OllyW
Apr 21, 04:50 AM
Well, more like 175K sold... another 175K given away free. :D
They are all still sold. The phone manufacturer doesn't give them away free.
They are all still sold. The phone manufacturer doesn't give them away free.
Xenc
Feb 21, 03:56 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
You may want to explore the "margin" and "padding" properties. Margin is spacing outside the container, padding is inside.
You may want to explore the "margin" and "padding" properties. Margin is spacing outside the container, padding is inside.
skunk
Mar 2, 04:29 PM
Me too.I don't think even that will save it.
revelated
Jan 18, 11:57 PM
Part of that is due to engine choices in the US: because many of the engines used by foreign car companies are not federalized, and because US carmakers largley ignore the small car market, we don't get the most efficient engines for small cars.
Case in point: look at small cars sold in both Europe and the US, like the Mini Cooper, Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus (different version, but same-ish size) or event the Smart. All of these cars come with smaller, more efficient engines in Europe, either as the base engine or as options. The US versions, however, all use larger, less efficient engines and omit the diesel options entirely. Thus, much of potential efficiency of these cars is wasted.
Therefore, it's not that the Altima is much more efficient than the Versa. Rather, the most efficient engine option in the Altima is as efficient as the rather inefficient engine that the Versa is saddled with here in the states. And it's our own fault, because Americans are stereotyped as demanding more powerful engines without regard to fuel economy.
The new Jetta and Passat are no exceptions - they get more engine choices outside the US.
I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank. I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.
But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.
Case in point: look at small cars sold in both Europe and the US, like the Mini Cooper, Volkswagen Golf, Ford Focus (different version, but same-ish size) or event the Smart. All of these cars come with smaller, more efficient engines in Europe, either as the base engine or as options. The US versions, however, all use larger, less efficient engines and omit the diesel options entirely. Thus, much of potential efficiency of these cars is wasted.
Therefore, it's not that the Altima is much more efficient than the Versa. Rather, the most efficient engine option in the Altima is as efficient as the rather inefficient engine that the Versa is saddled with here in the states. And it's our own fault, because Americans are stereotyped as demanding more powerful engines without regard to fuel economy.
The new Jetta and Passat are no exceptions - they get more engine choices outside the US.
I simply don't agree with this at all. You're basically saying that the Altima's 4 banger is inefficient which couldn't be further from the truth. I can drive to Phoenix, AZ from San Diego, CA - a distance of ~500 miles - on half a tank. I don't call that inefficient at all, especially since I know for a fact that a Prius can't do that. Also the Versa's engine is a 2.0 which should be less powerful but in theory more efficient than the Altima, except for aerodynamics. It's just not. The only advantage the Versa has over the Altima is the interior roof trim - it really does cut wind noise better than the Altima. Beyond that, the Versa is an overpriced piece of crap, quite frankly.
But it's not all small cars in the US that suck. Honda and Acura have been making efficient small cars for years. I don't agree that the small car market is ignored - rather, it's not focused on. Diesel, in my opinion, is a failed market out here. Great concept, but there just isn't enough steam behind it. I applaud Volkswagen for trying. But the reality is that everyone has it wrong. The answer isn't petrol because it's limited, it isn't electric because capacity is at a premium, and it isn't hybrid because the cost is prohibitive. The answer lies in the very thing that surrounds us constantly. I'm afraid I just won't be alive to see people realize it.
more...
WillEH
Apr 28, 07:46 PM
Why? The law requires an rights owner to defend its IP or risk losing it. These suits are just business, no hard feelings, as seen by Apple's monster-sized component contract w/ Samsung. Any yes, business is about making money.
I suppose you're right. :eek:
I suppose you're right. :eek:
ECUpirate44
Apr 17, 04:20 PM
Usually late May- early Sept. Last year it ended on Sept 7th.
more...
mcdj
Mar 28, 08:48 AM
To LOLwinner. Your a law student? If that is true, I hope you never become a lawyer, our world need less people like you in our profession.
OTOH a lawyer who can't spell you're is also troublesome.
OTOH a lawyer who can't spell you're is also troublesome.
ArtOfWarfare
Mar 23, 09:21 AM
Does anyone else think the choice of image for Craig is odd? Fist in the air, hand on his hip, hunched over... All adds up to looking like a cranky old man.
more...
TuffLuffJimmy
Apr 25, 03:04 AM
I can imagine that Apple provides detailed specs to the manufacturers of the glass and that there is a bidding process involved. That means that any deviation from the provided specs after production will have to be corrected at the cost and time of the manufacturer, not Apple.
If this is actually the case, than the manufacturer can even be held accountable for the loss in sales.
More likely it was Apple's fault for specifying either a nearly unachievable spec or for giving a bad material specification.
If this is actually the case, than the manufacturer can even be held accountable for the loss in sales.
More likely it was Apple's fault for specifying either a nearly unachievable spec or for giving a bad material specification.
Fotek2001
Apr 4, 11:14 AM
That ability is there. But rather than give its customers a choice of opting in, FT would rather sell your information without your approval.
Stop with the FUD already. Businesses operating in the EU cannot do this. Just because corporations in the USA can, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same... :rolleyes:
Stop with the FUD already. Businesses operating in the EU cannot do this. Just because corporations in the USA can, doesn't mean the rest of the world is the same... :rolleyes:
more...
Benjy91
Apr 25, 05:50 AM
I just prefer tech in black anyways. Black TV, Black Xbox, Black Router, Black Sound System, Black Laptop, Black iPhone :cool:
phas3
Dec 4, 03:55 AM
how do some of you guys show what song your listening to on the desktop or what the date is etc?
more...
Nuvi
Nov 12, 02:14 AM
For feature films and television these days, Final Cut is ABSOLUTELY the industry standard. Oh and in the 8 years I've lived in Hollywood, I never met one person in the industry who uses a Windows PC (maybe a writer or two).
False. Avid Media Composer is by far the most popular professional editing system. I work in moving image industry. Many turn key high end systems are Windows based.
False. Avid Media Composer is by far the most popular professional editing system. I work in moving image industry. Many turn key high end systems are Windows based.
baleensavage
Jan 9, 03:33 PM
I too was disappointed with the keynote today.
The iPhone is a great device, but nothing that I'd buy. If they get rid of the phone capabilities and make it a real video iPod with wifi, I'd be all over it. Plus the whole cingular thing is a downer. On the whole though it was a good announcement for Apple and I'm sure it will revolutionize the cell phone industry.
The iTV is lame. All it is is a front row interface to your computer with a hard drive. Nothing really exciting there. Like others have mentioned, add in Web browsing, a DVD drive, the ability to record TV onto the hard drive, then maybe it would be worth the $300 price tag.
And removing Computers from the name makes sense, but it doesn't bode well for the computers part of Apple.
As for not having 10.5 info, I'm actually glad that they didn't. Vista is just out of the box. Let Vista cool off a little before Apple blows it out of the water. We don't want Microsoft stealing Apple's thunder with their 3-years-too-late OS. It'd be like if Apple released the iPhone right after the Zune thing came out.
The iPhone is a great device, but nothing that I'd buy. If they get rid of the phone capabilities and make it a real video iPod with wifi, I'd be all over it. Plus the whole cingular thing is a downer. On the whole though it was a good announcement for Apple and I'm sure it will revolutionize the cell phone industry.
The iTV is lame. All it is is a front row interface to your computer with a hard drive. Nothing really exciting there. Like others have mentioned, add in Web browsing, a DVD drive, the ability to record TV onto the hard drive, then maybe it would be worth the $300 price tag.
And removing Computers from the name makes sense, but it doesn't bode well for the computers part of Apple.
As for not having 10.5 info, I'm actually glad that they didn't. Vista is just out of the box. Let Vista cool off a little before Apple blows it out of the water. We don't want Microsoft stealing Apple's thunder with their 3-years-too-late OS. It'd be like if Apple released the iPhone right after the Zune thing came out.
more...
flopticalcube
Nov 19, 02:09 PM
Another point... I expect that TJ MAXX just bought up a bunch of the Refurbished iPads and is taking a $50 loss on each to get people in the stores.
The packaging, model and serial numbers indicate that they are new items originally purchased on October 25th, not refurbs.
The packaging, model and serial numbers indicate that they are new items originally purchased on October 25th, not refurbs.
_of_Female_Base_by_Chibi_Anime_Eyes.png "by Chibi Anime Eyes.png")
svalentine
Feb 22, 06:03 PM
Is this supposed to be funny?
more...
eastercat
May 6, 06:54 PM
You need the blob for the ios. If you don't have it, you can only install the most current ios.
reckless_0001
Oct 5, 05:00 PM
Woo, Shiira :D
Shiira's pretty good too... :)
Shiira's pretty good too... :)
Ingot
Apr 6, 11:44 AM
How much is that?
About 12 PB's worth I guess.
About 12 PB's worth I guess.
Apple OC
Mar 26, 09:38 PM
I just can't stand people that automatically declare something illegal because they think it is wrong.
you can't stand people thinking this is illegal? ... do you think the listing is legal? :rolleyes:
you can't stand people thinking this is illegal? ... do you think the listing is legal? :rolleyes:
rasmasyean
Apr 17, 11:11 PM
2.1 is the replacement rate (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Total_fertility_rate#Replacement_rates)
Ponzi schemes FTW. Europe will need 20 million immigrants by 2030 and way more by 2050 in order to maintain their lifestyle, or we could be monsters and kill old people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=8
That's not how civilization works. What happens is that a superior country will immigrate people from external inferior lands where necessary. Much, as you can imagine, to take over the "low end" jobs to support the "high end" workers. An early version of this is known as "slavery". Today, we just give immigrants low wages and more "freedom" albeit they still mop the floor so the CEO doesn't slip.
It's also consistent with the idea of importing "strong slaves". Those migrant workers are often the hard workers and upper teir of thier former civilization. Because...those are the ones who make the trip and are productive enough to be allowed to stay without being weeded out.
Later, when these "strong slaves" reproduce, it provides the country with strong genetic stock for future workers, whom some will break away from the lower classes. It doesn't matter if they are not part of the "2.1 whites". As a matter of fact, many 2.1 white rednecks trickle to the lower classes, just as super strong immigrates get to invent some of our greatest weapons.
Furthurmore, as technology advances, "manpower" is compensated by "brainpower". Before the steam engine cycle was invented, it would take like 100 slaves to get the boat of wheat accross the ocean. Now it takes maybe one or a couple of engineers...to play cards...until something breaks.
Ponzi schemes FTW. Europe will need 20 million immigrants by 2030 and way more by 2050 in order to maintain their lifestyle, or we could be monsters and kill old people.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/29/magazine/29Birth-t.html?pagewanted=8
That's not how civilization works. What happens is that a superior country will immigrate people from external inferior lands where necessary. Much, as you can imagine, to take over the "low end" jobs to support the "high end" workers. An early version of this is known as "slavery". Today, we just give immigrants low wages and more "freedom" albeit they still mop the floor so the CEO doesn't slip.
It's also consistent with the idea of importing "strong slaves". Those migrant workers are often the hard workers and upper teir of thier former civilization. Because...those are the ones who make the trip and are productive enough to be allowed to stay without being weeded out.
Later, when these "strong slaves" reproduce, it provides the country with strong genetic stock for future workers, whom some will break away from the lower classes. It doesn't matter if they are not part of the "2.1 whites". As a matter of fact, many 2.1 white rednecks trickle to the lower classes, just as super strong immigrates get to invent some of our greatest weapons.
Furthurmore, as technology advances, "manpower" is compensated by "brainpower". Before the steam engine cycle was invented, it would take like 100 slaves to get the boat of wheat accross the ocean. Now it takes maybe one or a couple of engineers...to play cards...until something breaks.
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
gcoghill
Apr 28, 09:22 PM
Why? The law requires an rights owner to defend its IP or risk losing it. These suits are just business, no hard feelings, as seen by Apple's monster-sized component contract w/ Samsung. Any yes, business is about making money.
Every time there's a patent or copyright article and people go off the deep end calling these companies crazy/evil, etc, I wish the article would indicate the fact that they are actually required to do so or risk losing their patent/trademarks. Doesn't even matter if they want to or not.
Every time there's a patent or copyright article and people go off the deep end calling these companies crazy/evil, etc, I wish the article would indicate the fact that they are actually required to do so or risk losing their patent/trademarks. Doesn't even matter if they want to or not.
ciTiger
Apr 30, 09:34 PM
Good news if it is a single service with all the features... Let's hope for a good price!
No comments:
Post a Comment