clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
ericswyatt
Apr 30, 03:35 PM
They will be listed under the Refurbished Section. It will be a good deal, yes. It sounds like you wouldn't need the newest model anyway.
Right. I mean, I'll look at the newer models, sure...may even decide to go that way, but if I can get a good deal on the "old" model, I'm probably leaning toward that...have been waiting for the refresh to see if I can get a lower price, etc.
That being said, will they be pretty quick to move old stock into the refurb section? I really wasn't paying close attention to how quickly 1st gen iPads were discounted, I just know they were, at some point....also, will the retail stores sell off older model stock or do they ship them all back to be sold centrally from the refurb store?
Right. I mean, I'll look at the newer models, sure...may even decide to go that way, but if I can get a good deal on the "old" model, I'm probably leaning toward that...have been waiting for the refresh to see if I can get a lower price, etc.
That being said, will they be pretty quick to move old stock into the refurb section? I really wasn't paying close attention to how quickly 1st gen iPads were discounted, I just know they were, at some point....also, will the retail stores sell off older model stock or do they ship them all back to be sold centrally from the refurb store?
Macnoviz
Sep 26, 12:49 PM
You've gotta love it. You're getting mad at not getting a phone that 1) Doesn't exist yet, 2) May not exist at all, and 3) the US doesn't even have yet.
It's an overal frustration of non US people that has been building up since iTunes.
When will we see global releases of iTunes stuff?
It's an overal frustration of non US people that has been building up since iTunes.
When will we see global releases of iTunes stuff?
Amazing Iceman
Apr 11, 08:47 AM
i dont know much about this, but does this mean i can stream to my ps3 now?
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
Not yet. This just means that it's now very possible for someone to develop an app to do it.
cleric
Apr 22, 01:45 PM
I think the big advantage to this downgrade will be buying clearance and refurbished Nvidia-based MBAs for 25% discounts... Unless Apple somehow fits a standard voltage SB CPU in the 13" MBA, I think most will be better off with C2D and Nvidia 320m at discounts.
Exactly what I was thinking I'd much rather have the 320M it makes youtube and other graphics accelerated apps so much better than the 9400M, can't imagine downgrading to igp.
Exactly what I was thinking I'd much rather have the 320M it makes youtube and other graphics accelerated apps so much better than the 9400M, can't imagine downgrading to igp.
SFStateStudent
Apr 4, 12:59 PM
What sort of criminal brings a gun to a robbery? The sort of criminal that is willing to utilize their gun to get away at all costs. Human life is not sacred to criminals that carry guns; whether it's their own lives or the lives of innocent people; or the lives of law enforcement or the lives of security guards...:mad:
This was NEVER your run of the mill "smash & grab" but a premeditated crime w/guns...
This was NEVER your run of the mill "smash & grab" but a premeditated crime w/guns...
Yebot
Aug 31, 12:14 PM
9/12
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
One day before Yebot's birthday. Good timing. I smell a MBP in my future.
22Hertz
Mar 29, 11:31 AM
I predict in 2012 the world comes to an end
shadowx
Sep 26, 10:51 AM
Wonderful... why would Apple choose the carrier with the worst coverage and customer service (well, besides Sprint)??? T-Mobile or Verizon would be better choices...
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
You know, if Cingular didn't spend the $$$ to get all of the cool phones first, I think they would be out of business by now... If someone has had a different experience with Cingular, please let me know ;)
I still think Apple should go the Mobile Virtual Network Operator route ala Virgin Mobile, Helio, Amp'd, mobile ESPN, etc.
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:18 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
elmo151
Apr 22, 05:02 AM
The idea must delight at&t. Data charges will be very high
What about those many places where 3G is not available
....weak reception areas
....no reception areas
....airplanes, subways,...
What about those many places where 3G is not available
....weak reception areas
....no reception areas
....airplanes, subways,...
brepublican
Aug 23, 07:13 PM
WOW. And I thought hell froze over when bootcamp was introduced...
There is nothing unusual with this move, I dont know why it keeps coming up. In fact, its strategic on Creative's part to include it in the settlement. They make good headphones and speakers, and if affixing a 'Made for iPod' tag on them increases revenue, they have nothing to lose. Total profit
There is nothing unusual with this move, I dont know why it keeps coming up. In fact, its strategic on Creative's part to include it in the settlement. They make good headphones and speakers, and if affixing a 'Made for iPod' tag on them increases revenue, they have nothing to lose. Total profit
MovieCutter
Sep 5, 04:33 PM
I'm going to venture a guess and say we'll see something named the iPod Showtime or Showtime as a product name.
cube
Apr 14, 01:05 PM
The mini-display port connector is part of the DisplayPort 1.2 standard and is seemingly seeing wide adoption from PC laptop and display makers.
The DisplayPort 1.2 specification requires support for DisplayPort 1.1a on mini-display ports, but I don't see anything that precludes it supporting 1.2 signalling.
Can you point to an article that details how Thunderbolt is a problem for this? The Thunderbolt controller, when connected to a DisplayPort 1.2 (only) display, could fall back to DisplayPort mode like it does now, could it not?
Thunderbolt is currently limited to 10Gbps per channel, which is much less of what DisplayPort 1.2 requires.
The DisplayPort 1.2 specification requires support for DisplayPort 1.1a on mini-display ports, but I don't see anything that precludes it supporting 1.2 signalling.
Can you point to an article that details how Thunderbolt is a problem for this? The Thunderbolt controller, when connected to a DisplayPort 1.2 (only) display, could fall back to DisplayPort mode like it does now, could it not?
Thunderbolt is currently limited to 10Gbps per channel, which is much less of what DisplayPort 1.2 requires.
~Shard~
Aug 31, 11:52 AM
If Apple made a new handheld with PDA, video, and audio features based around the iPod innovations... I'm there man, I'd so buy one.
What about cell phone capabilities too? :p ;)
What about cell phone capabilities too? :p ;)
Pravius
Apr 22, 08:48 AM
I understand the concept of all this, but what if you're in a place with bad reception (or no WiFi for users without an iPhone)? I don't think that I'll be switching to an all-cloud storage service any time soon.
I do not think that is the plan. I believe the service will allow you to download your songs as well. It just gives you the option to go to the cloud if / when needed.
I do not think that is the plan. I believe the service will allow you to download your songs as well. It just gives you the option to go to the cloud if / when needed.
cwt1nospam
Dec 31, 10:23 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
No, it doesn't. The only way your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is vulnerable to these things is if YOU jailbreak it. Even then, the number of jail broken IOS devices is and will remain too small a target to go after. This is why Apple has a walled garden, and why the Android model is destined to follow the PC down the virus/botnet hell hole. It's also why AV vendors would prefer that you bought Android or Windows mobile.
No, it doesn't. The only way your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is vulnerable to these things is if YOU jailbreak it. Even then, the number of jail broken IOS devices is and will remain too small a target to go after. This is why Apple has a walled garden, and why the Android model is destined to follow the PC down the virus/botnet hell hole. It's also why AV vendors would prefer that you bought Android or Windows mobile.
iKyle0990
Apr 22, 08:42 AM
This is exciting, since my music library already tops 16 GB and isn't shrinking any time soon. Now, I saw a little bit about it in the article, but does anyone else know if the general consensus is that ALL of ones music could be stored? As opposed to just iTunes-purchased songs. That's crucial.
Randall
Aug 28, 03:35 PM
I doubt that Apple will announce any Core 2 Duo upgrades to the MacBook Pro line until Sept 18th at Paris. That is just the way Apple does things, and I think it will be within the appropriate time frame for processor upgrades (It's been just 8 months since the initial release of MBP.)
It will be interresting as this is the first of many processor upgrades from intel's "Core" lineup. If Apple wants to continue to march to the beat of their own drum and feel like they can update their own lines as they see fit, then it would be in their best interest to have multiple upgrades at the same time. In other words upgrade the video card and HDD while you're at it to make it seem like the longer wait was worth while.
It will be interresting as this is the first of many processor upgrades from intel's "Core" lineup. If Apple wants to continue to march to the beat of their own drum and feel like they can update their own lines as they see fit, then it would be in their best interest to have multiple upgrades at the same time. In other words upgrade the video card and HDD while you're at it to make it seem like the longer wait was worth while.
nonameowns
Mar 29, 12:43 PM
thanks for the laugh!
early for april fools though
by 2015, wp7 doesn't exist.
early for april fools though
by 2015, wp7 doesn't exist.
Benjy91
Mar 30, 12:14 PM
Here's a novel thought. Why doesn't Microsoft create something, you know, novel?
Kinect Fastest Selling Gadget Ever (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/10/kinect-fastest-selling-device)
Microsoft Phone App turns normal pics into 3D models (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/microsoft-phone-app-turns-normal-pics-into-3d-models-20110325/)
Microsoft invent 234 inch Touch Screen (http://www.technobolt.com/2011/03/28/microsoft-created-huge-234-inch-touchscreen-display-video/)
Kinect Fastest Selling Gadget Ever (http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2011-03/10/kinect-fastest-selling-device)
Microsoft Phone App turns normal pics into 3D models (http://www.geek.com/articles/mobile/microsoft-phone-app-turns-normal-pics-into-3d-models-20110325/)
Microsoft invent 234 inch Touch Screen (http://www.technobolt.com/2011/03/28/microsoft-created-huge-234-inch-touchscreen-display-video/)
etoiles
Sep 15, 07:15 PM
It's a stupid law and not enforced. I talk on my phone all the time, while driving a stick shift with no problems. You just have to be willing to take the phone away from your ear when you need two hands.
...this law just got passed (today?). It won't be enforced until July next year, I think.
I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:
...this law just got passed (today?). It won't be enforced until July next year, I think.
I wouldn't say it is stupid. The other day, I saw a woman driving a big SUV, a cellphone in one hand and an icecream in the other :eek:
bdj21ya
Sep 15, 05:51 PM
I hear that in Japan 6 to 7 megapixels is more common for the phones.
Anonymous Freak
Sep 19, 10:33 PM
I wonder if these people are buying one to "test it out" or are buying multiple movies.
Well, I bought one "to test it out" (as I've done with each iT[nee M]S intro.)
But I also bought a couple TV shows that I had wanted before, but didn't want at 320x240. The 640x480 version of the Babylon 5 Pilot looks just as good as my DVD copy. (And it's nice, because it's the as-originally-aired version, not the TNT give-plot-away-early edit.) The CG looks a little worse, but that's because it was worse. (They re-did some of the CG for the TNT version.)
Well, I bought one "to test it out" (as I've done with each iT[nee M]S intro.)
But I also bought a couple TV shows that I had wanted before, but didn't want at 320x240. The 640x480 version of the Babylon 5 Pilot looks just as good as my DVD copy. (And it's nice, because it's the as-originally-aired version, not the TNT give-plot-away-early edit.) The CG looks a little worse, but that's because it was worse. (They re-did some of the CG for the TNT version.)
