al404
May 4, 08:54 AM
if i didn't read wrong based on ifixit and the specs of card jumbo frames should be supported
Broadcom BCM57765B0KMLG
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-21-5-Inch-EMC-2428-Teardown/5485/2
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765
Broadcom BCM57765B0KMLG
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-21-5-Inch-EMC-2428-Teardown/5485/2
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765
WardC
Jul 4, 02:05 PM
Too bad OS X 10.1 is good for zero-to nothing now!! Anyways, I have the same deal, I also have the OS X 10.0 in the box!
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 05:02 PM
Don't the movie studios operate as commercial businesses? Don't they make a profit (overall - some movies flop I know)?
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
Except that iPod/iTMS sales would represent, generally speaking, the loss of a DVD sale. They would love, I am sure, to ONLY sell through iTMS and similar services, assuming:
1) They sold the same number of copies,
2) They had the same or great profit margin, and
3) They had better/stricter copy protection.
On that note, I'm still amazed no one has reverse engineered the iTMS video copy protection scheme. I hear DVDJohn has done it, but is using his powers for "good" (well, his good) and selling it to companies who want to offer DRM'd video for playback on iPods without going through Apple.
They couldn't affort to spend $100M/movie if they didn't get the money back!
Therefore, iPod sales are 'extra' income for them.
I know that there may be some drop-off in theatre ticket sales if the same movie is available via iPod sometime in the future, but don't they face this now with DVD sales?
It may be simplistic, but why not hold back offering the on-line sale of the movie until they have exhausted the 'theatre experience' the way they do with DVD sales, and then get ready for the '2nd wave' of additional income.
I agree that you should pay for what you have, but I also think you should get what you pay for without excessive restrictions. Yes, electronic media differs from physical media and some rules should be different, but the underlying principles stay the same.
Susan
Except that iPod/iTMS sales would represent, generally speaking, the loss of a DVD sale. They would love, I am sure, to ONLY sell through iTMS and similar services, assuming:
1) They sold the same number of copies,
2) They had the same or great profit margin, and
3) They had better/stricter copy protection.
On that note, I'm still amazed no one has reverse engineered the iTMS video copy protection scheme. I hear DVDJohn has done it, but is using his powers for "good" (well, his good) and selling it to companies who want to offer DRM'd video for playback on iPods without going through Apple.
tjb1
Feb 14, 09:17 AM
Also just FYI, keep in mind the power consumption.
"The original PS3 model will use about 200 Watts while running Folding@home. A later model PS3 (with a 40 GB hard drive) will use about 115 Watts."
So, either 1 or 2 big light bulbs if you wanna look at it that way.
Well im at school so it would be using there power :) Do these tasks kinda lock the PS3 down for a specific amount of time or what?
"The original PS3 model will use about 200 Watts while running Folding@home. A later model PS3 (with a 40 GB hard drive) will use about 115 Watts."
So, either 1 or 2 big light bulbs if you wanna look at it that way.
Well im at school so it would be using there power :) Do these tasks kinda lock the PS3 down for a specific amount of time or what?
more...
kentop2
Nov 2, 06:18 AM
June 21, 2009 the market was closed,
June 19th, 2009 Apple was 139.48, and Netflix was $41.59
May 4th, 2010 Apple was $258.68, netflix was $99.36
June 19th, 2009 Apple was 139.48, and Netflix was $41.59
May 4th, 2010 Apple was $258.68, netflix was $99.36
drinu89
Apr 7, 10:41 AM
I never considered doing this, at least not before now.
Thanks for the link.
Welcome mate :)
Thanks for the link.
Welcome mate :)
more...
vvswarup
Mar 25, 11:50 AM
Missed their chance when Apple didn't approve the improved Google maps app the first time it was available. Now it has improved even more while Maps.app has done nothing, and I'm sure Google has withdrawn the app now that they are doing their own phone OS.
Come on Apple - give us a nice surprise.
What you seem to be referring to is Google Voice. Google never developed turn-by-turn directions for iOS, and I don't think they plan to develop it. Google Maps gives Android a big competitive advantage, so I don't think Google is every going to port it over to iOS.
Apple bought out Placebase and a couple of other mapping companies. It's time Apple put them to use and get away from as many of Google's services/apps as possible.
Come on Apple - give us a nice surprise.
What you seem to be referring to is Google Voice. Google never developed turn-by-turn directions for iOS, and I don't think they plan to develop it. Google Maps gives Android a big competitive advantage, so I don't think Google is every going to port it over to iOS.
Apple bought out Placebase and a couple of other mapping companies. It's time Apple put them to use and get away from as many of Google's services/apps as possible.
daleycss
May 3, 02:36 PM
Hey does anyone with a new Macbook Pro or iMac that has the HD Facetime Camera know if Photobooth supports the higher resolution?
more...
nbs2
Nov 24, 10:40 AM
This looks to be the same kind of app as Growl (http://growl.info/) which someone did mention in this thread.
oops. :o i like adium, i'd go check it out, but i can't get the page to load... :confused:
oops. :o i like adium, i'd go check it out, but i can't get the page to load... :confused:
nunoabsilva
Dec 6, 02:37 AM
http://i55.tinypic.com/kbrozs.png
mmmmm oliviaaaaa in full 1080p
wallpaper please....
thanks in advanced
mmmmm oliviaaaaa in full 1080p
wallpaper please....
thanks in advanced
more...
sochrisash
Oct 15, 06:33 AM
http://i418.photobucket.com/albums/pp263/sochrisash/Picture1-8.png
Emma stone :D
Yeh my boring iMac desktop, haven't got round to customizing it
Emma stone :D
Yeh my boring iMac desktop, haven't got round to customizing it
Umbongo
Apr 21, 01:26 PM
There is certainly no official support for it and I've never seen it attempted, but maybe it would work.
You would still only be able to use 4 memory slots if that was why you were thinking of it being something worth doing. So the only benefit is in a financial one if you were upgrading.
You would still only be able to use 4 memory slots if that was why you were thinking of it being something worth doing. So the only benefit is in a financial one if you were upgrading.
more...
leaonfm
May 3, 05:21 PM
You lost me, Cable image? what's that?
Ann P
Sep 30, 11:30 PM
http://img705.imageshack.us/img705/7813/octobern.jpg
Link to original (http://plmegalo.deviantart.com/art/Fragile-Wallpaper-pack-180716186?q=&qo=#/d2zk9j1=)
Link to original (http://plmegalo.deviantart.com/art/Fragile-Wallpaper-pack-180716186?q=&qo=#/d2zk9j1=)
more...
EagerDragon
Oct 9, 12:05 PM
I find some pages are designed to be too wide or and some too narrow. If I can control the width of the pages and the fileds, it would be good if it remeber those settings for that page and site.
NebulaClash
Apr 27, 12:54 PM
We iPhone and 3G iPad owners are plenty upset by this as well.
Well, to be fair, you express hate toward Apple constantly. And given the conspiracy ideas in your signature, you are plenty upset about lots of things in your life. So I would hardly consider you a typical case. Apple could offer free computers tomorrow and you'd instantly post a message expressing your hatred of Apple for doing that.
Well, to be fair, you express hate toward Apple constantly. And given the conspiracy ideas in your signature, you are plenty upset about lots of things in your life. So I would hardly consider you a typical case. Apple could offer free computers tomorrow and you'd instantly post a message expressing your hatred of Apple for doing that.
more...
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
fraeone
Jan 24, 04:12 AM
lame.
Apple OC
Mar 28, 01:01 AM
the buyer does deserves to lose his money for his own stupidity.
everybody makes foolish mistakes ... I just don't understand you wishing the buyer gets ripped off.
here's hoping you never make a foolish lane change while driving and have to pay the sort of price you wish on others
everybody makes foolish mistakes ... I just don't understand you wishing the buyer gets ripped off.
here's hoping you never make a foolish lane change while driving and have to pay the sort of price you wish on others
DJ OJ
Oct 16, 08:36 PM
No. 17. ANd it is not even apple.:(
Ashwee
Mar 25, 02:02 PM
Just a hint:
http://maps.me.com/
http://maps.me.com/
GyroFX
Apr 24, 11:36 PM
why even bother coming out with a white iphone for this year? Does anyone really care anymore?
sockdoggy
Apr 28, 07:35 PM
These lawsuits can't possibly be sustainable.
The ancient patent system needs to be revamped.
The ancient patent system needs to be revamped.
al404
May 4, 08:54 AM
if i didn't read wrong based on ifixit and the specs of card jumbo frames should be supported
Broadcom BCM57765B0KMLG
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-21-5-Inch-EMC-2428-Teardown/5485/2
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765
Broadcom BCM57765B0KMLG
http://www.ifixit.com/Teardown/iMac-Intel-21-5-Inch-EMC-2428-Teardown/5485/2
http://www.broadcom.com/products/Ethernet-Controllers/Enterprise-Client/BCM57765
No comments:
Post a Comment