Popeye206
Apr 25, 09:35 AM
You do realize everything you said is untrue, right?
He does not care. Anything to slam Apple he will. See he never mentioned Google who does a similar thing!
He does not care. Anything to slam Apple he will. See he never mentioned Google who does a similar thing!
MorphingDragon
May 6, 04:27 AM
I wonder if removing the optical drive would provide the room needed for proper ventilation of a dual-CPU laptop... Dual-CPU MBP anyone?
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
Not possible with current laptop architecture. The only x86 CPUs AFAIK that are capable of multi-socket systems are Opterons and Xeons.
gkarris
Apr 23, 05:18 PM
Am I the only one who loves looking at high res high quality icons? I feel a bit sad over here. :p
Yes, but they're so big.
You'd only be able to fit, like, one icon on the screen... :eek:
:D
Yes, but they're so big.
You'd only be able to fit, like, one icon on the screen... :eek:
:D
seanjs
Apr 20, 02:36 AM
Anyone think they won't call it the iPhone 5? I suspect, if they only update the speed, they'll call it the iPhone 4S and save the '5' for a mores substantial refresh.
ehoui
Mar 31, 08:25 AM
Lion looks awesome, I don't know why there is so much whining about it.
It has more to do with the human condition than the condition of Lion.
It has more to do with the human condition than the condition of Lion.
killr_b
Aug 4, 11:40 PM
Actually every weekend in Oz is about eating (BBQ) drinking (VB) and watching football (actualy... rugby, aussie rules, and cricket)
(i must say that i do like american football)
:D so you could say that we celebrate thxgiving 52 times per year
Actually you were missinformed.
Thanksgiving is about putting up with the rest of your family (in-laws) just for one night so you can borrow money from them (father-in-law) the rest of the year.:D
The other 51 weeks are for exactly what you said, and waiting 'till next tuesday...:D
I for one can't sleep until monday. It's like Disneyland but can be delivered to my door... and watched on the web. Whoa... I better put this Kool-aid back... I may hurt myself with excitment. Is that a condition?
Like Meromonia, or Woodcrestilization of the the 'puter?:D
(i must say that i do like american football)
:D so you could say that we celebrate thxgiving 52 times per year
Actually you were missinformed.
Thanksgiving is about putting up with the rest of your family (in-laws) just for one night so you can borrow money from them (father-in-law) the rest of the year.:D
The other 51 weeks are for exactly what you said, and waiting 'till next tuesday...:D
I for one can't sleep until monday. It's like Disneyland but can be delivered to my door... and watched on the web. Whoa... I better put this Kool-aid back... I may hurt myself with excitment. Is that a condition?
Like Meromonia, or Woodcrestilization of the the 'puter?:D
vand0576
Aug 11, 10:41 AM
so once these are released, what are the chances if my MBP was broken Apple Care would replace it with a new Core 2 Duo one?
Absolutely slim to none. When my 4G monochrome iPod broke down after both the releases to the iPod photo and iPoc 5G, I thought for sure I'd get an upgrade but it's not the case. I'm sure somehow they still have 4G ipods in stock. My guess is they hold them for two years after the last sale of the product, so that the applecare is meant to replace, not upgrade.
No chance your computer will be simply replaced. They would work on it, not upgrade it. Intel still makes the chips, and remember Apple has to buy them in lots of 1,000. They have plenty.
Absolutely slim to none. When my 4G monochrome iPod broke down after both the releases to the iPod photo and iPoc 5G, I thought for sure I'd get an upgrade but it's not the case. I'm sure somehow they still have 4G ipods in stock. My guess is they hold them for two years after the last sale of the product, so that the applecare is meant to replace, not upgrade.
No chance your computer will be simply replaced. They would work on it, not upgrade it. Intel still makes the chips, and remember Apple has to buy them in lots of 1,000. They have plenty.
darrens
Aug 4, 07:36 AM
I don't think price for MB will ever drop, even if they're staying with yonah. It's selling quite well at this price. If they offer yonah and merom in the same system, the price diff will not be a lot, and apple will end up stocking for both yonah and merom, which is not something they will do
More likely is a speed bump to 2.16 Yonah on the MB, Merom on the MBP. 64 bit/power consumption the differentiator for the MBP.
Yonah's price will be going down a lot once Merom is shipping - perhaps we will see a $499 mini again, just a price drop - no change in specs. If Yonah sees a 60% price drop (it's happened lots of times before with intel chips), maybe the low end mini will go duo.
More likely is a speed bump to 2.16 Yonah on the MB, Merom on the MBP. 64 bit/power consumption the differentiator for the MBP.
Yonah's price will be going down a lot once Merom is shipping - perhaps we will see a $499 mini again, just a price drop - no change in specs. If Yonah sees a 60% price drop (it's happened lots of times before with intel chips), maybe the low end mini will go duo.
noahtk
Apr 23, 09:56 PM
Why has it taken them so long to embrace HD????!! And no... 720p is not the standard...
OdduWon
Sep 15, 04:50 PM
v>I hope the 2.33GHz processor comes standard in the 17" since it�s the highest-end model...:D
i thought merom went to 2.66 :confused: or was that conroe?
i thought merom went to 2.66 :confused: or was that conroe?
EricNau
Nov 26, 10:37 AM
Looks like that 8 pound, 10" iPod might be true after all. :D
Seriously though, I'm sure Apple has a tablet prototype, but I'm doubtful that they'll release one in 2007.
Seriously though, I'm sure Apple has a tablet prototype, but I'm doubtful that they'll release one in 2007.
![kate beckinsale wallpaper. [800 x 600]](http://www.ukhotmovies.co.uk/kate-beckinsale/kate-beckinsale-wallpaper-uk-2a.jpg "[800 x 600]")
iSee
May 6, 08:00 AM
I doubt this, but here's why it could happen:
1. It's very likely that Apple is maintaining OS X (at a certain baseline of functionallity) on alternative CPUs -- including ARM. They clearly have a history of this and it has proven to be very valuable when they've had to switch.
2. ARM processors of 2013 or 2014 might be significantly more competative with intel than the ones being used in phones and tablets today. I think a lot of the disbelief on the idea of this switch is focusing on the idea that current ARM processors running full OS X, but that's not how it would be.
3. Apple has proven several times that they are willing and able to pull off this kind of architecture switch smoothly. When 68000 CPUs stagnated they moved to PPC. When PPC processors stagnated and intel CPUs jumped ahead they moved almost seamlessly to Intel. If any company can figure out how to do this without a hitch, it's Apple.
4. Cocoa-based apps will move over fairly easily. They're aren't too many important Carbon-based apps left, with some major exceptions. I think Office & iTunes will be Cocoa by then; Apple doesn't care about Adobe.
But realistically, Apple will only do this if there is a significant long-term win.
And I don't see it what that could be... certainly not by 2013.
If there is *anything* to this rumor (which I doubt -- how do a bunch of barely literate idiots get inside info on Apple's long term plans?), it's just Apple keeping their options open as usual.
1. It's very likely that Apple is maintaining OS X (at a certain baseline of functionallity) on alternative CPUs -- including ARM. They clearly have a history of this and it has proven to be very valuable when they've had to switch.
2. ARM processors of 2013 or 2014 might be significantly more competative with intel than the ones being used in phones and tablets today. I think a lot of the disbelief on the idea of this switch is focusing on the idea that current ARM processors running full OS X, but that's not how it would be.
3. Apple has proven several times that they are willing and able to pull off this kind of architecture switch smoothly. When 68000 CPUs stagnated they moved to PPC. When PPC processors stagnated and intel CPUs jumped ahead they moved almost seamlessly to Intel. If any company can figure out how to do this without a hitch, it's Apple.
4. Cocoa-based apps will move over fairly easily. They're aren't too many important Carbon-based apps left, with some major exceptions. I think Office & iTunes will be Cocoa by then; Apple doesn't care about Adobe.
But realistically, Apple will only do this if there is a significant long-term win.
And I don't see it what that could be... certainly not by 2013.
If there is *anything* to this rumor (which I doubt -- how do a bunch of barely literate idiots get inside info on Apple's long term plans?), it's just Apple keeping their options open as usual.
heisetax
Aug 2, 02:59 PM
Then, unless it is a pharmaceutical, national security, or some other VII, the company needs to get with the times. So called intellectual property is so last century and quite honestly patents are pretty useless in these fast changing times.
My take is that Steve will spend much time on numbers (how many units sold, how well the Intel switch is going) and then introduce the Pro Line. Expect a bit on Leopard and probably a jab at Vista. Although, that might not happen if Steve has what's-her-name out again to introduce the Universal Office. I would not be suprised if Steve has someone from Adobe out to introduce a Universal suite... for sometime in the future.
Wouldn't it be something if Apple came out with a new piece of hardware. Maybe there will be a new strategic alliance introduced.
I thought that MS said they they would have separate versions of Office for the PPC & Intel Macs. That's what I expect from them when you look bak at Office X, which was really only a side grade from OS 9 to OS 10 support. So no Universal Office, just a PPC Office & an Intel Office. Then in a year when Steve Jobs declares the PPC Mac a dead item, the PPC version will be gone.
I'd rather see an UB version as then if I do get an Intel Mac I could move the software over. But then MS couldn't sell me a new copy. Maybe a special price of $10 or so off if you purchase both versions together.
Bill the TaxMan
My take is that Steve will spend much time on numbers (how many units sold, how well the Intel switch is going) and then introduce the Pro Line. Expect a bit on Leopard and probably a jab at Vista. Although, that might not happen if Steve has what's-her-name out again to introduce the Universal Office. I would not be suprised if Steve has someone from Adobe out to introduce a Universal suite... for sometime in the future.
Wouldn't it be something if Apple came out with a new piece of hardware. Maybe there will be a new strategic alliance introduced.
I thought that MS said they they would have separate versions of Office for the PPC & Intel Macs. That's what I expect from them when you look bak at Office X, which was really only a side grade from OS 9 to OS 10 support. So no Universal Office, just a PPC Office & an Intel Office. Then in a year when Steve Jobs declares the PPC Mac a dead item, the PPC version will be gone.
I'd rather see an UB version as then if I do get an Intel Mac I could move the software over. But then MS couldn't sell me a new copy. Maybe a special price of $10 or so off if you purchase both versions together.
Bill the TaxMan
tstreete
Nov 4, 05:43 PM
I was doing some research on bottom line telecommunications and i came across these good reviews: :D
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
Gave it a brief test around town this afternoon. MotionX GPS lite status screen reported an accuracy (radius?) of between 30 feet to 50 feet, whereas without the TomTom mount it ranged from about 75 ft to 256 ft or worse. So, yeah, it improves GPS accuracy, and I did notice the difference when using the TomTom app.
The thing is well built and elegant, the nicest carphone mount design I've ever seen. You have to be gentle sticking the iPhone into the mount, but you can do it with one hand. You have to think about where to install the mount in your car -- window, dash, left or right of the wheel etc. -- and you can't leave the iPhone in a case (OK for me, might not be for others). The power and audio cables stick out of the side, which is a bit awkward, especially when you rotate it; I'm thinking of picking up some adhesive-backed clips at RadioShack to keep the wires out of the way as they wind their way down to the power and aux jacks. I've made only one phone call so far, which worked fine, but the phone uses the mount's speaker even when you're plugged into the car stereo (music and/or Tomtom app voice stops in the car speakers, and then the phone call comes out of the mount speaker). I could hear the phone call fine driving around town, but I'm a little worried about how well I'll be able to hear phone calls at freeway speeds in my noisy little car (a Honda Fit).
The acid test will be a substantial trip that includes some skyscraper canyons in a big city.
Last I checked it looked like BLT had sold out and was awaiting more shipments.
http://www.resellerratings.com/seller770-p1-s4-d1.html
when tstreete comes back and tells me how it works, I will probably order it from this company.
Gave it a brief test around town this afternoon. MotionX GPS lite status screen reported an accuracy (radius?) of between 30 feet to 50 feet, whereas without the TomTom mount it ranged from about 75 ft to 256 ft or worse. So, yeah, it improves GPS accuracy, and I did notice the difference when using the TomTom app.
The thing is well built and elegant, the nicest carphone mount design I've ever seen. You have to be gentle sticking the iPhone into the mount, but you can do it with one hand. You have to think about where to install the mount in your car -- window, dash, left or right of the wheel etc. -- and you can't leave the iPhone in a case (OK for me, might not be for others). The power and audio cables stick out of the side, which is a bit awkward, especially when you rotate it; I'm thinking of picking up some adhesive-backed clips at RadioShack to keep the wires out of the way as they wind their way down to the power and aux jacks. I've made only one phone call so far, which worked fine, but the phone uses the mount's speaker even when you're plugged into the car stereo (music and/or Tomtom app voice stops in the car speakers, and then the phone call comes out of the mount speaker). I could hear the phone call fine driving around town, but I'm a little worried about how well I'll be able to hear phone calls at freeway speeds in my noisy little car (a Honda Fit).
The acid test will be a substantial trip that includes some skyscraper canyons in a big city.
Last I checked it looked like BLT had sold out and was awaiting more shipments.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this,
and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this,
and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
Cboss
May 2, 07:55 PM
According to this article (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrication_in_the_United_States#20th_century), the metric system was supposed to be almost fully implemented in the US by 2000, but because of a lack of enough public and government support through the 70s-90s the program essentially got shut down.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
As an engineering student, I hope we will switch soon. The metric system makes so much more sense and is far easier to learn. Even for more common measurements (How many teaspoons/tablespoons in a cup again? Yards in a mile?), SI is a far superior system.
I think the biggest obstacle right now is the older generations who have grown up with imperial units and don't want to learn a new system. It should at least be taught equally in schools so a future switch won't cause as much resistance.
samiwas
Apr 19, 11:09 AM
I don't think anything will get done with the extreme left and extreme right fighting it out.
With America's bleak looking future (S&P; put a warning out today), something definitely has to be done. These small $10bil cuts over 10 years is not nearly enough. Those cuts are the same as me using pennies from those "Give a penny, take a penny" trays. They are moot and mean nothing.
The US needs is a complete overall of its spending and tax code.
Spending: Post every single line item on the internet so the people can see where the money is going. Place mandatory cuts on everything. Each department should be given a % of the country's income and that's all they get. NO MORE ISSUING DEBT.
Taxes: Throw away the 1 million pages of tax codes and create something much more simple. Tax income (not necessarily rates) will have to go up in order for America to survive.
-However, if income taxes go up, then make sales tax illegal. Since we are having problems with sales tax on online purchases in individual states, then just get rid of the program all together. It doesn't make sense anymore unless we have a VAT, which Americans can't afford. Sales tax is a double tax anyway. I already paid taxes on the money used to buy the goods, so why pay again?
-EVERYONE needs to pay taxes. No more of this "45% of people don't pay anything." There should be a mandatory minimum rate that you cannot drop below no matter how many deductions you have. This could be as simple as your taxes cannot drop any more than 33% of your current tax bracket. So, If you are in a 10% bracket, your taxes will be no less than 7.66%.
-Capital gains tax should only affect people making more than 50% (or some other %) of their income from capital gains. This will allow the average family to invest their money and contribute to the marketplace without being taxed on money that they already paid taxes on. Sure, they may make money or lose money on their investment, but let's cut them a break since they are using hard earned money. As for people who make more than 50% of their income from capital gains, tax them at the regular income rates.
I'm not against tax increases as long as the country is using it as a last resort. I want to see a massive effort by both parties to fix our current deficit issue. Taxes are inevitable, but lets make a good effort to reduce spending before that happens. I want to see the government act responsibly before I give them more money.
I can't believe I'm almost agreeing with
someone who has a picture of George Bush as their avatar. :D
I don't fully agree with "every item needs to be cut" in spending. We honestly do not need to be cutting education any more, as it's been the first on the chopping block for every cut thus far. The education system has its problems, that's for sure, but cutting its budget will only create more. Almost everything else could easily see some cuts, especially defense. I think the cuts should come from finding waste and fraud in the larger social programs, which I'm sure is rampant. But finding those would probably cost as much money as it saves.
Fully agree on simplifying tax code. The tax code is out of control and should be much, much simpler. There are things in there that must involve three people in the country. "Do you own land on which a blue house stands that was flooded on the second Tuesday of any month ending in an 'y'?" I think most deductions could be done away with, especially the really specialized ones.
Not sure how sales tax cutting would help the states, as they are the ones who are receiving that income. I wish STATE income tax returns would be simplified, especially for non residents. My non-resident California state return this year was larger than my federal return. That's BS. A non-resident tax return should be a post card: I made $xxx in your state, your rate is x%, I owe $xx.
Indeed, everyone should pay some sort of tax, even if it's only a few percent. If you get that back in social services, then great, you win. But everyone should put something in the pot.
I can go with your capital gains idea, but I might even go lower than 50% as the starting point. Our household income is just over six figures, and I have a bit over the six-figure mark in various investments currently. My Capital Gains last year? $35. A whopping .03%. Obviously, last year wasn't the best investment year, but I think the 50% mark could be high. Say anyone with over 30% in capital gains...it's not money they "worked hard" for, so they can't use that argument. It's basically free money.
With America's bleak looking future (S&P; put a warning out today), something definitely has to be done. These small $10bil cuts over 10 years is not nearly enough. Those cuts are the same as me using pennies from those "Give a penny, take a penny" trays. They are moot and mean nothing.
The US needs is a complete overall of its spending and tax code.
Spending: Post every single line item on the internet so the people can see where the money is going. Place mandatory cuts on everything. Each department should be given a % of the country's income and that's all they get. NO MORE ISSUING DEBT.
Taxes: Throw away the 1 million pages of tax codes and create something much more simple. Tax income (not necessarily rates) will have to go up in order for America to survive.
-However, if income taxes go up, then make sales tax illegal. Since we are having problems with sales tax on online purchases in individual states, then just get rid of the program all together. It doesn't make sense anymore unless we have a VAT, which Americans can't afford. Sales tax is a double tax anyway. I already paid taxes on the money used to buy the goods, so why pay again?
-EVERYONE needs to pay taxes. No more of this "45% of people don't pay anything." There should be a mandatory minimum rate that you cannot drop below no matter how many deductions you have. This could be as simple as your taxes cannot drop any more than 33% of your current tax bracket. So, If you are in a 10% bracket, your taxes will be no less than 7.66%.
-Capital gains tax should only affect people making more than 50% (or some other %) of their income from capital gains. This will allow the average family to invest their money and contribute to the marketplace without being taxed on money that they already paid taxes on. Sure, they may make money or lose money on their investment, but let's cut them a break since they are using hard earned money. As for people who make more than 50% of their income from capital gains, tax them at the regular income rates.
I'm not against tax increases as long as the country is using it as a last resort. I want to see a massive effort by both parties to fix our current deficit issue. Taxes are inevitable, but lets make a good effort to reduce spending before that happens. I want to see the government act responsibly before I give them more money.
I can't believe I'm almost agreeing with
someone who has a picture of George Bush as their avatar. :D
I don't fully agree with "every item needs to be cut" in spending. We honestly do not need to be cutting education any more, as it's been the first on the chopping block for every cut thus far. The education system has its problems, that's for sure, but cutting its budget will only create more. Almost everything else could easily see some cuts, especially defense. I think the cuts should come from finding waste and fraud in the larger social programs, which I'm sure is rampant. But finding those would probably cost as much money as it saves.
Fully agree on simplifying tax code. The tax code is out of control and should be much, much simpler. There are things in there that must involve three people in the country. "Do you own land on which a blue house stands that was flooded on the second Tuesday of any month ending in an 'y'?" I think most deductions could be done away with, especially the really specialized ones.
Not sure how sales tax cutting would help the states, as they are the ones who are receiving that income. I wish STATE income tax returns would be simplified, especially for non residents. My non-resident California state return this year was larger than my federal return. That's BS. A non-resident tax return should be a post card: I made $xxx in your state, your rate is x%, I owe $xx.
Indeed, everyone should pay some sort of tax, even if it's only a few percent. If you get that back in social services, then great, you win. But everyone should put something in the pot.
I can go with your capital gains idea, but I might even go lower than 50% as the starting point. Our household income is just over six figures, and I have a bit over the six-figure mark in various investments currently. My Capital Gains last year? $35. A whopping .03%. Obviously, last year wasn't the best investment year, but I think the 50% mark could be high. Say anyone with over 30% in capital gains...it's not money they "worked hard" for, so they can't use that argument. It's basically free money.
ikir
Apr 20, 04:36 AM
Why do we still call it iPhone 5? Everything points to iPhone 4S.
Indeed, I agree. I hope form factor stay the same as now since I have 4 bumpers, I will gift iPhone and a pink bumper to my girl. iPhone 4 is awesome it doesn't need a big revamp now... Sure more power always the better but I think users (me too) pretend too much nowadays.
Indeed, I agree. I hope form factor stay the same as now since I have 4 bumpers, I will gift iPhone and a pink bumper to my girl. iPhone 4 is awesome it doesn't need a big revamp now... Sure more power always the better but I think users (me too) pretend too much nowadays.
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:38 AM
overall figures at http://androidandme.com/2011/03/devices/android%E2%80%99s-market-share-depicted-with-a-whole-lot-of-colors/
![]()
twoodcc
Aug 3, 11:36 PM
the news say intel has already made small shipment last month enough for product launches, .. in september.. apple will expect large shipment.
so this means launching at wwdc, available in september
if this is true, then looks like i might be stuck with a 32-bit Macbook :o unless i can make myself wait........nah
so this means launching at wwdc, available in september
if this is true, then looks like i might be stuck with a 32-bit Macbook :o unless i can make myself wait........nah
applexpanther
Mar 29, 11:20 AM
i dont like this new idea of storing purchased media in the cloud. The thing that immediately comes to mind is more restrictions for our purchases. More limitations to make the end user cough up more money.
tonyl
Aug 7, 03:41 PM
No, it's "TWO 2.66GHz CPUs are about $800 more expensive than TWO 2.0GHz.....".
That's what I'm saying, $400x2=$800-$300=$500 profit for Apple, That's wonderful for Apple.
That's what I'm saying, $400x2=$800-$300=$500 profit for Apple, That's wonderful for Apple.
crees!
Aug 2, 11:45 AM
As for the two-camera thing... wasn't there a rumor sometime back about how Leopard could handle dual-camera chatting? It would use the monitor/camera that the chat window was on... move the chat window to the other display, and the other camera picks up the chat! Now that sounds wicked... sort of :D
Hammer God
Apr 7, 09:31 AM
Apple Competitors: "I wish we had $50 billion in cash to do this sort of thing."
