Krafty
Apr 5, 02:32 PM
75% of the wallpapers are some asian chick sitting on the hood of some car
Nothing wrong with that on my end.
Nothing wrong with that on my end.
ChrisNM
Apr 25, 09:13 AM
It's just the way you are holding your iPhone.
hobo.hopkins
Mar 29, 04:34 PM
Thousands of people are dying in Japan and all you idiots care about is iPod Touch batteries? That's kind of... selfish.
How dare people think of themselves in any way when something bad has occurred in the world. People in Darfur have been dying for quite some time now and I haven't thought of myself or my interests once since conflicts began. That's what a good person does.
Do you see how ridiculous you're being? There is no reason a person can't be concerned with supply shortages AND the Japanese people. They aren't mutually exclusive. Moreover, if you follow your flawed logic then no one could ever do anything for themselves. Horrific events happen everyday worldwide; tragedies can't stop us from living.
How dare people think of themselves in any way when something bad has occurred in the world. People in Darfur have been dying for quite some time now and I haven't thought of myself or my interests once since conflicts began. That's what a good person does.
Do you see how ridiculous you're being? There is no reason a person can't be concerned with supply shortages AND the Japanese people. They aren't mutually exclusive. Moreover, if you follow your flawed logic then no one could ever do anything for themselves. Horrific events happen everyday worldwide; tragedies can't stop us from living.
BLUELION
Apr 5, 01:55 PM
Apple did not sue. They made a request to Toyota, and Toyota valuing income and a business partnership, made the decision to stop what they were doing. No lawsuit involved.
Go ahead and jail break you device, it doesn't really matter if you do. But the problem is not about the end user here, which as the right to jailbreak, the issue is with business entities engaging in facilitating a jailbreak such as what Toyota did.
No they didn�t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn�t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can�t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
Go ahead and jail break you device, it doesn't really matter if you do. But the problem is not about the end user here, which as the right to jailbreak, the issue is with business entities engaging in facilitating a jailbreak such as what Toyota did.
No they didn�t. They ruled that distributing custom (jailbroken) firmware wasn�t in violation of copyright law.
Apple can�t sue people who jailbreak or distribute jailbreaks for copyright infringement. They can, however, still try to prevent people from jailbreaking.
z3r01
Apr 26, 04:48 PM
You are mocking the wrong companies. Quad Core Android phones? Tell us more about it. There are dual core phones and guess what - Apple will follow suit (with usual delay). Same goes with the cameras. Apple is lagging there too. Android phones and tablets get good stuff first (including cameras, and no, there are no Android phones with 7 cameras).
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
Ok umm it's obvious that the examples I used was sarcasm....but all in all..yes u get cameras and far better specs...but what does that prove? Not sales really..what device has sold more then an iOS device? All together android is out there more but target one single devices sales compared to iOS...evo made more then an iOS?no...droid made more then an iOS? No...android is ok but it's not passing iOS as one device alone...it needs to desperately piggy back other manufacturers in order to do so...but tell u this..if jobs was to say he wanted other manufacturers to carry iOS , goodbye android...but it doesn't need to do that..I guarantee that in apples top "threat" chart android is not even on the list....jailbreaks are...then probably cloud based services...but android like I said isn't even on there "oh snap" list.
While Android phones may not be that different from each other (although physical keyboard, screen size, LTE etc. are not so small differentiators) it's still much better than iPhone situation: one model (and then a white one a year later).
Ok umm it's obvious that the examples I used was sarcasm....but all in all..yes u get cameras and far better specs...but what does that prove? Not sales really..what device has sold more then an iOS device? All together android is out there more but target one single devices sales compared to iOS...evo made more then an iOS?no...droid made more then an iOS? No...android is ok but it's not passing iOS as one device alone...it needs to desperately piggy back other manufacturers in order to do so...but tell u this..if jobs was to say he wanted other manufacturers to carry iOS , goodbye android...but it doesn't need to do that..I guarantee that in apples top "threat" chart android is not even on the list....jailbreaks are...then probably cloud based services...but android like I said isn't even on there "oh snap" list.
Schizoid
Mar 31, 06:36 AM
Unsurprising.
At least 95% of rumors posted here and other Apple-related forums end up being wrong.
I'd say at least 95% of rumours are correct 45% of the time.
At least 95% of rumors posted here and other Apple-related forums end up being wrong.
I'd say at least 95% of rumours are correct 45% of the time.
ozontheroad
Aug 4, 11:04 PM
After Paris. Nov. 23, 2006 to be exact. Too bad you Aussies don't celebrate Thanksgiving. It is all about eating, drinking and watching football.
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 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
Mac'nCheese
Apr 9, 09:32 PM
Oh, I can admit when I'm wrong. I used to believe in protecting tenure for teachers. See?
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
Then we can end this on agreement. I don't believe in it too. My wife should keep her job if and only if she continues to do it well not because its near impossible to fire tenured staff. But don't think I missed your sarcasm...
Multimedia
Jul 23, 02:20 AM
...only if the Macbooks also get a price drop, because the Core Duo chips should get a price drop, if Intel even keeps making them.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).I'm with you MacInDoc. Intel is not going to keep selling Yonah for long before they stop making them. Anyone who does the least amount of research should see that Merom is a much better way to go for all the reasons you mention. If Apple is really trying to stay state-of-the-art, they will lose Yonah as soon as Intel's supply can keep up with Apple's production volume. On the MacBook front, this should be able to happen by October-November, I imagine.
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
What everyone keeps forgetting in this discussion, however, is that the Core2 Duo chips will be considerably more energy efficient, reducing heat production and prolonging battery life. Considering that they will be introduced at the same price as the current Core Duo chips, why not use them in the Macbook, at the 2 GHz speed?
Furthermore, transitioning all Macs to 64 bit chips as quickly as possible would also hasten the transition to a true 64 bit system, as developers would have more reason to develop for a 64 bit environment (assuming that OS X 10.5 is truly 64 bit).I'm with you MacInDoc. Intel is not going to keep selling Yonah for long before they stop making them. Anyone who does the least amount of research should see that Merom is a much better way to go for all the reasons you mention. If Apple is really trying to stay state-of-the-art, they will lose Yonah as soon as Intel's supply can keep up with Apple's production volume. On the MacBook front, this should be able to happen by October-November, I imagine.
If Apple doesn't put Core 2 Duo in MacBooks @ 1.83 & 2GHz by November, the competition on the PC front is going to make Apple look like they are selling outdated products as if they are current. This will not fly among savy buyers and MacBook sales might falter - perhaps even tank without such a switch. :eek:
Almost all mobile computers selling for more than $1k by November will be Core 2 Duo. So for the holiday shopping season, Apple has got to put them inside MacBooks by then.
Cougarcat
Apr 23, 09:26 PM
The current iMac's can't even run games at 2560x1440 very well, so an even higher resolution? Unless they want to stick a desktop Radeon 6950 (at least) in there, it just wouldn't work. Surely Apple sees how important gaming is with iOS and Steam?
You don't have to run games at those high resolutions.
You don't have to run games at those high resolutions.
Sky Blue
Aug 4, 01:25 PM
So I am planning on buying a MBP a soon or soon after they upgrade to Merom (depending on my $$ situation). BUt, I might be convinced to wait until Leopard is installed on the machines to buy.
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
$129 for everybody if it's like previous releases. There is usually no upgrade.
Question:
How much will it cost to upgrade? I know that the current version of OSX is $100+ in the Apple store. Is that an upgrade, or for people still running 9? Will the upgrade be that much?
Thanks
$129 for everybody if it's like previous releases. There is usually no upgrade.
jholzner
Aug 4, 09:47 AM
Apple's marketing strategy has always been that the PowerBooks (MacBook Pro) have faster processers then any of the iMac offerings. The Conroe and Allendale (Desktop) chips run faster then the Merom (Mobile) chips.
I'm not sure that's true. They had the G5 in the iMac and it was never in the Powerbook. When the Intel iMac was released it was running the same CPUs as the 15" MacBook Pro that was released at the same time. They are very different products so the differentiation is built in.
I'm not sure that's true. They had the G5 in the iMac and it was never in the Powerbook. When the Intel iMac was released it was running the same CPUs as the 15" MacBook Pro that was released at the same time. They are very different products so the differentiation is built in.
HecubusPro
Sep 10, 11:05 PM
It also leaves the MBP. If it is not updated, I will likely be driven into a mad frenzy where I buy some other brand of laptop. Honestly, the things Apple is forcing me to do...
I don't see that happening this week, as much as I want a merom MBP. This Sept. 12th event is geared soley towards ipods, nanos, and especially the movie store. I'm betting nothing will be said or released concerning MBP's or MB's. I hope to god I am proven wrong though. Ultimately, as poppe has suggested on other threads, Photokina on the 26th will be the place where MBP updates will happen, as that is more of a pro event. If they don't happen by then, that's when I will beging looking at yonah MBP's.
I don't see that happening this week, as much as I want a merom MBP. This Sept. 12th event is geared soley towards ipods, nanos, and especially the movie store. I'm betting nothing will be said or released concerning MBP's or MB's. I hope to god I am proven wrong though. Ultimately, as poppe has suggested on other threads, Photokina on the 26th will be the place where MBP updates will happen, as that is more of a pro event. If they don't happen by then, that's when I will beging looking at yonah MBP's.
david77
Apr 25, 10:30 AM
yes there is a problem. because it's unencrypted and everyone with access to your phone can read the information. the software tool they published showed my travel of the last 6 month quite accurately.
I don't want someone picking up my phone from my desk at work and find out what trips to what company I did. (it works internationally btw)
also I don't think the IRS or other tax collection agencies need to know when I was where.:D
Who is "everyone" with access with your phone? And my iPhone is either right next to me at my desk/home and in my pocket 99% of the time.
I don't want someone picking up my phone from my desk at work and find out what trips to what company I did. (it works internationally btw)
also I don't think the IRS or other tax collection agencies need to know when I was where.:D
Who is "everyone" with access with your phone? And my iPhone is either right next to me at my desk/home and in my pocket 99% of the time.
KnightWRX
Apr 23, 06:55 PM
Translating a photo to a vector based format would be completely pointless and would end up massive. Take for example the Snow Leopard Prowl JPEG. It's 1.2MB, and converting to BMP or TIFF (both describe each pixel individually, i.e. lossless) makes it 12mb, 10 times the size. Converting it to the much less efficient SVG, makes it insanely massive; 225mb or 187.5 times bigger to be exact.
No one is saying photos should be changed to vector based art. Looking at my dock right now, nothing is a photo, it's all cartoony images that when converted to vector art (something again, KDE did 10 years ago) isn't much bigger than JPEGs or PNGs when saved as SVG.
Also, another big plus, SVG being text based XML compresses very, very well (don't forget JPEG and PNG are compressed formats). For icons, it made sense to move to SVG 10 years ago. Apple is late to the game in this regard.
For wallpapers, some make sense (more cartoony images or things like the aurora wallpapers of past OS X releases) and some don't. I'm not arguing Apple drop support for pixel based formats, but rather that they add support for vector based art and use it as much as possible where it makes sense.
If a few unpaid Linux hackers can make it work, why can't Apple ?
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them...
In this case, last generation cards like the AMD Radeon 6000 that are about to show up in Macs (finally!) are quite capable of outputting the 3200x2000 resolutions which are being talked about here with the mount Fuji background. They have the RAM, the output bandwidth and the processing power.
No one is saying photos should be changed to vector based art. Looking at my dock right now, nothing is a photo, it's all cartoony images that when converted to vector art (something again, KDE did 10 years ago) isn't much bigger than JPEGs or PNGs when saved as SVG.
Also, another big plus, SVG being text based XML compresses very, very well (don't forget JPEG and PNG are compressed formats). For icons, it made sense to move to SVG 10 years ago. Apple is late to the game in this regard.
For wallpapers, some make sense (more cartoony images or things like the aurora wallpapers of past OS X releases) and some don't. I'm not arguing Apple drop support for pixel based formats, but rather that they add support for vector based art and use it as much as possible where it makes sense.
If a few unpaid Linux hackers can make it work, why can't Apple ?
I agree with others about Apple needing to beef up the GPUs if they want retina displays in their Macs. They always seem to put last-generation cards into them...
In this case, last generation cards like the AMD Radeon 6000 that are about to show up in Macs (finally!) are quite capable of outputting the 3200x2000 resolutions which are being talked about here with the mount Fuji background. They have the RAM, the output bandwidth and the processing power.
ShnikeJSB
Aug 11, 01:40 PM
In other words, G5 PowerBooks next tuesday ;)
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)
Man, I tell ya... 2 years+ ago when I wanted a new laptop, that's ALL I ever heard... I think Apple should build a one-off G5 laptop just to appease us crazy people in here, LOL! It would be an awesome tip-of-the-hat to us, don'tcha think? ;)
bboucher790
Apr 20, 01:49 AM
I'm on the 3GS > iPhone 5 > iPhone 7 upgrade sequence. I'm glad to be on it. I don't like to be a Beta tester. If there is an unseen design flaw (antennagate), it will give Apple a full year to "hopefully" fix the issue. I plan on using this phone without a case, so I don't want any antenna issues. I'm doubtful the iPhone 5 will have a better antenna. The Verizon iPhone has the same issues as the ATT iPhone. If Apple was going to fix it, they would have fixed it then....
yfile
Apr 24, 04:44 AM
No, it wouldn't. Please understand what Retina means ;) :
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/
For all we know, the 27" already is a Retina display. It depends on what distance you find normal sitting away from it.
Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/badastronomy/2010/06/10/resolving-the-iphone-resolution/
For all we know, the 27" already is a Retina display. It depends on what distance you find normal sitting away from it.
Retina is clearly defined by minimum 300 px/in resolution, so distance from monitor there is nothing to do with. Sitting 10 meters from monitor don't transform your monitor to hiperRetina. Please...
Radoo
Apr 18, 03:45 PM
The OS, sure. Samsung made that look VERY close to iOS.
The product design at Apple, however is just reinterpreted stuff from Dieter Rams. Products that function well start to look similar for a reason, though. If it ain't broke....
http://www.errortype.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rams.jpg
Thank you for this post. Very good! :D
The product design at Apple, however is just reinterpreted stuff from Dieter Rams. Products that function well start to look similar for a reason, though. If it ain't broke....
http://www.errortype.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/rams.jpg
Thank you for this post. Very good! :D
itcheroni
Apr 21, 12:50 AM
I'd love it if you could point out where you addressed this, because as a tax accountant, I'm having a hard time thinking of a time when a realized capital gain isn't income - if you have a realized net gain (ie amount realized is greater than your basis in the capital asset), you certainly have income. Certainly you could reinvest that net gain, but that doesn't mean you don't have income, that just means you realized a gain and reinvested the old basis and the gain (income). You're only taxed on realized gains that are recognized by the code (and you can net against realized losses) - sure, I could have an unrealized capital gain that isn't income, but I wouldn't be taxed on it either. Not that I don't agree with some of your points, but I'd really love the same clarification on this that most other posters have been asking for.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
I suppose what you are getting at as a trader is that you buy a capital asset for $1000 and sell two days latter for $1100, then reinvest the $1100 into another capital asset. You'd be taxed on the $100 of capital gain even though you effectively have no cash in your hands to pay the tax. Unfortunately for traders, income doesn't mean cash. But a person who was in the trade or business of being a professional trader wouldn't qualify for capital gains treatment anyways, it would all be ordinary income.
Okay, but just for you, dude (when you disagree with me, we both can at least understand what we're disagreeing on. Other people here, well, it's just a waste of time. They start responding before even understanding my point). I guess I didn't make it clear earlier but my perspective on capital gains is in relation to inflation. If there were 100 widgets and 100 dollars, let's say the value of one widget was 1 dollar. If the central bank in charge of dollars decides to do some quantitative easing and increases the money supply to 200 dollars. This will lead to inflation with one widget valued at approximately 2 dollars. Now, why should one pay capital gains on this when, most likely, everything else costs more too. You didn't really receive any gain; the measurement of value (dollars) decreased.
For example, let's say there was a tax for getting taller. If the measurement of an inch or foot keeps decreasing, you will have to keep paying even though you're not getting taller.
Earlier I gave an example of the time between buying an apple and biting into it, likening it to cost basis and realized gain. We would find it ridiculous to pay a tax for any capital gain in the apple, but if I choose to save my money in gold until I use it, most people think I'm actually gaining something. If I were holding stock in a company that paid dividends, that might be different.
So from my perspective, the inflation (capital gain) itself is a tax, and we have to pay a tax for that tax. Right now, I don't believe the economy is really improving; the Fed is just creating enough inflation to improve the numbers. Stocks may be going up, but I think food prices are going up even faster. So what is the point of a capital gains on stocks if the proceeds from the sale nets you even less groceries than at the time of your cost basis? If a 1 ounce gold coin a hundred years ago buys you roughly the same today, what is the point of charging a capital gains? In this case, the coin would have gone from $20 to $1500, adding up to a capital gain of $1480. Sure, you could have save the $20 in cash instead of gold, but then you're "taxed" by inflation. Instead of paying your rent for several months, $20 will now buy you a haircut. Forget the "tax the rich" aspect of this; this makes it really difficult for poor people to save money because they are the ones most likely to save cash.
My concern is, how will we save our purchasing power? The government is actively decreasing the value of our money and anything we do to try and save our purchasing power is stripped away by taxes.
Rot'nApple
Mar 29, 04:41 PM
It would be something if the brains at Apple could find a way to utilize and harness that high level of radiated water Japan has since trying to cool down the reactor cores and create some kind of supercharged liquid powered battery with a runtime describe in half-life versus 40 hours music and 7 hours video that the iPod Touch currently has... :eek:
Japan get's rid of that juiced water and Apple's iPod Touch gets some high energy liquid juiced batteries. Of course, there's the issue of health... But Ives can redesign it using lead encasement instead of aluminum pronounced, Al - U - Men - Yum...
Besides, by the time your doctor tells you of any health issues, you're deaf anyway form iPod earbud listening and you wouldn't hear the bad news. :rolleyes:
/
/
/
Japan get's rid of that juiced water and Apple's iPod Touch gets some high energy liquid juiced batteries. Of course, there's the issue of health... But Ives can redesign it using lead encasement instead of aluminum pronounced, Al - U - Men - Yum...
Besides, by the time your doctor tells you of any health issues, you're deaf anyway form iPod earbud listening and you wouldn't hear the bad news. :rolleyes:
/
/
/
DTphonehome
Jul 30, 09:28 AM
Verizon was reliable, although their network has been terrible. As I've said, I never get 3 bars or above, and I live in Denver! The service will constantly go out whenever I'm in NYC.
Dude, you need to hit *228 when you travel to update your roam list. And I live in Midtown Manhattan and with my Treo650, I've never had a dropped call and the only time I don't have service is in the basement of a massive building. I've lived in NYC all my life and have had a phone with literally every provider here, and VZV trumps them ALL in terms of network reliability. The phones are crap, the data is overpriced, and they cripple bluetooth, but the service is the most important feature for me, so I stay with them.
Amp'd is actually owned by Verizon, adnd Boost is owned by SprintNextel, using the same chirping technology as Nextel. Forgot the deal about Virgin.
None of those companies are "owned" by the major carriers...they are MVNOs who buy bandwidth from the majors to set up their own virtual network. They are independent from the majors.
Dude, you need to hit *228 when you travel to update your roam list. And I live in Midtown Manhattan and with my Treo650, I've never had a dropped call and the only time I don't have service is in the basement of a massive building. I've lived in NYC all my life and have had a phone with literally every provider here, and VZV trumps them ALL in terms of network reliability. The phones are crap, the data is overpriced, and they cripple bluetooth, but the service is the most important feature for me, so I stay with them.
Amp'd is actually owned by Verizon, adnd Boost is owned by SprintNextel, using the same chirping technology as Nextel. Forgot the deal about Virgin.
None of those companies are "owned" by the major carriers...they are MVNOs who buy bandwidth from the majors to set up their own virtual network. They are independent from the majors.
Keymaster
Aug 7, 02:54 PM
I don't understand why people are complaining about the Bluetooth and wireless not being included. These are not portables, they won't move, and in many cases professionals don't care if the keyboard is wired or want it wired for some specific reason. Wireless internet is for portable computers folks, not a big hunk of aluminum that will sit on the floor or desk permanently. Wired is also still faster than wireless...if you are in a networked office environment that can make a massive difference.
dukebound85
Apr 10, 06:02 PM
I don't see how you can say that. None the less how anyone can confidently answer this question.
You arrive at 288 by multiplying 48/2 * (9+3), but that is assuming multiplication is the implied operator.
Multiplication is always what you do when there is a term directly adjacent the ()
balamw & dukebound85:
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
No assumptions are being made to get 288, but assumptions are being made to get 2. That is the point
There is nothing wrong with how the original post is written from a mathematical point of view as it produces a definite result.
However, if the author of the equation meant for all that to be under the denominator, it is not properly written.
If he did not mean for it to be, it is written in a proper manner but could be written in a clearer form such as (48/2)(9+3). However, that is identical to 48/2(9+3)
You arrive at 288 by multiplying 48/2 * (9+3), but that is assuming multiplication is the implied operator.
Multiplication is always what you do when there is a term directly adjacent the ()
balamw & dukebound85:
You guys are making too many assumptions.
Following your thought process, the original post is not properly written then?
No assumptions are being made to get 288, but assumptions are being made to get 2. That is the point
There is nothing wrong with how the original post is written from a mathematical point of view as it produces a definite result.
However, if the author of the equation meant for all that to be under the denominator, it is not properly written.
If he did not mean for it to be, it is written in a proper manner but could be written in a clearer form such as (48/2)(9+3). However, that is identical to 48/2(9+3)
No comments:
Post a Comment