aarond12
Apr 5, 01:55 PM
I'm all for the freedom of jailbreaking, but I also have to be realistic: If I am a Scion fan (I'm not) and want this theme on my iPhone, I have to jailbreak it. If I mess something up and end up bricking my iPhone, can I blame Toyota? Not likely.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.
This seems less like a freedom issue and more of a liability issue.
Wolfpup
Jan 5, 11:27 AM
I used to think you didn't REALLY need it if you didn't do anything stupid, but then I had it catch something in a banner ad a couple of times, so...now I think it's just better to be safe than sorry.
I think those two attacks are the only times I've been attacked, although I've heard of more recent things like that too.
I think those two attacks are the only times I've been attacked, although I've heard of more recent things like that too.
Detlev
Aug 4, 09:55 AM
Agreed. So that means...
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
I'd rather see the Apple OS built as a virus and slowly take over the Windows OS partition. Windows users wouldn't even notice the difference. They would get used to the new key strokes thinking this is the way it is supposed to be.
If they really wanted to make it Windows like, Apple could accomplish the assimilation within thirty days and then kill the offending OS.
Leopard - seemless Windows intergration...
I'd rather see the Apple OS built as a virus and slowly take over the Windows OS partition. Windows users wouldn't even notice the difference. They would get used to the new key strokes thinking this is the way it is supposed to be.
If they really wanted to make it Windows like, Apple could accomplish the assimilation within thirty days and then kill the offending OS.
stockscalper
Apr 25, 09:36 AM
Where was all the uproar when Dick Cheney and company was reading your emails and tapping into your phone conversations? Nobody raised an eyebrow about that. When that was made public the Fox News/Wallstreet Journal response was "well unless you're doing something illegal you don't have anything to worry about." The government is still doing it by the way. Apple, on the other hand is not tracking anybody's movements and the Wallstreet Journal and their like minded ilk are having a cow. In the words of GW Bush, "they're nothing but a bunch of hypocrizers."
blow45
Mar 29, 03:07 PM
Things are only getting worse in Japan...
Hopefully everything gets under control
Yeah after they radiate themselves to mutation, and then the rest of the world, they 'll get it under control.
At some point the global community should hold the nuclear manufacturers responsible for crimes against humanity. This is not only a Japanese issue that they 've been handling with half truths and botching it up. This concerns the world. When Chernobyl hit we where blaming the "bad" commies for concealing the truth, and it's the same and worse from Japan twenty five or so years after...
Anyway best of luck to the Japanese people, I wish them courage, but I think the japanese government has a lot to answer for to the rest of the world. Had this happened in some other supposedly authoritarian regime, say Libya, you 'd have had foreign occupation to resolve the dreaded nuclear threat. Alas it's not, and the rest of the world is focusing on their oil in Libya. Billions of dollars for arms are spent against Libya, surely, some global task force with the same amount of money would have handled the nuclear threat much much better in Japan as well as helping people out who 've suffered as a result of the earthquake and tsunami... but it seems people are not evolved enough to care for the future of humanity, but for the short term future of their oil investments they act faster than lightning.
Really disappointing.
Hopefully everything gets under control
Yeah after they radiate themselves to mutation, and then the rest of the world, they 'll get it under control.
At some point the global community should hold the nuclear manufacturers responsible for crimes against humanity. This is not only a Japanese issue that they 've been handling with half truths and botching it up. This concerns the world. When Chernobyl hit we where blaming the "bad" commies for concealing the truth, and it's the same and worse from Japan twenty five or so years after...
Anyway best of luck to the Japanese people, I wish them courage, but I think the japanese government has a lot to answer for to the rest of the world. Had this happened in some other supposedly authoritarian regime, say Libya, you 'd have had foreign occupation to resolve the dreaded nuclear threat. Alas it's not, and the rest of the world is focusing on their oil in Libya. Billions of dollars for arms are spent against Libya, surely, some global task force with the same amount of money would have handled the nuclear threat much much better in Japan as well as helping people out who 've suffered as a result of the earthquake and tsunami... but it seems people are not evolved enough to care for the future of humanity, but for the short term future of their oil investments they act faster than lightning.
Really disappointing.
mkrishnan
Nov 22, 11:20 AM
Good post. I'm still waiting for a phone that will easily (and thoroughly) sync with my Address Book and iCal, and I'm on the mac platform. So even some of the features you describe would be of immediate value to a lot of mac users.
My experience with Symbian (Series 60) is that it does a very thorough sync'ing using iSync.... and of course there are many, many phones that do at least a loosely passable job... even my cute but dumb RAZR. Are you serious or joking?
My experience with Symbian (Series 60) is that it does a very thorough sync'ing using iSync.... and of course there are many, many phones that do at least a loosely passable job... even my cute but dumb RAZR. Are you serious or joking?
Ambrose Chapel
Mar 28, 11:23 AM
yes, the second update makes more sense, and makes it likely that the annual iPod event will include the new iPhone as well...
miles01110
Apr 25, 08:51 AM
Yes. I'm sure that consolidated.db just appeared randomly and it's all a huge media conspiracy.
SeaFox
Aug 11, 03:12 PM
If the Keynote is on the first day of the Expo that would be the 12th.
The iPod offere ends on the 16th, the end of the Paris Expo.
You might have to place your order online as I expect they wouldn't be in stores by then, but you [we] should be all set.
I wouldn't hold my breath, the Back to School iPod promo has always been a bait to help clear out old inventory. They won't make it available to buy, online or off, until after the promo ends.
The iPod offere ends on the 16th, the end of the Paris Expo.
You might have to place your order online as I expect they wouldn't be in stores by then, but you [we] should be all set.
I wouldn't hold my breath, the Back to School iPod promo has always been a bait to help clear out old inventory. They won't make it available to buy, online or off, until after the promo ends.
wangagat
Jul 21, 03:24 PM
something to remember about product update cycles:
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
iSight iMac G5 came out in October '05, Intel iMac came out just 3 months later... in January '06.
just thought I should remind everyone.
ecphot
Mar 30, 09:22 PM
in Lion - in the user's home folder is the library hidden? according to some people on the photoshop forums - Apple has decided to make things simpler for new users. I hope thats not true. Can anyone confirm this?
Thunderhawks
Mar 29, 03:46 PM
You rang? :p
No, it was the echo:-)
No, it was the echo:-)
rhsgolfer33
Apr 20, 06:19 PM
Capital gains allows you to choose the timeline and the price to a point. If Capital Gains is special because of time-linked shifts in pricing, why isn't freelance income.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
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.
In my mind, income is income.
You certainly can't choose the price in a capital gains situation - that is definitely a market determination; sure, you could sell for less than market it, but that would be pretty stupid and of no benefit.
Capital gains isn't special because of price shifts over time, its special because the government is trying to spur investment - in addition to raising revenue, the tax code is largely a tool to get people to behave in a certain manner. The thought is that giving people a preferential rate on gains from investment encourages people to 1) invest in our economy 2) save for retirement. Whether it works or not is debated by economists and we could probably argue about it all day.
I feel like I'm just repeating myself. I've already addressed that capital gains is not necessarily income.
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.
Xenious
Sep 11, 10:05 AM
If they add the "album only" feature to *All* Radiohead's songs, more bands will follow. Mostly for marketing reasons. There are lots of those crappy "Radiohead wannabes - ohhhhhh our songs should not be outside their album":mad:
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
If we get more album only things, you might as well buy the CD instead. Nothing upsets me more than an entire album on itunes which is album only.
Now, I can't wait for tomorrow's event!
If we get more album only things, you might as well buy the CD instead. Nothing upsets me more than an entire album on itunes which is album only.
kingtj
Mar 30, 10:30 AM
I have to admit, it was an odd stance for me to take, too. (I'm pretty much a libertarian, yet I found myself arguing with a conservative Republican who was completely against the idea of tariffs ever being of any value.)
My point to him was, although I find tariffs to be evil, *sometimes*, I think they're a necessary evil, because we don't really have any other effective tools to use to prevent another nation from dumping products on us at below cost, in an effort to put one of our own industries under. IMO, China is essentially doing this with things like computers and electronics because they're selling the products to us without incorporating all of the *true* costs of their manufacture. (EG. They're destroying complete cities and rivers over there with pollution, rather than incurring the cost to properly dispose of/handle the byproducts of the production.)
I'm all for a free market, but I think the playing field has to be somewhat level too, for it to function properly. We've reached a point now where the United States says it respects certain basic human rights and freedoms, (including providing workers with a safe working environment) - yet we want our companies to compete directly with goods we're bringing in from other countries who don't share any of those values. At some point, that becomes impossible.
Historically, we used to pay FAR more for a computer in the 80's than we do today, *even* if inflation isn't even factored in! For example, the very popular Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III computer? They wanted $2,495 for it with 32K of RAM and dual floppy drives, back in 1980!
I like to get a good value as much as the next guy, but honestly - we've collectively been paying too low a price for our computer gear in recent years. It's reached a point where it's causing a lot of long-term damage at the expense of the initial good of getting a great price. (Have you seen all the consolidation happening with hard drive manufacturers, recently? Great companies have died off and had to merge with other ones because the margins have gotten so low. Remember Maxtor, or Micropolis before them, anyone?)
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
My point to him was, although I find tariffs to be evil, *sometimes*, I think they're a necessary evil, because we don't really have any other effective tools to use to prevent another nation from dumping products on us at below cost, in an effort to put one of our own industries under. IMO, China is essentially doing this with things like computers and electronics because they're selling the products to us without incorporating all of the *true* costs of their manufacture. (EG. They're destroying complete cities and rivers over there with pollution, rather than incurring the cost to properly dispose of/handle the byproducts of the production.)
I'm all for a free market, but I think the playing field has to be somewhat level too, for it to function properly. We've reached a point now where the United States says it respects certain basic human rights and freedoms, (including providing workers with a safe working environment) - yet we want our companies to compete directly with goods we're bringing in from other countries who don't share any of those values. At some point, that becomes impossible.
Historically, we used to pay FAR more for a computer in the 80's than we do today, *even* if inflation isn't even factored in! For example, the very popular Radio Shack TRS-80 Model III computer? They wanted $2,495 for it with 32K of RAM and dual floppy drives, back in 1980!
I like to get a good value as much as the next guy, but honestly - we've collectively been paying too low a price for our computer gear in recent years. It's reached a point where it's causing a lot of long-term damage at the expense of the initial good of getting a great price. (Have you seen all the consolidation happening with hard drive manufacturers, recently? Great companies have died off and had to merge with other ones because the margins have gotten so low. Remember Maxtor, or Micropolis before them, anyone?)
Are you willing to pay more for your Mac gadgets so they can be made here?
Ryth
Apr 21, 10:02 PM
CIA...
That setup screams 'old, slow legacy stuff'.
Why should a new iteration of the MacPro be a hostage to someone wanting a housing for 6 of their old, slow and small drives?
Why support 3 or 4 eSATA and Firewire expansion PCIe cards when that can all be done over a single Thunderbolt cable?
Sounds like your setup needs a bit of a spring clean. A newer, smaller box would force you to consolidate onto a smaller number of bigger and faster drives (those 150GB raptors are slow by today's standards).
Yah CIA, I think you'd be surprised with what little you can get by on these days in smaller boxes and with Thunderbolt.
And I agree with you, I hate tapes...lol. I wish we would go to 1 damn standard but we know that is how people make their money...no standards. I'm so sick of all the formats and all the output formats. I just want 1080p and that's it. Burn the rest. ;)
That setup screams 'old, slow legacy stuff'.
Why should a new iteration of the MacPro be a hostage to someone wanting a housing for 6 of their old, slow and small drives?
Why support 3 or 4 eSATA and Firewire expansion PCIe cards when that can all be done over a single Thunderbolt cable?
Sounds like your setup needs a bit of a spring clean. A newer, smaller box would force you to consolidate onto a smaller number of bigger and faster drives (those 150GB raptors are slow by today's standards).
Yah CIA, I think you'd be surprised with what little you can get by on these days in smaller boxes and with Thunderbolt.
And I agree with you, I hate tapes...lol. I wish we would go to 1 damn standard but we know that is how people make their money...no standards. I'm so sick of all the formats and all the output formats. I just want 1080p and that's it. Burn the rest. ;)
Small White Car
Apr 5, 02:22 PM
:confused: ALready has Friend Jailbreaking is already legal
So you used the terms "I will revel in the day" and "yes it will happen" for something that's already happened?
Uh...ok. :confused:
Based on your future tense I assumed you meant the day when Apple will actually endorse Jailbreaking directly, not the day they'd be forced to simply allow it. Apparently you were using future tense to talk about past events, so you can see how I got confused.
So you used the terms "I will revel in the day" and "yes it will happen" for something that's already happened?
Uh...ok. :confused:
Based on your future tense I assumed you meant the day when Apple will actually endorse Jailbreaking directly, not the day they'd be forced to simply allow it. Apparently you were using future tense to talk about past events, so you can see how I got confused.
ArtOfWarfare
Mar 26, 10:59 PM
You do realize you don't have to renew the contract right? AT&T will be more than happy to keep taking your money until such time as you feel ready to sign a new one.
How about something more along the lines of "New iPhone 5 when it's released if you agree to pay our fees for another two years"?
I guess I'm not exactly in any position to negotiate like that...
So they'll keep charging the same rates after the contract ends? And I can keep my unlimited 3G for $30 a month?
How about something more along the lines of "New iPhone 5 when it's released if you agree to pay our fees for another two years"?
I guess I'm not exactly in any position to negotiate like that...
So they'll keep charging the same rates after the contract ends? And I can keep my unlimited 3G for $30 a month?
ender land
Apr 10, 01:33 PM
Yes it is, and continually showing me that the right answer is 2 in spite of all evidence to the contrary.
Fixed that for you.
Fixed that for you.
mentaluproar
Nov 3, 07:10 PM
I used to have iantivirus, but got rid of it because it would grab onto 150% or some ridiculous number of the processor and never let go. Sophos, on the other hand, is lightweight and unobtrusive.
aswitcher
Jul 30, 07:14 AM
i dont think this will be a dream feature phone but it will work wonderfully with iSync and .Mac, iTunes, iPhoto, Frontrow (BT controller), Mail, iCal, AddressBook etc
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
I hope it has a 2 megapixel camera and at least half a gig of ram.
ticman
Nov 20, 09:00 AM
Wcfyee,
man u have just ruined my day. LOL I had convinced myself to wait until beginning of Dec and now I am going to have to go the Apple store and pay full retail unless someone else finds an alternative.
I wonder what happened--sounds like forces came to bear.
anyway, thanks as usual for keeping us informed.
Mike
man u have just ruined my day. LOL I had convinced myself to wait until beginning of Dec and now I am going to have to go the Apple store and pay full retail unless someone else finds an alternative.
I wonder what happened--sounds like forces came to bear.
anyway, thanks as usual for keeping us informed.
Mike
Cougarcat
Mar 27, 01:01 AM
So the sources are Gruber who stated it was a guess and TechCrunch who are, well, TechCrunch.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
Also, Gruber later clarified that his guess was not the "iPad 3" per se, but an additional iPad model of some kind, such as possibly a retina display.
mcrain
Apr 15, 09:02 AM
Do you think there are any negative consequences to this? If I were starting a business and seeking investors, it would sure be a lot harder to get investors when the capital gains rate is 35% rather than 15%. That business would never materialize. Nobody's going to complain about it though because no one can see what could have been.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
No.
Capital gains do NOT stand in the way of investment in business. Why? Because capital gains ONLY apply to the gains realized upon the SALE of the shares or ownership interest in the company. That sale has ZERO effect on the business' profit, capitalization, available resources, etc... That sale ONLY might have an effect on the value of the shares of the company in the hands of other investors. That's what is called the secondary market.
What you are talking about is the initial offering of the shares by the company in which the company is looking to exchange ownership, and everything that goes with it, for capital investment.
One of the things that goes with ownership, and one of the two primary reasons people invest, is a share of profits. If a potential business has a good business plan, a good product and will make money, people will invest in it. When it makes money, that income is taxed as ordinary income when distributed, or if kept without re-investment, as business income. This money is NOT taxed as capital gain!
The second profit motive for investment is the idea that the success of the business will generate demand for ownership, thus increasing the value of ownership on the secondary market. This could lead to capital gains if you choose to sell your ownership interest.
Higher taxes result in businesses that choose to reinvest and increase their operations rather than distributing money to its owners. This causes increases in value, increases in operations, increases in hiring, increases in economic impact, etc...
Higher taxes result in investors choosing businesses that are increasing in value, generating higher income rates, operating in riskier, but higher yield, fields, etc...
Capital gains don't prevent investment, they merely affect how much tax is paid on the sale of an investment you have held for over one year.
No comments:
Post a Comment