or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by hmm

I find it extremely amusing that this conversation spun off from a thread on flash. It seems no one cares about Adobe anymore. Anyway no man should ever carry a handbag, and the glasses are machined screwless ones that snap together, not exactly the type you described. There's that and I got rid of the beard a few years ago. You weren't that far off, which is extremely funny.
I could see any of those options as options. My estimates are fairly conservative. I look at options tangential to what they have done within 2 major refresh cycles. I can say that even if you stuck completely with the mobile cpus, Apple has options at the same "recommended customer pricing" levels as those from the ivy bridge generation. The skus are there, but they aren't the same as the ones Apple uses in the retina macbook pros. The cpus in the Airs would be a...
I don't doubt that. Apple likes to share parts between machines presumably for both engineering cost and volume discount reasons. I suspect a third reason would be to control the number of leftover components in the supply chain at any given point. Their choice for the lower priced imac was a cpu that is also used in the macbook air. If it wasn't for a desire to share components or invoke volume discounts, they would have probably gone with another option. The basic unit...
I'm not sure what they intend to do. It looked as though they hesitated due to a change in chip cost, making the chips used in the 13 and 15" macbook pros poor candidates for the mini due to their cost. The low end one by far the furthest out of alignment.
It has been pretty far in the distance for some time, but the tech sites occasionally like to claim that Apple and others will somehow defy intel's rollout schedule. It's also the same thing over again. They say that the generation after is still on target, but they aren't going to ship something for 3 months and then immediately switch over.
 I think they just do that to avoid political thread trolling through alternate accounts.
 I was actually just trying to point out that it makes little sense to restrict someone's career prospects based on perceived political affiliation when there isn't a direct conflict of interest. If the chairman of the FCC leaves to work for one of the cable companies, you should be really skeptical due to the potential conflict of interest between roles. That kind of issue doesn't really exist here. A few people just dislike almost anyone they can directly associate with...
I know she's on Fox. I do read my own links. When I use wiki, I typically confirm at least some of its references. You might take note of the details on her Fox News bio page. from the link  I guess I'll have to wait and see on that one. That is a very bold prediction, and I'm not sure what to really say about it.
I don't really fit either of those adjectives, but I think you greatly overestimate that one. As for Bush's press secretaries, the one I remember is Tony Snow (poor guy). His successor Dana Perino (just a wiki link) had a successful career after leaving the White House. I don't think anyone would be outraged if she was up for the job.
 I always interpreted that phrase as a generic pejorative. Apparently he did work for the White House prior to 2011 in a different role. I missed that, but it still doesn't support the outrage. Glancing through the thread, none of them even mentioned it.
New Posts  All Forums: