![shakespeare globe theatre. male 2 ] [ Globe Theater ]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sHW4X7Kd6k7rk5kCMCHQ6jvZm8RkJKc1Rj2c5_AxHa2Yio6HDd-5THNuWvizIVK6H_EFzVa5_59k8OmvR4vuseuKL-Ci3F84gbs5btpO6HnUpXGfCW=s0-d "male 2 ] [ Globe Theater ]")
darkplanets
Apr 24, 03:08 PM
If it does have APPX and a previewer like OSX, I'm interested.
There's always been a few features missing from Windows that dissuade me from using it-- their FS and program structure is one, as well as the non-native support of disk images.
To everyone preaching about copying and stealing ideas... who cares? The only thing that these rumored changes would do is bring Windows right next to OSX in terms of likability (IMO, of course ;))
W8 will probably be BIOS/EFI -- I don't see MS dropping BIOS in one OS revision.
cmd is not something a majority of people need but any higher level IT/programing it is a very good tool that should not go away.
I'm not an IT guy, but terminal is one of the selling points of OSX. I love being able to pop in there and SSH or change whatever I need for my purposes.
There's always been a few features missing from Windows that dissuade me from using it-- their FS and program structure is one, as well as the non-native support of disk images.
To everyone preaching about copying and stealing ideas... who cares? The only thing that these rumored changes would do is bring Windows right next to OSX in terms of likability (IMO, of course ;))
W8 will probably be BIOS/EFI -- I don't see MS dropping BIOS in one OS revision.
cmd is not something a majority of people need but any higher level IT/programing it is a very good tool that should not go away.
I'm not an IT guy, but terminal is one of the selling points of OSX. I love being able to pop in there and SSH or change whatever I need for my purposes.
Finlandboy
Apr 11, 01:14 PM
Bought a temporary cheap case for my iPad 2 off Amazon due to be broke from buying the ipad and spring break.
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
applemacdude
Jan 12, 06:49 PM
who are you kidding? what part of iphone is not previously existed in technology? yay it has a nice UI, like all other apple products, but the hardware?
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
that they were able to put all that together and package it in a consumer friendly way
remind me, again, what's revolutionary about iPhone?
that they were able to put all that together and package it in a consumer friendly way
jayducharme
Apr 29, 06:49 PM
The main problem with the "slider" idea is that it wasn't intuitive which selection was active (since we're so used to a depressed icon indicating selection). I like the concept of a slider; it reminds me of the old tile games. Perhaps a compromise would have been to have the selected item's text glow, as if a little LED were behind it. That would have made it really clear which item was active.
marmotmammal
Mar 24, 05:27 PM
Core audio and core midi stabilized music processing at the operating system level, often driver-free, vis-a-vis OS9 or 8, and Windoze OS. X pretty much killed BeOS.
Mac Dummy
Jan 13, 09:15 PM
That guy was an orphan who made himself into a billionaire with no help from anyone. Until you can do the same he has every reason to be smug.
Even Bill Gates, for what it is worth, grew up in a nice sheltered family with rich parents.
Bill Gates was also a programmer at Apple, when Steve and company visited Xerox Parc and learned about the windows GUI concept. Bill took that concept when he left Apple and started Microsoft, then teamed up with IBM that was looking for a new OS to use with their PC's. Which they would later sell to corporate America, the government, and the military. Also with IBM clones, Windows PC's would become affordable for the average person needing a computer. Hence the reason there are more PC users than Mac users, but that is starting to change as Windows becomes less secure and more bloated.
Even Bill Gates, for what it is worth, grew up in a nice sheltered family with rich parents.
Bill Gates was also a programmer at Apple, when Steve and company visited Xerox Parc and learned about the windows GUI concept. Bill took that concept when he left Apple and started Microsoft, then teamed up with IBM that was looking for a new OS to use with their PC's. Which they would later sell to corporate America, the government, and the military. Also with IBM clones, Windows PC's would become affordable for the average person needing a computer. Hence the reason there are more PC users than Mac users, but that is starting to change as Windows becomes less secure and more bloated.
leekohler
May 6, 10:09 AM
I believe this might LITERALLY be the first time I've ever read something from Lee, been impressed with it's depth, and not been saddened by the complete opacity of his partisan blinders.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
Very well said, sir. I agree, 100%
Funny, you could really use this advice more than anyone else here.
I would take that as a compliment, but it was just another backhanded insult.
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Well, good for you. Maybe other people do enjoy them. Different strokes, dude. I tried marijuana, and wasn't "bewitched" by that thrill either. That doesn't mean I don't think other people should not be able to use it.
marksman
Mar 29, 04:53 PM
This will be a real boon the Mac Developers... First it makes it easy for Apple to determine who is eligible, if you are in the App Store, you are in.
Secondly when they announce the awards, the benefit to the developers will be more significant as people will be able to link right to them in the Apple App Store and download/install them.
I think it will end up being a real good thing for those developers partake in it.
I don't have much confidence in developers who eschew the App Store for their applications anyways, as in almost all cases it is a bad business move. I appreciate the business savvy of developers and companies who realize what a real advantage the app store model is, especially if you have a strong product.
MMCC, excuse me if I don't buy that gross and volume of your niche has gone down with the introduction of the app store. It seems pretty much impossible that volume sold for products in your niche went down... Perhaps your volume went down, but what that most likely tells me is before you were better at marketing your product than competitors, but now given equal footing as others, people are choosing some competitors over you instead.
The idea that your whole segment was moving 100000 units before the App store and now are moving 50000 units just seems impossible, unless something else effecting the segment happened. It is not because of the Apple App Store. Again though with your own words you used to capture a lot of volume off google adwords. Which means you were likely much more successful at marketing than your competitors because being successful on PPC is not easy for any product. I would focus on your product and its features and place in the market and see what you can do to improve your offering. Feedback from the users and the rest.
Someone else is getting the sales you are not getting and the new sales as well. Figure out how and why.
Secondly when they announce the awards, the benefit to the developers will be more significant as people will be able to link right to them in the Apple App Store and download/install them.
I think it will end up being a real good thing for those developers partake in it.
I don't have much confidence in developers who eschew the App Store for their applications anyways, as in almost all cases it is a bad business move. I appreciate the business savvy of developers and companies who realize what a real advantage the app store model is, especially if you have a strong product.
MMCC, excuse me if I don't buy that gross and volume of your niche has gone down with the introduction of the app store. It seems pretty much impossible that volume sold for products in your niche went down... Perhaps your volume went down, but what that most likely tells me is before you were better at marketing your product than competitors, but now given equal footing as others, people are choosing some competitors over you instead.
The idea that your whole segment was moving 100000 units before the App store and now are moving 50000 units just seems impossible, unless something else effecting the segment happened. It is not because of the Apple App Store. Again though with your own words you used to capture a lot of volume off google adwords. Which means you were likely much more successful at marketing than your competitors because being successful on PPC is not easy for any product. I would focus on your product and its features and place in the market and see what you can do to improve your offering. Feedback from the users and the rest.
Someone else is getting the sales you are not getting and the new sales as well. Figure out how and why.
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 6, 04:47 PM
Can't wait :)
mizzoucat
Sep 12, 08:15 AM
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
I found that page last week but didn't think much of it...... :)
I found that page last week but didn't think much of it...... :)
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 07:41 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
RichP
Aug 7, 07:01 PM
Hmm..I wonder if this means that we wont see the issues plaguing the 23"s (poor color, banding, etc etc etc)
If so, time to make an upgrade!
If so, time to make an upgrade!
Rodimus Prime
May 4, 11:54 AM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
Well seeing how in 6 pages I have yet to see the logical answer to this I will give it.
It is because it shows the US carries are cracking down on tethering and going after them.
Now there is still an easy way to get said apps threw market with out sideload.
Put your phone in airplane mode. Then turn on wifi and boom full market access while in airplane mode.
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:37 AM
Damn! Can only wonder what it cost back then..those were dark days back then...
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
I've bought and sold quite a bit of AAPL over the years since, but always held onto my original stake. My cost basis is around $4 a share. Now I can't afford to sell it!
justflie
Sep 12, 08:14 AM
Italian iTunes (Music) Store is down too, with the black screen.
and...i've found this http://www.apple.com/movies
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
and...i've found this http://www.apple.com/movies
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 04:23 AM
Thanks for the responses guys, pretty much reinforces what I originally thought. Somebody actually owned themself yesterday, he kept going on about how Android phones get apps for free. " I got angry birds for free but you paid for it", when I asked him to show me Angry Birds running on his HTC it was running at around 2FPS, the lag made my eyes bleed. Lol It all turned very silent after that.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:12 PM
Isn't a healthy chunk of OS X based on FreeBSD? A free, open source Unix distro? In a sense, if they use FreeBSD and do not contribute back to the very open source community they're borrowing from, doesn't that make Apple a thief? Maybe I'm missing something :o
Who says they don't?
In fact, if you believe this guy's blog, Apple may very well have saved FreeBSD from oblivion: http://trollaxor.com/text/thank_apple_for_freebsd.html
(I'm not necessarily saying he's right about saving FreeBSD, just that NeXT/Apple have contributed to it.)
Who says they don't?
In fact, if you believe this guy's blog, Apple may very well have saved FreeBSD from oblivion: http://trollaxor.com/text/thank_apple_for_freebsd.html
(I'm not necessarily saying he's right about saving FreeBSD, just that NeXT/Apple have contributed to it.)
MarximusMG
Apr 21, 11:17 AM
Very nice! I've been waiting for this feature to be implemented on MR.
kdarling
Oct 9, 11:53 AM
Users get less dropped calls (if any) on Verizon than AT&T, partly because Verizon uses CDMA. Put simply:
When a CDMA cell phone switches between towers, it does what is called a "soft handoff". It stays connected to the last tower even as it switches to using the next one.
When a GSM cell phone switches between towers, it does what is called a "hard handoff". It drops the connection to the last tower, and then switches to the next one. If the next connection fails, the call fails.
When a CDMA cell phone switches between towers, it does what is called a "soft handoff". It stays connected to the last tower even as it switches to using the next one.
When a GSM cell phone switches between towers, it does what is called a "hard handoff". It drops the connection to the last tower, and then switches to the next one. If the next connection fails, the call fails.
NewSc2
Oct 3, 12:56 AM
If this is the iPhone of houses, I guess my house is the Zune of houses. Or perhaps a 1st Gen nano . . . old, small, and ugly.
heyy... the 1st nano still looks pretty sweet. use mine on a regular basis.
heyy... the 1st nano still looks pretty sweet. use mine on a regular basis.
iGary
Sep 25, 11:17 AM
According to the new features list for Aperture 1.5
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
That is good to know, because 1.1.2 runs like crap on a Quad with a 6800GT and 8GB of RAM. Unacceptable, really. I basically abandoned the workflow and went back to Photoshop. I can actually get work done that way.
Aperture IS great for cataloguing, though, so for that, I am grateful.
Glad 1.5 ia a free update, too.
this doesn't mean there will not be any updates to the MBP on Tuesday.
I totally agree - today was NOT the time and place, though. ;)
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
That is good to know, because 1.1.2 runs like crap on a Quad with a 6800GT and 8GB of RAM. Unacceptable, really. I basically abandoned the workflow and went back to Photoshop. I can actually get work done that way.
Aperture IS great for cataloguing, though, so for that, I am grateful.
Glad 1.5 ia a free update, too.
this doesn't mean there will not be any updates to the MBP on Tuesday.
I totally agree - today was NOT the time and place, though. ;)
maflynn
Mar 7, 10:30 AM
Why is Apple the only tech company that makes unique products? All the other big ones seem to just drop in behind Apple after they invent something...
Actually they're not the only tech company that makes unique products. You probably need to turn your iMac off and go outside more :p
There's plenty of good things being produced by non-apple companies. Yeah apple makes some good things, but they're not the be all and end all on electronics.
Actually they're not the only tech company that makes unique products. You probably need to turn your iMac off and go outside more :p
There's plenty of good things being produced by non-apple companies. Yeah apple makes some good things, but they're not the be all and end all on electronics.
Fearless Leader
Jan 14, 04:14 PM
The first bit was funny for this teenage, but this was nothing for a "Journalist" to be doing.
No comments:
Post a Comment