iStudentUK
Apr 10, 12:11 PM
I must say i just found this sight through google and had to join because of this post. I am a math teacher and the correct answer is 2
Welcome to the site! :)
I disagree for the reasons I stated just above.
Using "/" is only appropriate for "x/y" type functions. Anything more complex should use "_". Therefore, "/" is only used here because it is on a forum and so "_" looks clumsy. I'm looking at what I think the author would have written on paper, and I think that would have been the option that leads to 288.
EDIT- just saw your 2nd post. This is confusing. I originally saw it as 48/2 (9+3), and to me the space would also have made clear the answer is 288. However, then I saw there was no space!
Welcome to the site! :)
I disagree for the reasons I stated just above.
Using "/" is only appropriate for "x/y" type functions. Anything more complex should use "_". Therefore, "/" is only used here because it is on a forum and so "_" looks clumsy. I'm looking at what I think the author would have written on paper, and I think that would have been the option that leads to 288.
EDIT- just saw your 2nd post. This is confusing. I originally saw it as 48/2 (9+3), and to me the space would also have made clear the answer is 288. However, then I saw there was no space!
jvmxtra
Mar 29, 12:22 PM
Going further on infancy stage of cloud as far as main stream consumers are concerned -- Only way they can drive people to it right now would be if it was all free.
Nobody in right mind would pay money to store their own files somewhere else which they already have on their computer.
Cloud storage can work for things that people do not own: software that they rent, movies and such.
Storing music on cloud is just simply stupid idea as it doesn't take up lot of space on your device and music is something you want to listen over and over again if it's your favorite(do you really want to having to connect to internet to get your fav music?)
Nobody in right mind would pay money to store their own files somewhere else which they already have on their computer.
Cloud storage can work for things that people do not own: software that they rent, movies and such.
Storing music on cloud is just simply stupid idea as it doesn't take up lot of space on your device and music is something you want to listen over and over again if it's your favorite(do you really want to having to connect to internet to get your fav music?)
GGJstudios
Dec 14, 10:30 AM
I knew someone would say that. ... I'm not usually there to talk to them about that kind of security ... The client gets you in for particular job that they're paying you for... So, by all means ask them about it,
I've been a consultant for most of my business life. No matter what a client retains me to do, if I see another area where they need help, I'm going to discuss it. I'd be doing them a great disservice to "patch a broken arm" and ignore the "cancer" that represents a greater threat... and I tell them so. I've never had a client fail to appreciate this approach.
but if they say they have, why should I doubt them?
Because most clients are less computer literate than the consultants they hire. I don't rely on their word. I check their system(s). It's about being thorough and earning the fee I charge them. I would never leave a client's computer unprotected, unless I explained the risk in detail and they flatly refused. That has never happened, especially since there are great free antivirus solutions available.
Just wanted to put forward another point of view where it might be useful beyond the phrase, "the Mac doesn't have viruses, why would you need it?"
The flip-side of that phrase is, "Windows DOES have viruses; why wouldn't every Windows box have antivirus protection running?"
I've been a consultant for most of my business life. No matter what a client retains me to do, if I see another area where they need help, I'm going to discuss it. I'd be doing them a great disservice to "patch a broken arm" and ignore the "cancer" that represents a greater threat... and I tell them so. I've never had a client fail to appreciate this approach.
but if they say they have, why should I doubt them?
Because most clients are less computer literate than the consultants they hire. I don't rely on their word. I check their system(s). It's about being thorough and earning the fee I charge them. I would never leave a client's computer unprotected, unless I explained the risk in detail and they flatly refused. That has never happened, especially since there are great free antivirus solutions available.
Just wanted to put forward another point of view where it might be useful beyond the phrase, "the Mac doesn't have viruses, why would you need it?"
The flip-side of that phrase is, "Windows DOES have viruses; why wouldn't every Windows box have antivirus protection running?"
trip1ex
Apr 23, 05:28 PM
I could take this or leave it at this stage.
Would rather have upgradeable hard drive and even upgradeable gpu instead of twice resolution.
Would rather have anti-glare option too.
But if this means some sort of resolution independence then I'm all for it now.
Would rather have upgradeable hard drive and even upgradeable gpu instead of twice resolution.
Would rather have anti-glare option too.
But if this means some sort of resolution independence then I'm all for it now.
Vantage Point
May 7, 04:55 PM
Well, I just bought it because I need to sync my computers. However, I do not believe Apple would do this for free :rolleyes: At $99/yr list price it is a lot but I wouldn't mind paying $25/year. Better yet, Apple should include it as a free service for those with Apple Care to leverage people into buying the extended service, For others, charge $25 - $50/year. Heck, we pay a premium for Apple products, they should throw us a bone every now and then.
kevink2
Mar 28, 12:12 PM
This may explain why Apple is, apparently, still going ahead with the white iPhone 4. And also not obsolete some Verizon purchasers so fast.
Maybe if they go on a little longer refresh schedule, it will match up a little better with carrier subsidies.
On the other hand, since my intent is to skip the next generation, that may mean I wait 2 1/2 years instead of 2 years. Will the phone absorb the drops, etc, that it gets that long?
Maybe if they go on a little longer refresh schedule, it will match up a little better with carrier subsidies.
On the other hand, since my intent is to skip the next generation, that may mean I wait 2 1/2 years instead of 2 years. Will the phone absorb the drops, etc, that it gets that long?
SMM
Nov 26, 03:39 PM
Simple...it's NOT gonna happen anytime soon.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
You seem to speak from a position of personal knowledge. Is this because you actual know these facts, or is it just the conviction of your analysis?
I happen to know one of your statements is false. My company needs it and wants it. So do many people in the construction industry. In many respects, we are blind to the activities where we make our money. So, we are forced to often depend on a management layer to provide a communication stream between our administrative resources and our jobsites. However, in many cases, we manage in reactionary mode because of the inadequacies of our communication pathway.
When I was hired seven years ago, one of my assigned goals was to automate our field operations. I am going to condense many years of study and experimentation into a single statement. Tablet PC's have the right combination of footprint and technology to 'close the loop' for what we need.
My company has incorporated many advanced technologies. We have hosted numerous 'show and tell' sessions for others in the industry. A by-product of this has been the development of a large peer group of other construction IT professionals. We all see the need to manage field operations through technology, not through untimely reports, telephone calls and/or faxes, weekly meetings, etc.
The Tablet market is a sad failure, as it represents a tech in search of a purpose...nobody needs or wants it.
Hint? Think Origami, one among too many MS failures...just like the Zune in the next months.
Apple will NOT enter the fabled Tablet market again, as the focus of demand is on notebooks, nothing else...yet another borndead rumor.
You seem to speak from a position of personal knowledge. Is this because you actual know these facts, or is it just the conviction of your analysis?
I happen to know one of your statements is false. My company needs it and wants it. So do many people in the construction industry. In many respects, we are blind to the activities where we make our money. So, we are forced to often depend on a management layer to provide a communication stream between our administrative resources and our jobsites. However, in many cases, we manage in reactionary mode because of the inadequacies of our communication pathway.
When I was hired seven years ago, one of my assigned goals was to automate our field operations. I am going to condense many years of study and experimentation into a single statement. Tablet PC's have the right combination of footprint and technology to 'close the loop' for what we need.
My company has incorporated many advanced technologies. We have hosted numerous 'show and tell' sessions for others in the industry. A by-product of this has been the development of a large peer group of other construction IT professionals. We all see the need to manage field operations through technology, not through untimely reports, telephone calls and/or faxes, weekly meetings, etc.
mcrain
Apr 18, 11:59 AM
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
asdf542
Mar 31, 08:58 AM
Wow, the level of arrogance and lack of respect on MacRumors never ceases to amaze me. Every thread, and I mean every, turns into a free for all of personal attacks and insults. Interesting that I never once insulted or disrespected any one individual, yet two responses attempt to personally attack me. Do you know me? Why is this a personal matter for you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
Lol...
So where exactly did I personally insult you?
This is about opinions and civil discourse, not about trying to prove how smart you are or to put someone "in their place". That says more about you than me.
Last time I will address this matter unless you wish to discuss the topic without rolling eyes, assumptions on my intelligence, and overly dramatic misinterpretations on my comments (that had NOTHING to do with you - and this relates more so for the first comment quoted).
/end
Lol...
So where exactly did I personally insult you?
anubis
Mar 28, 10:06 AM
I've been poking along with a 3GS since they came out. Really want to switch to Verizon. This rumor puts people like me in a serious pickle: keep waiting and waiting and waiting for iPhone 5 to come out this year, if it even does it all, or grab an iPhone 4 now - a phone that has been out for nearly a year - and get burned in a couple of months by a surprise iPhone 5 announcement in June?
Merkie
Mar 27, 07:03 AM
There are already multiple iPads.....18 of them to be exact. Why would u think Apple would want to add to this already rediculous number. This whole idea about a iPad pro line needs to stop. It doesn't make sense. It's only 2011. Want an iPad pro.....get an AIR.
You mean 12.
You mean 12.
cav23j
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
i never had any problems with the Boot Camp Partition until this
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
rjohnstone
Apr 18, 03:40 PM
The iPhone 1 was announced before the Prada phone. Patent dates showed iPhone implementation of a capacitive touchscreen phone at least a year before LG showed their Prada phone in 2006. The Prada shipped in small shipments before the iPhone, so that is their only claim that it was technically released before the iPhone even though real shipments occurred months later. Technically, if Apple wanted to, they could have sued LG.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
Also, the Prada isn't a smartphone. It can't load apps. It doesn't even have a qwerty keyboard. You input text through the phone dialer like old school SMS.
Irrelevant argument from a "look and feel" standpoint as NOBODY outside of Apple knew what the iPhone looked like.
So either the design was logical or LG was frikkin clairvoyant and could see into the future.
The patent filings are moot.
Loading apps are moot as the original iPhone didn't permit that either.
The virtual qwerty keyboard existed before the iPhone as well.
Seriously do 10 seconds of research before posting.
What Apple did was made a phone that contained a lot of EXISTING technology and wrapped it into a single package.
And did a good job doing it too.
Show me something that works as well BEFORE Apple demoed the iPhone.
Technology =/= usability.
Irrelevant. Most of the tech in the iPhone predates it.
Worf
Mar 27, 12:33 AM
Well if one AOL owned tech blog can't get rumors right (Engadget), I'm not believing the other way less popular one (TechCrunch).
iZac
Apr 20, 05:57 AM
Apple potentially ships new iPhone 2-3 months outside of loose, self imposed schedule.
Users worlds fall apart, swear bitter revenge, Apple goes Bankrupt.
...Makes sense.
Users worlds fall apart, swear bitter revenge, Apple goes Bankrupt.
...Makes sense.
thegreatluke
Aug 7, 07:37 PM
Newegg has 512's for about 100 and 1GB chips for $200. Way cheaper than apple's upgrades. And they are retial crucial chips...
Hope that helps. Also, I don't know about the 750GB HD's - apple only offers 500GB drives - there may be a reason for that...
Are they fully buffered 667 MHz ECC RAM? :)
Hope that helps. Also, I don't know about the 750GB HD's - apple only offers 500GB drives - there may be a reason for that...
Are they fully buffered 667 MHz ECC RAM? :)
macten
Aug 7, 03:26 PM
on the Macrumors live feed Steve said new announcements coming in the week or next week. Any comments?
Tomorrow is Tuesday.... :o
Tomorrow is Tuesday.... :o
pyramid6
Sep 11, 01:35 PM
Why couldn't apple mail a movie to you via USPS? Pop it into your <insert favorite Mac flavor> and have it automaticly import into iTunes library. There is no way I would download a 2g file to watch a movie. 2g is way too big to download. Compare that to music, 5mb on the high end. 2g is 400 times the size. I don't see downloading as a viable option, atleast not at the resolution that makes it competitive with DVD.
PS I think downloadable movies sounds great, but I don't think it is practicle.
PS I think downloadable movies sounds great, but I don't think it is practicle.
jav6454
May 7, 11:24 AM
Yes please. The move makes sense given the Windows Live stuff MS is doing.
They've been trying that for years, ever since the Hotmail era.
They've been trying that for years, ever since the Hotmail era.
MrCrowbar
Nov 23, 11:40 AM
You own Apple do you? My! You've kept a very low profile!
OMG STEVE IS HERE!!!
Besides that he probably is, good one geese. :p
OMG STEVE IS HERE!!!
Besides that he probably is, good one geese. :p
Chundles
Sep 11, 06:52 AM
To recap:
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The first rule of an Apple Event: You never get all the marbles.
No MBP, no MB....
iPod video device, maybe movie service and maybe streaming device.
That's it. :)
Yep, I've said it before and I'll say it again.
The first rule of an Apple Event: You never get all the marbles.
Seryph
Mar 31, 04:24 AM
I'm wondering how many people commenting on this thread and saying that Lion is terrible/UI is ****/Apple have failed... have actually used Lion? Hell, I'm sure they'll all claim they have as there's no way to prove it, but I have to be honest it sounds like a lot of these people haven't actually had their hands on the update. I have, and while I doubted Apple a little before it's great once you try it out. Still, isn't it nice that people are allowed opinions... it would just be nice if those opinions were based on an actual personal experience rather than watching videos and reading websites.
:)
:)
JohnnyQuest
Mar 28, 10:46 AM
I'm calling BS. There's been pictures of parts from the iPhone 5, and several rumors pointing towards summer or September. There's now way it will be 2012.
ChrisTX
Mar 27, 01:26 AM
Is the Verizon iPhone going to be included this time?
I don't see why it wouldn't, considering such a phone actually exists now.
I don't see why it wouldn't, considering such a phone actually exists now.