated GPS-navigator and use your iPod for something else...

Exactly...a 12 incher with Core 2 Duo, backlit keyboard and a reasonable GPU is all I need...nothing really fancy.

That would be nice, but it seems unlikely. Apple seem to consider the black MacBook the small "professional" laptop. Maybe it'll get a descrete GPU though, that would be pretty good, no?

Wow. Any breakdowns of what patents Samsung are allegedly infringing on that our local patent experts can give some insight into?

I wonder who will be next to sue whom?

I know LG makes an MP3 player.. when I said Apple has about as much of a chance entering the cell phone market as LG has entering the MP3 market, what I was referring to is POPULARITY and MARKET SHARE.

When I said Apple doesn't have a history of 'working well with others', I was referring to other companies.

You don't just wake up one day and start selling phones.. there are a whole lot of other companies involved.. most importantly, a cell phone service provider. One who is willing to pay Apples per unit price and give the phone away for next to nothing in exchange for an end customer contract.

That's how the majority of cell phones are sold.. not walking into target and plunking down $250 and it's yours.. but signing a contract for a year or more and getting the phone at a significantly reduced rate, or even 'free'.

In order to be successful in the cell phone market, you need to have more than one cell service provider on board, willing to push your phones, and you have to do it at a price point thats comfortable for both the manufacturer of the phone, and the guy selling the phone.

Then in order to do that, you have to offer that particular provider something special.. like a special model available only at that particular provider. Which means Apple would have to either stick with a single carrier, or have multiple models.

Then finally, you have the convergence factor. I know a lot of people with cell phones. I know a lot of people with PDA's. I know a lot of people with MP3 players.

I don't know a lot of people who want all three devices wrapped up into one unit.

An iPod with the ability (but not a requirement) to connect to cellular networks to download content, I can see and think would be a hit.

Being able to add OPTIONAL, basic phone functions and texting to such a unit for those interested in such a thing, not bad.

But a full blown 'iPhone'? Big mistake.