mcrain
Apr 19, 01:32 PM
That is a fair point.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
Perhaps the question is this. For those people who pay no federal income taxes, what other federal taxes do they pay? Since you are a tax attorney, I'm guessing you may have a good link.
It may be a fair point, but a bit of an overstatement. The original statement wasn't that they pay no taxes, but that they paid no income taxes. The implication that they paid no taxes is what is actually improper.
FICA, SS - Medicare are the big federal taxes just about everyone pays. Beyond that, there are telecommunications taxes, gasoline taxes, and many other taxes imposed at the state level to pay for federally mandated costs.
That brings me to the big mistake when it comes to debating federal taxes. Just because you reduce federal government spending, does NOT reduce the things government has to do for our society to function the way we want it to. It certainly doesn't pay for what we could be doing. A reduction of federal taxes by $1 does not necessarily reduce your tax burden by $1. Much of the expense of required government services is passed on to the states where the tax burdens are almost all regressive (there are some mildly progressive state income taxes). Sales taxes, for example, are very regressive, and are used by local governments to fund local services, many of which used to have federal funding that is long gone. Same goes for education (property taxes/lottery), medicaid, and a whole littiny of other services.
I point this out because your rising state taxes are in part due to federal funding that was initially sold as a way of "getting the federal government out of a local function." The money was allocated to the states to spend on some service that had been previously provided by the feds, but then guess what, it was easy to cut.
What happens down the road when the people who are advocating for the Medicaid block grant want to gut its funding? Either Medicaid dies, or your state taxes will go up.
In my dream world, all levels of government would be funded by a single far more progressive income tax that treats all income identically. Every other form of tax would be unnecessary. (edit) Callmemike - to achieve this, or eliminate other taxes, would require constitutional amendment and cooperating local and state government.
Personally, I would be willing to pay more taxes so that I can retire and spoil my grandchildren, and tell them stories they won't believe about how our country used to be deep in debt.
2nyRiggz
Aug 7, 02:06 PM
If I had the money....I might of float away with a maxed out Pro but knowing that I can change up things is sweet enough....exactly what I was waiting for.
Bless
Bless
gavers
Mar 31, 09:51 AM
You are mixing up badly. That example shows that humans who can read, are trained to rely on what they read almost blindly rather than identifying a color. This means, Apples choice of making the icons grey makes it indeed easier to recognize as there is one less distraction. An even stronger conclusion would be: Leave the icons away completely, because reading is much faster.
Icons were useful in the 1990s, when the number of pixels on the screen was small. Nowadays, just use text, it is way better. Look at websites, icons are used very sparsely. Text is the way to go.
I think you're on to something here. Personally I prefer colour icons, they're quite easy for me to recognise when I'm not using my glasses.
But for the non-icon approach just take a look at Gmail for example -- no icons, just text links and it's easy to use. Hotmail recently switched to a mostly icon-free interface and I find it easier to use than the previous icon-ladened design. Then look at the usability nightmare that is Yahoo mail with its icon infested UI.
Reading reviews for the Color app it seems that labelless icons are very unwelcome. And I agree, Color's cryptic unlabeled icons defy logic.
As far as Mac OS X 10.7 goes I think they should either have colour icons or no icons at all. The gray icons are a waste of space. By the time I can make out what the icon is, I've already read the text next to it.
Waht isn't monetined is taht plepoe raed msltoy by rcensignoig seaphs. Which is why you were able to read that sentence without much struggle, if any. So well defined icons with unique shapes would be good, or colours that stand out. But colourless, shapeless icons (such as in Mail.app) are all but useless.
Icons were useful in the 1990s, when the number of pixels on the screen was small. Nowadays, just use text, it is way better. Look at websites, icons are used very sparsely. Text is the way to go.
I think you're on to something here. Personally I prefer colour icons, they're quite easy for me to recognise when I'm not using my glasses.
But for the non-icon approach just take a look at Gmail for example -- no icons, just text links and it's easy to use. Hotmail recently switched to a mostly icon-free interface and I find it easier to use than the previous icon-ladened design. Then look at the usability nightmare that is Yahoo mail with its icon infested UI.
Reading reviews for the Color app it seems that labelless icons are very unwelcome. And I agree, Color's cryptic unlabeled icons defy logic.
As far as Mac OS X 10.7 goes I think they should either have colour icons or no icons at all. The gray icons are a waste of space. By the time I can make out what the icon is, I've already read the text next to it.
Waht isn't monetined is taht plepoe raed msltoy by rcensignoig seaphs. Which is why you were able to read that sentence without much struggle, if any. So well defined icons with unique shapes would be good, or colours that stand out. But colourless, shapeless icons (such as in Mail.app) are all but useless.
oracle_ab
Mar 29, 01:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (iPod touch 16GB: Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
There is nothing wrong with companies using resources abroad. It's called specialization. Why produce something for more money and less efficiently when it can be done better and cheaper elsewhere?
Because it's rapidly becoming the case that EVERYTHING can be produced more cheaply in places like China and India -- even things that were previously thought to be "safe" industries (medical X-Rays are read in India / China, legal documents are authored overseas and sent back to the US to be signed) because they required and educated or advanced workforce.
So, I turn the question back to you -- how will you afford to buy an iPod when you are asked to take a substantial (50% or more) pay cut because an individual in India or China can do YOUR job more cheaply.
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
So, so true.
There is nothing wrong with companies using resources abroad. It's called specialization. Why produce something for more money and less efficiently when it can be done better and cheaper elsewhere?
Because it's rapidly becoming the case that EVERYTHING can be produced more cheaply in places like China and India -- even things that were previously thought to be "safe" industries (medical X-Rays are read in India / China, legal documents are authored overseas and sent back to the US to be signed) because they required and educated or advanced workforce.
So, I turn the question back to you -- how will you afford to buy an iPod when you are asked to take a substantial (50% or more) pay cut because an individual in India or China can do YOUR job more cheaply.
Globalization is a race to the bottom, and nobody seems to understand that while the 3rd world rises up, the 1st world inevitably must slide down.
So, so true.
Ommid
Apr 22, 01:05 PM
doubtful, this is a key switcher market... it would be crazy to axe the very thing that will continue to switch the PC builders/gamers over the next 5 years... this is a key ingredient to apple taking the industry over with time.
Agree with this, not likely.
Agree with this, not likely.
jaxstate
Aug 4, 08:38 AM
How do you know this. Are you some type of design tester for intel?
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
What is really going to help merom on the Mac are the SSE units. It has three to yonah's one . Mac OS X makes a lot better use of SIMD units than windows.
The 400 series celerons aren't that slow. They're more or less a Core Solo with a smaller cache.
j26
Nov 22, 12:35 PM
Okay, I've heard here a lot, that people want simple integration/syncronization with iTunes, iPhoto, iCal, & Address Book. These are all, (minus iTunes) 100% Mac-Centric. PC users would only get integration/syncronization with iTunes. What good is that to them? At that point you only have iPod + Phone.
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
There's no reason why they will choose to exclude syncing with mac applications. iTunes for everyone, and extras for mac users. And really they would only have to write something that would deal with Outlook to cover most Windows users to keep everyone happy.
So Apple has a choice: Mac-Centric or not.
Knowing Apple, their first choice is "not" (which doesn't mean it will start out that way, but we'll just have to wait to find out). Apple would then have to either write iCal et al. for Windows or build in support for Outlook, ...uh... photo viewer... whatever PCs use for photos.
Both are daunting tasks.
Conclusion: In order for Apple to make a phone as good and as universal as the iPod, it will have to accomplish one of the aforementioned daunting tasks.
Making a phone for Mac users would be a walk in the park, because 1) it's such a small microcosm, 2) It's an environment that they are familiar with.
Making a phone for everyone will not be as easy. HOWEVER, Apple is great at building OSes (the iPod OS is simple & intuitive and I have no doubt that they will do the same with a phone) and Apple is great at integration with software, so even though there will be hurdles to overcome, Apple will eventually churn out a phone that is simple and is loved by everyone.
I also think there won't be a single serious Mac-User who won't have one. It'll just be too handy to have a device that will sync easily with the awesome Mac software.
-Clive
There's no reason why they will choose to exclude syncing with mac applications. iTunes for everyone, and extras for mac users. And really they would only have to write something that would deal with Outlook to cover most Windows users to keep everyone happy.
Some_Big_Spoon
Nov 23, 01:10 PM
I've been holding off on the smart phone thing until Apple comes up with something that makes sense. I've tried palm and windows mobile phones and both are so clunky. I'm sure I could reasonably learn their quirks and incorporate them into my life, but I don't want to. I just want it to do what it's supposed to and get out of my way, just like my macs and my ipod. The "solutions" out there now force you to do it their way.
Willis
Aug 11, 09:06 AM
So does that mean MacWorld Paris?
It sure does. Quite exciting really. I think all consumer products will get Core 2 Duo (merom + conroe) in September. Although, seeing as Merom is socket compatable with the current line up, I dont think we will see a Conroe in the iMac.
It sure does. Quite exciting really. I think all consumer products will get Core 2 Duo (merom + conroe) in September. Although, seeing as Merom is socket compatable with the current line up, I dont think we will see a Conroe in the iMac.
DJMastaWes
Aug 11, 10:06 AM
I'm holding off for the new MBP because from what I've seen, the current ones still have issues. It was Apple's first Mac to go to Intel, and although they've made some changes, it's still "first generation". I'm hoping the next revision will have more than just a processor upgrade.
The iMac was the first to go to intel.
The iMac was the first to go to intel.
Akme
Mar 30, 08:30 PM
Can someone confirm if this preview can be installed on MBP 2011?
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
Thanks
Installed fine on mine.
thelookingglass
Mar 30, 09:15 AM
I like the competition, and the cloud concept is definitely promising, but I don't think this is a solution I want. Call me pessimistic, but I don't want to rely on another entity for access to my own information. I don't want to store all my music and movies "in the cloud" and hope there is no complications. Rather, what I want is to be able to access my home computer via the cloud, but if all else fails, it's still saved on my home computer, not some remote server I can't access
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
The ironic thing is your data is probably safer in the cloud (where there is adequate redundancy in multiple geographic locations) than just simply sitting on your home computer.
ChrisTX
Apr 8, 07:29 AM
There were many tablets before the iPad. Just that they all sucked and mostly tried to use PC chips, leading to extremely short battery life, being slow, and hundreds of other factors causing them to sell in very small amounts. But it is true that Apple did the right thing in their innovation.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
Were there truly tablets or just netvirtibles? There's a huge difference, and a reason why those never took off. Again no one wanted any of those because they all suck. People now don't want a tablet computer, they want an iPad.
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:
/
/
/
SandynJosh
Apr 7, 03:51 PM
I'd rather have Apple ( or ANY company for that matter ) compete rather than having it throttle its competition.
Do you really want Apple to have no competition? Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts affecting a lot of Apple's competitors, for a prolonged period of time - various countries would start to look at Apple regarding its competition laws.
Apple didn't buy up the production to throttle the competition. They had the balls to bet on the iPad being a run-away winner. Think about it. Months into marketing a brand new product category, Apple acted to secure future capacity at levels no one else anticipated. Had Apple been wrong, it would have hurt them terribly. As it is now, Apple is barely meeting sales demand levels.
Apple's competitors want a piece of the market but don't have the confidence in their product to put their money down in advance. RIM had their chance to buy production ahead, they didn't.
Do you really want Apple to have no competition? Oh, I wouldn't be surprised if this starts affecting a lot of Apple's competitors, for a prolonged period of time - various countries would start to look at Apple regarding its competition laws.
Apple didn't buy up the production to throttle the competition. They had the balls to bet on the iPad being a run-away winner. Think about it. Months into marketing a brand new product category, Apple acted to secure future capacity at levels no one else anticipated. Had Apple been wrong, it would have hurt them terribly. As it is now, Apple is barely meeting sales demand levels.
Apple's competitors want a piece of the market but don't have the confidence in their product to put their money down in advance. RIM had their chance to buy production ahead, they didn't.
SMM
Nov 27, 02:54 PM
Sorry, your argument is also insufficient. Construction companies have used PDAs for years, including the Newton...and that's why a mere evolution of such products is more than enough. If you think ONE anecdotal evidence of a company adopting advanced technologies is enough, think again.
For 99% of the market needing portability (including construction, engineering, delivery companies, logistics integrators and the like), people will go either "notebook" or "advanced PDA"...the Tablet is right in-between, squeezed among 2 MUCH clearer choices. "Footprint" and "technology" are pretty much covered by both poles...and not by a vaporware Tablet.
Origami = Tablet = Flop...never forget this.
It is always so refreshing to meet someone who knows more about your business than you do. I was going to respond to this, but have decided to just accept you do not like tablets, and nothing is going to change your mind. :mad:
For 99% of the market needing portability (including construction, engineering, delivery companies, logistics integrators and the like), people will go either "notebook" or "advanced PDA"...the Tablet is right in-between, squeezed among 2 MUCH clearer choices. "Footprint" and "technology" are pretty much covered by both poles...and not by a vaporware Tablet.
Origami = Tablet = Flop...never forget this.
It is always so refreshing to meet someone who knows more about your business than you do. I was going to respond to this, but have decided to just accept you do not like tablets, and nothing is going to change your mind. :mad:
Regul8tR
Nov 26, 09:29 PM
Is there really no wiggle room?
Has anyone tried to use the car kit with a Case Mate Barely There Case?
Has anyone tried to use the car kit with a Case Mate Barely There Case?
dethmaShine
Mar 27, 01:00 PM
Release a new phone and make the people wait for months for the new OS? WTH?
I thought WebOS and H/Palm already had that market cornered.
Who made the rule that both the software and the hardware have to be released on the same date?
I guess this never happened with the mac lineup. The hardware was always released before and after the software.
I thought WebOS and H/Palm already had that market cornered.
Who made the rule that both the software and the hardware have to be released on the same date?
I guess this never happened with the mac lineup. The hardware was always released before and after the software.
macFanDave
Nov 22, 10:11 AM
"PC guys are not going to just figure this out. They're not going to just walk in.''
I think John Hodgman could easily make a great cell phone quickly -- it's one of the areas of his expertise! ;)
For the record, Apple did just "walk in" to the MP3 market and figured it out pretty quickly. Perhaps the idea that making devices is complicated is why Palm went from being the "next big thing" to obscurity. Apple has an excellent track record of making things simple. Applying that philosophy to cell phones would be mighty powerful especially compared to the bloated victims of chronic feature creep.
I regard the market of PDA's to be a colossal failure. Sure, it's a niche market that makes some money for a slimmed-down Palm and a division of Microshaft, but it could have been so much more if it were done well.
I think John Hodgman could easily make a great cell phone quickly -- it's one of the areas of his expertise! ;)
For the record, Apple did just "walk in" to the MP3 market and figured it out pretty quickly. Perhaps the idea that making devices is complicated is why Palm went from being the "next big thing" to obscurity. Apple has an excellent track record of making things simple. Applying that philosophy to cell phones would be mighty powerful especially compared to the bloated victims of chronic feature creep.
I regard the market of PDA's to be a colossal failure. Sure, it's a niche market that makes some money for a slimmed-down Palm and a division of Microshaft, but it could have been so much more if it were done well.
RalfTheDog
Apr 7, 09:35 AM
I don't understand, Apple can't let RIM have 12 panels? When they sell off those 12 units, Apple can let them have 12 more.
aafuss1
Sep 11, 09:16 AM
Excellent!
Good find!
I'd like to see iPod5/6th Gen tubes, similar to the nano's.
Good find!
I'd like to see iPod5/6th Gen tubes, similar to the nano's.
kainjow
Sep 15, 05:53 PM
It's also standard in all the current MBPs, except the lowest model.
I don't think that qualifies as being "standard" if they're not all 1GB ;) :rolleyes:
I don't think that qualifies as being "standard" if they're not all 1GB ;) :rolleyes:
jeffud2
Apr 25, 09:40 AM
Too late for that: http://www.spokeo.com/
Scary, and seems to be US only.
Scary, and seems to be US only.
AlBDamned
Jul 21, 01:57 PM
up the chips in the MBPs and up the speeds in the MBs?
seems likely to me.
Yup, possibly the cheap 2.0GHz Yonah's across the board in MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 Merom's in the MBP. Plus a new enclosure at WWDC for MBP.
Get saving Al!
seems likely to me.
Yup, possibly the cheap 2.0GHz Yonah's across the board in MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 Merom's in the MBP. Plus a new enclosure at WWDC for MBP.
Get saving Al!