Capture The Art Blog's

It gets annoying. Why? Because it's true and most people don't want to admit it.

In a few cases here and there, the extra processor power/speed is going to help. But for a majority of people buying a MacBook, they're not going to be burning home-made DVD's, doing intense Music compositions, or using it for hard-core gaming. They're going to SURF and WRITE.

As for the "resale" value, again, most people who are buying a used MacBook are NOT going to ask "is it a Merom?" They're going to ask how nice the case is, how much use it's gotten, and how much it is, and that's it.

Everybody likes to play "ooo, I'm the hard-core computing whiz and I need the BEST out there", but I bet you if you took an honest poll out there of everyone who's answered this thread, you'd find at least 75% these Apple fans have no need for for the extra speed, they just want it because it's "cool" and "fast" and it's the latest thing out there.

You may be right to a certain extent, but l i assumed that most people who want a Macbook Pro are going to be using it for intensive stuff - I was under the impressions that Macs are the platform of choice for a lot of graphics professionals etc so the high end line would have a lot of those kind of ppl buying. Granted the difference in speed will probably be fairly minimal, but when you are spending a load of cash on a top-of-the line notebook, why shouldnt you expect to have the latest and greatest technology available? It also seems quite likely they might either make them cheaper, or offer more RAM on the base model etc. so buying now unless you really have to seems foolish.

Im also not sure about your point on the resale value, i would imagine pro users probably would be concerned about which processor it had in it.

The record companies know that their business model is archaic and unnecessary. With computers and MP3, and online stores like iTunes, artists no longer need labels. This is their death rattle trying desperately to make themselves more money as it slips through their fingers.

Besides, artists always have made most of their money from merchandise and tours, the labels are just a middle man that got bypassed by technology. Instead of adapting, they're fighting it, and that's why they will cease to exist in the future.

Is Europe not a way bigger mobile phone market than the US anyway. I don't see why any technology company would alienate a huge sector of its market in this way. It will definitely be released in Europe too.

It will not be a flip phone, or a slide phone or any of those stupid ass gimmicky phones you use over there. It will be just a nano derivative I would say. It will be GSM, it will be quad band.
And coin-operated.

Well, the on advantage of not being able to afford a lappy until next years it that I might a MacBook based on the Santa Rosa platform.

It seems though that Santa Rosa might end up getting delayed... there have been many issues with getting 802.11n finalized, which is an important component to the new platform

NOT TRUE....The Quad core G5 people are in an uproar because Logic Pro only uses 2 cores on the G5....they updated Logic Pro so it uses 4 cores, but the G5 Quad still only uses 2 cores....there are also photoshop actions that are NOT multi core aware so will only run on one core.....Hopefully 10.5 will make all this irrelevant.

You totally missed my point. Even if an application uses only one thread at all times, that application is still a separate process from all of the other processes you have running. At any given time you'll have at least 30 something processes, even when no user-land applications are running. OS X will spread out those processes to try to utilize all the cores as much as possible.

In reality, there are probably not too many non-Apple applications which routinely use 8 threads or more. In the near future I expect all applications to use at least 2-3 threads, even the most simple ones.

^^ Well maybe, but the Obama administration doesn't believe that law is constitutional.
Gov't seeks to uphold DOMA in gay lawyer's lawsuit
SAN FRANCISCO

The Justice Department says a lesbian federal employee should still be denied permission to add her wife to her health insurance despite the Obama administration's refusal to defend a federal law banning recognition of same-sex marriages.

Government lawyers told a federal judge Monday in San Francisco that the administration will still enforce the Defense of Marriage Act until it is struck down by a court or repealed by Congress. They say its new position on the act's unconstitutionality is irrelevant.

Karen Golinski is a 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals lawyer suing the Office of Personnel Management for not authorizing family health coverage for her wife. The circuit's chief judge has twice ordered the office to allow it.

The Justice Department says the rulings were not binding because they were made in the judge's role as Golinski's boss.
http://www.businessweek.com/ap/financialnews/D9LMIFS80.htm
I can't help it if you live in a backward country. I was talking about civilised norms. And whatever your cockeyed definition, it is still not equality.
Right, that's why England is preventing a married couple from adopting.

http://cultofmac.cultofmaccom.netdna-cdn.com/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/Screen-shot-2011-04-19-at-8.37.05-PM.png

feel free to point out how difficult it is to see any similarities...

Choosing icons that have taken on universal meanings and thus are similar, is quite a bit different from direct copying, of which we see none.

The closest ones in that group are probably the phones, and yet if you search for a phone icon on the web, or even on cell phone buttons, probably a quarter of them are slanted. Moreover, green is an extremely common color for the primary phone button, which is why Apple chose it themselves.

The use of rounded square icon backgrounds is a bit more damning, but still a style choice. Also, Apple's has a shadow and my Fascinate doesn't have the rounded square on most anyway.

Btw, I have noticed that Apple hasn't tried to claim ownership of the twirling wait symbol, but a lot of us were using that before they were.

I think Apple might have much better luck showing that the Galaxy phone shape greatly resembles the 3GS.

I find your statement back to him a bit hypocritical and quite judgmental. Why are his panties in a twist but not yours?

Your initial reply to him was harsh to begin with and he replied logically. Agree to disagree. Leave it at that.

He commented to my post, not the other way around.

My comment, #75 (again, no mention of him):

There's a nuclear disaster in Japan and treacherous weather throughout, people are jobless and homeless and the dollar's in the sh***er and our Supreme Court ruled that companies can give unlimited financial aid to any politician putting business interests in our government and people are worried about Apple possibly tracking them on their iDevice?

Let 'em, my life is BORING, they wouldn't be interested :p


His comment to me:

None of which are affecting my day to day life. However, since you say I can't go on living my life until all other worldly issues are resolved, I will be waiting for a e-mail letting me know when I can resume going about my daily routine.

Until then, I will stay fixed in front of my computer screen. :rolleyes:

This argument that we shouldn't worry about anything because bigger things are going on has got to stop. It's the most disingenuous comment you can make.

So this comment was logical and not insulting and personal?

I made no mention of or to him in my initial post, so this means your comment should be addressed to him, not me… and how does this involve you?

I made a comment, directed to no one, that many agreed with, but one person made personal slams at me and why are we discussing this?

/end of discussion, this is juvenile

I question any law/contract of this type on several grounds:
1 - How are the eligable rightsholders identified/compensated?
It depends on the system in place. In Canada, I believe the proceeds are turned over to the CRIA which is then responsible for distribution to its members through a process of their own selection (and not legally specified).

2 - How are they compensated equitably? Do you compensate Jay-Z and a classical artist the same? Which ever you prefer, Jay-Z sells more.
Again, it's up to the labels to decide. Once they get their cut from the CRIA, the label controls distribution within its internal channels. More popular artists on that label probably get a bigger cut than niche artists, but more importantly, individual artists likely never see much in the way of proceeds from this.
3 - If I've paid the royalty, don't I own rights to the music? Sure, I may need to find a copy of it, but I'm told that they're all over a thing called the "internet".
No. Most importantly, the royalty does not create a stipulation, or even a fiduciary relationship between you, the customer, and the CRIA. The exchange is between the company (Apple, RCA, Samsung, Microsoft, etc.) and the industry consortium.

Even setting that aside, you have no record of a transaction taking place at all. You can't claim to have paid royalties and have received nothing in return granting you any rights (one way to fight this is to demand that a given label supply you with a written document). Absent consideration, all you've essentially done is paid money for nothing--you didn't send the label a contract with your dollar (and you can't, since you're not paying them the dollar anyway, you'd be paying Apple). Your contribution isn't so much because you're pirating music, but because you could be. It's like putting down a deposit, having to pay insurance, or having a membership in a book club. You pay money, but that's not the end of the transaction. The only thing this royalty grants you is a tacit guarantee that Universal will continue to provide digital content.

I run Handbrake and Photoshop among other things when I need to (in a pinch (and zoom)).

Not on an iPad... (which was my point)
:)

These people never stop do they? I don't remember anyone asking bush or any other president about their educational records, plus the one time they shed light on bush's military record it just seemed to disappear into thin air.

At least new the president's chances of getting re-elected in 2012 just skyrocketed.