Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 11:45 AM
I'm salaried (aka "Exempt") in my job. We used to clock in and out but they made us quit several years ago and now there is no tracking of our hours. I was told at the time it was a legal requirement that we not be made to clock in and out.
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
There is an upside to being exempt. While it's true I don't get paid extra if I work 45 hours this week, I will also not be paid less if I work 35 hours next week. In my job one is just as likely as the other.
Mind me asking you how high your unemployment rate is, and do you believe what your media tells you is true, or is the rate much higher than what is known?
In any event, there are rules defining what jobs are and are not eligible as exempt. There are lots of references online with information.
http://www.ehow.com/facts_5179644_exempt-salary-vs_-non-exempt.html
There is an upside to being exempt. While it's true I don't get paid extra if I work 45 hours this week, I will also not be paid less if I work 35 hours next week. In my job one is just as likely as the other.
Mind me asking you how high your unemployment rate is, and do you believe what your media tells you is true, or is the rate much higher than what is known?
portishead
May 3, 10:54 AM
SATA III? And if so on all of them or is optical still II like the laptops?
This is what I want to know also. OCZ Vertex III!
This is what I want to know also. OCZ Vertex III!
rtkane
Apr 4, 12:49 PM
Coming from a "Gun Person" (Own a HK .45 USP Tactical w/ GEMTECH Suppressor)
...the would be robbers better have been armed, to warrant the Rent-a-Cop shooting them in the head. He should be prosecuted for manslaughter if not. All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being.
Read the article. Why do people comment when they don't even read the article?
...the would be robbers better have been armed, to warrant the Rent-a-Cop shooting them in the head. He should be prosecuted for manslaughter if not. All this "well they had it coming" BS is totally misplaced, the man who died was a human being.
Read the article. Why do people comment when they don't even read the article?
mi5moav
Sep 1, 07:10 AM
yup, this would be vertical acquisition, well probably more diagonal
Consumer Photography/Video- Apple knows something about this
Consumer Printing - Apple knows something about this
Apple has shipped over a million cameras in the last quarter alone so they do know something about the business.
Business- Canon is a big name in business Apple needs to get in
Medical - Canon is a big name in Medicine Apple needs to get in
Apple needs to grow, they must make shareholders Happy... this world revolves around shareholders, that's it, well actually making WallStreet Happy.
Then tell me what you would do with $10billion in Cash?
It's either that or give it all to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Consumer Photography/Video- Apple knows something about this
Consumer Printing - Apple knows something about this
Apple has shipped over a million cameras in the last quarter alone so they do know something about the business.
Business- Canon is a big name in business Apple needs to get in
Medical - Canon is a big name in Medicine Apple needs to get in
Apple needs to grow, they must make shareholders Happy... this world revolves around shareholders, that's it, well actually making WallStreet Happy.
Then tell me what you would do with $10billion in Cash?
It's either that or give it all to the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation
Farplaner
Apr 20, 10:04 AM
I thought this was an FCC mandate (to track GPS information for cellphones) after 9/11. The real issue is that this is not encrypted in anyway so anybody can get the information if they have access to the file.
simonthewolf
Aug 24, 09:59 AM
So what happens if Uncle Bill buys Creative? :eek:
Shenaniganz08
Mar 23, 07:12 PM
If you're sober enough to have presence of mind to check an app for a sobriety checkpoint, you're probably sober enough to drive.
umm no
umm no
kiljoy616
Apr 11, 02:37 AM
Unlikely - this would require the new private key be embedded in the firmware update package, which would defeat the purpose of replacing the old key.
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
What could they loose, but I know there be more demand for apple products if more companies jump on the band wagon. Like TV with Airplay built in, nice. :D
This is a fundamental issue with DRM solutions - you, as the consumer, have to hold the private key. They (Apple) can obfuscate where that key is, but in the end it has to be accessible in some manner. It's the same thing with iTunes DRM. If someone cares enough, they can almost certainly retrieve the private key (which is how Requiem works).
I'm guessing Apple may make some half-hearted move or another; but I doubt they care all that much.
What could they loose, but I know there be more demand for apple products if more companies jump on the band wagon. Like TV with Airplay built in, nice. :D
EagerDragon
Sep 9, 07:03 AM
Driving 1.5 hours to the Apple store this morning and the same on the way back. But I am not buying yet, just looking and getting a feel for the entire line. Oh I forgot.... and turning green with envy. Boy is going to be hard.
vitaboy
Aug 24, 04:20 AM
Is this a one-time payment to include all future uses?
It seems to be the case, as the agreement resolves "all disputes." I'm sure there is a stipulation that Creative agrees not to pursue patent claims against Apple in the future.
Which is why the whole "Creative won" argument doesn't wash. Considering that iPod will end up generating tens of billions of dollars in future revenue for Apple (on top of the billions it's already made), settling for $100 million is not exactly a sign of Creative dealing from a position of strength.
I mean think about it. Creative is basically claiming Apple stole its goose that lays golden eggs. Apple says "No, we didn't, in fact, you stole our spinning wheel that can spin threads of gold from straw!" They both argue and threaten each other, but in the end Apple offers Creative a little piece of golden eggshell, and Creative is so happy about winning, it tells Apple, "Aww, shucks, thanks for the piece of shell, you can keep the goose!"
I don't think so. :P
Which is why the deal has all the signs of Creative gulping down its pride and accepting a settlement on Apple's terms. Creative accepted because if it didn't, the chances were quite high that it would not be in business a year from now, mainly because Zune will wipe out its ability to sell in a crowded market. At least now, it has a big stick it can use against Microsoft.
In the end, it's a big win for Apple.
It seems to be the case, as the agreement resolves "all disputes." I'm sure there is a stipulation that Creative agrees not to pursue patent claims against Apple in the future.
Which is why the whole "Creative won" argument doesn't wash. Considering that iPod will end up generating tens of billions of dollars in future revenue for Apple (on top of the billions it's already made), settling for $100 million is not exactly a sign of Creative dealing from a position of strength.
I mean think about it. Creative is basically claiming Apple stole its goose that lays golden eggs. Apple says "No, we didn't, in fact, you stole our spinning wheel that can spin threads of gold from straw!" They both argue and threaten each other, but in the end Apple offers Creative a little piece of golden eggshell, and Creative is so happy about winning, it tells Apple, "Aww, shucks, thanks for the piece of shell, you can keep the goose!"
I don't think so. :P
Which is why the deal has all the signs of Creative gulping down its pride and accepting a settlement on Apple's terms. Creative accepted because if it didn't, the chances were quite high that it would not be in business a year from now, mainly because Zune will wipe out its ability to sell in a crowded market. At least now, it has a big stick it can use against Microsoft.
In the end, it's a big win for Apple.
ryantheredder
Sep 19, 03:15 PM
FWIW, the average size per minute of Apple's 720p trailers are 50MB. So a 120 minute movie would be around 6GB to download or about 2 hours on an 8Mb connection. Almost watchable in real time providing perfect network conditions.
THX1139
Jul 15, 03:48 AM
Does anyone think we should be hitting 4ghz about now?
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
They have given up on speed and are focussing on multiple processors instead. You will see speed increases but not as often. In the next few years you might see dozens of processors all with Quad or Octo cores instead of just dual core today. IMHO, I prefer additional processors over sheer GHZ anyday. Your 4ghz wish isn't going to mean anything against a Kenstfield in 2007. However, a Quad 4ghz would be sweet... but damn hot.
I mean weve been stuck on 2.x for ages. Whats the deal? A 4ghz quad would be frickin awesome. :confused:
They have given up on speed and are focussing on multiple processors instead. You will see speed increases but not as often. In the next few years you might see dozens of processors all with Quad or Octo cores instead of just dual core today. IMHO, I prefer additional processors over sheer GHZ anyday. Your 4ghz wish isn't going to mean anything against a Kenstfield in 2007. However, a Quad 4ghz would be sweet... but damn hot.
oober_freak
Oct 12, 01:41 PM
Please CAN IT!
CAN IT!
My god we cant talk about anything on this board without the core 2 duo macbook/pro crew coming to mess up a thread THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAPTOP UPDATES
CAN IT!
:mad:
mmm.. Red merom macbooks?
:p
CAN IT!
My god we cant talk about anything on this board without the core 2 duo macbook/pro crew coming to mess up a thread THAT HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH LAPTOP UPDATES
CAN IT!
:mad:
mmm.. Red merom macbooks?
:p
peharri
Sep 18, 07:33 AM
OK. hang on. back the f&6king truck up.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
maybe we're backwards here. but i have NEVER, EVER heard of ANY kind of phone service where INCOMING calls are anything BUT free (excluding reverse-charge, obviously).
No, that's not true, though the way it's presented often makes you think it is.
Sprint and a company called MetroPCS are one of the few companies in the entire world where incoming calls are in practice are "at no extra charge" (unless those calls are long distance.)
That is, someone can call someone with a Sprint phone on a "free unlimited incoming" plan, and NEITHER PARTY will be charged (subject to restrictions, namely that mobile party isn't roaming, and the caller has unlimited outgoing calls to at the very least the mobile party's area/exchange code. This is the default with US landlines.)
(I'm being picky with words here, because it's even worse than how I'm describing. I'm not aware of a single phone company in the entire world that offers free calls of any description save for 911/112/999 type calls. Every phone company in the world at the very least requires you pay a subscription fee before receiving any kind of unmetered service. Ok, I note the complaints I'm being picky and everyone "knows" what "free" means, but I think the word "free" is overused.)
Most other operators in the US offer unlimited airtime at nights, weekends, and often when calls are placed between mobiles on the same network, so the other networks also provide incoming calls "at no extra charge" for a specific subset of incoming calls.
Now, you're probably not in the US, which explains your confusion as to why someone would be wording this as it was, but don't think that because where you are the callee doesn't pay for incoming calls, that this means the calls are free. They're not. They're paid for by the caller, often at absurdly high rates. Do you never make calls to mobiles?
You are just as likely to be receiving a call as making one to a mobile phone (ie regardless of who pays, YOU are likely to pay it. You receive calls on your cellphone, and you call people who have cellphones), so when considering the total cost of ownership, the price of incoming calls, whether paid for by the caller or callee, makes a difference in terms of the use of mobile phones.
Because this is likely to descend to a debate on the subject of "Caller pays" or "Mobile user pays", the US system makes it harder to have a workable low-budget pay-as-you-go system, but once service-spends exceed around $40 a month, the provided tariffs are generally much, much, better value than that provided outside of the US. So there's a higher barrier to entry, but once you can afford it, even the most avid talkers can use it as their default phone. A typical tariff in the US is $50 a month for unlimited nights, weekends, and calls between same-network mobiles, plus 500 minutes for other call types. A typical tariff in the UK appears to be something approximating to 20-70c a minute for outgoing calls (the lower end for same network or landline calls, higher for calls to mobiles), with calls charged by the second and no, practical, monthly minimum call spends and everyone paying just for the calls they make. Someone who doesn't use a mobile phone very often would appreciate the latter, someone who wants to use it instead of a landline would appreciate the former.
HecubusPro
Aug 28, 04:10 PM
And if people are really unwilling to wait a couple weeks, nothing is stopping them from buying the yonah models.
Or if they want the simple satisfaction of having a C2D laptop on order, they can always pre-order one at Dell, HP, etc., then cancel that pre-order when the MBP C2D are announced. That way, in spirit, they can have a mac Core 2 Duo machine on pre-order right now. :)
Or if they want the simple satisfaction of having a C2D laptop on order, they can always pre-order one at Dell, HP, etc., then cancel that pre-order when the MBP C2D are announced. That way, in spirit, they can have a mac Core 2 Duo machine on pre-order right now. :)
chasemac
Aug 24, 12:02 AM
Seriously, all... this is much better than the alternative. I.e. Apple having to completely re-engineer or stop selling the iPod. $100 million is chump change. Stock market is highly reactionary and irrational. It should all smooth out in the next couple days.
Yes, the consumer could care less. Apple reached the top of this mountain first. They got the loot first right? Or not, it just reminds me of something.:)
Yes, the consumer could care less. Apple reached the top of this mountain first. They got the loot first right? Or not, it just reminds me of something.:)
notabadname
Apr 4, 12:49 PM
Normally, with my luck, this would have been the day I would end up setting aside to go in early and get an iPad 2 . . .
Bluefusion
Apr 4, 11:43 AM
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
That said, this is pretty ******. Sure, the guy was a criminal lowlife, and he certainly deserved punishment, but I don't think he deserved to get killed. Oh well.
MattyMac
Oct 12, 05:07 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice!
wwworry
Sep 9, 06:25 AM
I am curious about the iMovie benchmarks. One might think the mac pro would be over twice as fast but it's not. Is that because of software limitations in iMovie?
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
I am about to make a purchase of either an iMac or a 2.0Ghz. MacPro for monthly workouts in Final Cut. Hard to decide.
gugy
Aug 31, 12:55 PM
Apple Insider was saying the movie price would be $14.99 -I would not pay that much to watch a movie on a small screen... no way, unless I had a hour long commute to work on a train... can't believe there are that many people like that out there!
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
If that's true for an small format movie, the Itunes Movie store will bomb. There is no way in hell people will pay that money. Is better buy a DVD at your local store.
Apple knows that, so that's why I am pretty sure it won't happen.
LagunaSol
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
You do understand that 2008 minus 2001 plus development time is more than 1 or 2, right? That's 7, maybe 9 years of losses.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
My original comment was that this is a poor way to do it, from a finance perspective. There was no guarantee, and if Sony and M$ didn't have profit elsewhere, these wouldn't even exist. Nintendo made money on the Wii almost immediately, as you've claimed M$ did. It sounds like you are talking about Nintendo.
And the beauty of this business model is Microsoft and Sony will start the bleeding all over again in a couple of years with the next console generation.
newdeal
Apr 22, 11:21 AM
It doesnt need cpu that badly but could use ipad level battery life
weitzner
Oct 27, 03:05 PM
i really feel that greenpeace is trying to use the fact that Apple is the "cool" tech company to get what they want done. for instance, if Apple is bad for the environment, we hippie college kids won't think they're as "cool." Apple loves us hippie college kids and doesn't want to lose us as customers, so they HAVE to be greener - greener than all other tech companies which are JUST AS BAD AS APPLE - then the other tech companies will have to follow suit, because that's the way it is. Apple got rid of CRT displays a while ago- dell still sells them, hp still sells them... they've got friggin lead in them! ALL lcd panels contain mercury.... i mean i don't really see greenpeace's point here. i mean, yeah, i'd like apple to be the greenest, that way i'd feel better about giving them my money. but they do take back old iPods, they do take back your old computer when you buy a Mac... it's not like they do nothing. i think greenpeace is doing a pretty dumb thing here- they should be lobbying governments to make these chemicals illegal to include in consumer electronics, not attempting to bully apple. just my thoughts on the matter.