PtMD
Dec 1, 05:11 PM
I know I'm going to get labeled as a mac zealot and linux apologist for asking this, but isn't it weird how the project spent ALMOST ALL OF ITS TIME looking for ways to crucify OS X/Linux, but they avoided MS like the plague, as if they were afraid to make them look bad?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
hulugu
May 2, 02:33 AM
...I'm ultimately rather ambivalent about the affair. Killing a bad man neither undoes what he as done, nor justifies everything we've done over the last decade of pursuing him and his organization. Politicians and partisans will bicker and squabble over who gets the credit, but there really is less credit to go around than the media would have us believe. We'll all wake up tomorrow with the same problems we had before bin Laden died.
Surely every thoughtful person has mixed feelings when reflecting on the events of the last ten years? Let's not get carried away.
This. I'm a little worried that those chanting USA, USA don't realize how much finally killing Bin Laden has cost us and how dangerous the blowback could be.
Afghanistan will remain a determined mess, while Pakistan teeters. Thousands are dead, thousands more see the US as the power behind the buzzsaw death of wedding parties. We have not won.
Surely every thoughtful person has mixed feelings when reflecting on the events of the last ten years? Let's not get carried away.
This. I'm a little worried that those chanting USA, USA don't realize how much finally killing Bin Laden has cost us and how dangerous the blowback could be.
Afghanistan will remain a determined mess, while Pakistan teeters. Thousands are dead, thousands more see the US as the power behind the buzzsaw death of wedding parties. We have not won.
Legion93
May 2, 03:38 AM
Because they have to bury him within 24 hours and Saudi Arabia didn't want his body - probably neither did the Pakistanis.
What about the Afghani people?
What about the Afghani people?
Battlefield Fan
May 3, 08:29 AM
Since when has the iMac had a TFT display? I thought it had an IPS display??
steviem
Oct 21, 11:15 AM
All I really want is my fianc� visa to be able to get to really start my life... And maybe a car to go with my newly earnt driving license... Lol
bassfingers
Apr 22, 09:31 AM
I wouldn't want an LTE phone that had compromises anyway. It'd be hard to believe that anyone else would either
motulist
Aug 15, 09:30 PM
I don't mind the "bubbles" in concept. What I think is hideous is the ovalness of them and the coloring. I'd prefer something lighter and beveled.
A lot of this comes down to personal preference. Personally, I think OS X's UIs have gotten better with each iteration. Imo, this new bubble ui is better than brushed metal, which was better than candy. Personally, I like UI elements that are shaded to look 3D (which these are not) so that they look like actual objects you are manipulating, what makes you prefer bevels to ovals? (not that there's anything wrong with that ;) )
A lot of this comes down to personal preference. Personally, I think OS X's UIs have gotten better with each iteration. Imo, this new bubble ui is better than brushed metal, which was better than candy. Personally, I like UI elements that are shaded to look 3D (which these are not) so that they look like actual objects you are manipulating, what makes you prefer bevels to ovals? (not that there's anything wrong with that ;) )
it5five
Oct 24, 08:56 AM
Finally, no more need for 600 threads about the C2D MacBook Pros.
Of course, now we're going to get 600 threads about the C2D MacBooks. :(
Of course, now we're going to get 600 threads about the C2D MacBooks. :(
sickracer2015
Apr 24, 09:27 PM
whats not to say someone just changed the carrier name? I don't own an iphone but I did search and its totally possible.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
I don't see a reason apple would need to create an iPhone for T-Mobile if the AT&T plan goes through. If it's rejected than maybe thats a reason then to possibly go on T-Mobile.
G4DP
Apr 1, 04:54 AM
Unfortunately this is the chintzy sort of rubbish that the iSheep love. So it's probably here for good.
Nice one Arn with the April fool's stuff.
Nice one Arn with the April fool's stuff.
rmwebs
Apr 28, 04:39 PM
It was on a slope. I used a guide line in Photoshop and rotated the original photo 0.9 degrees CCW to remove the slope. Check my photo vs. the original.
(Updated my post, not sure if you saw it)
Photoshop will enhance/correct photos when levelling so by rotating it you are distorting the image, thus making the results invalid. Its simply not possible to get an accurate result on an image you've had to distort.
Either way, this is a pointless argument/analysis as its impossible to tell without being able to physically put a few iPhones from different batches together to get a real physical comparison.
(Updated my post, not sure if you saw it)
Photoshop will enhance/correct photos when levelling so by rotating it you are distorting the image, thus making the results invalid. Its simply not possible to get an accurate result on an image you've had to distort.
Either way, this is a pointless argument/analysis as its impossible to tell without being able to physically put a few iPhones from different batches together to get a real physical comparison.
SciFrog
Oct 26, 03:49 PM
Will be hard to resist getting a Nehalem when they get updated next...
VirtualRain
Apr 9, 03:54 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5029/5601830981_e99a6b6cb8_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/dailymatador/5601830981/in/set-72157626333628501)
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 100
Interesting choice of focal point and depth of field. It makes me wonder what what it might look like with everything in focus.
Camera Canon EOS REBEL T2i
Exposure 0.001 sec (1/1600)
Aperture f/3.5
Focal Length 35 mm
ISO Speed 100
Interesting choice of focal point and depth of field. It makes me wonder what what it might look like with everything in focus.
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 02:01 PM
Does anyone know if the home sharing play count bug has been fixed? I'd upgrade if it has but if it hasn't I'll stick with my 4.3.1 jailbreak.
For those who don't know what I'm talking about there was a bug where home sharing to device was not updating song play counts in iTunes like it's suppose to.
It's not a bug.
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=275083&d=1299669590
For those who don't know what I'm talking about there was a bug where home sharing to device was not updating song play counts in iTunes like it's suppose to.
It's not a bug.
You had to manually tick a box which counted Home Sharing play counts on the iTunes overall one.
http://forums.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=275083&d=1299669590
appleguy123
May 1, 08:32 PM
I think me and jav6454 are tied at one vote each.
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
admyrick
Sep 12, 11:16 PM
i wanna get one lol
carlgo
Oct 1, 08:51 AM
It's interesting how cell service works. Here's a simplistic summary:
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
Only a certain number of users can use a tower at any given time. There is only a certain range of frequencies that can be used. All towers use these same frequencies. This means that each tower must not overlap the others in terms of coverage area and frequenceis. To ensure this, companies actually use different frequency ranges on adjacent towers. Further limiting how many users can use each tower.
The solution to this is to create smaller cell sites that cover a smaller area (and therefore will have fewer users at any given time). The problem with this is that each new cell site requires a new tower. With all the opposition to new tower construction it can take months or years to get approval to build one.
With the massive growth in cell usage companies are having to create smaller and smaller cell sites. Because of the way the system works putting up one new tower requires the reconfiguration of all the adjacent towers. Their signal area must be changed, their frequencies must be changed and it all must be integrated together.
When you get a dropped call, it's usually because you are moving into another cell site (serviced by a new tower). Your call must be handed off to the new tower. If this new tower is at capacity or overloaded, failures happen.
This is why it sucks for very high density areas.
Luckily in Minneapolis we have very good AT&T coverage. I get very fast 3G speeds and <1% dropped calls everywhere I go. Thank you urban sprawl for spreading everyone out.. When I was in NYC I noticed by data speeds were much slower. I didn't make enough calls to have any problems with that though.
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
whooleytoo
Apr 13, 02:24 PM
Not a single analyst has explained WHY this would be better for Apple than simply selling more Apple TVs. They just say it like it makes sense and expect us to believe them.
I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.
WHY would Apple want to take on shipments of large, expensive packages?
WHY would Apple want to limit their market for a new product to people who want an entirely new TV?
WHY do you think Apple cares more about what logo is on the back of the TV that by what software is showing up on the screen?
And WHY isn't the Apple TV good enough for the goal of getting the iOS and iTunes worlds into the living room?
I think the changes to the latest Apple TV is a sign of where Apple wants to be headed. The next Apple TV will be even smaller and come free when you buy a Mac, iPad, or iPhone. Wait and see! Just like giving e-mail away helps Google's ecosystem, so does getting Apple TVs into people's houses help Apple's ecosystem.
Selling some $2,000 TV doesn't help with that.
I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense. But that doesn't mean I think Apple will never do it! Apple (i.e. Jobs?) are obsessed with controlling the entire user-experience, and as such might love to add their own HDTV to complete the solution.
There's a lot of potential to add a lot more integration between TV and Mac/PC. Typically this has just been "PC as a video/audio source for the TV", but you could add on-screen notifications/messages even while watching other sources (such as cable), far better TV-based browsers, faster & better looking TV-guides etc.
Yes there is a lot of competition out there, but Apple are quite good at taking on a "commodity" low-margin market and adding value to it and thriving. And I'd love to see the design they come up with.
I'm sorry, but that's not good enough.
WHY would Apple want to take on shipments of large, expensive packages?
WHY would Apple want to limit their market for a new product to people who want an entirely new TV?
WHY do you think Apple cares more about what logo is on the back of the TV that by what software is showing up on the screen?
And WHY isn't the Apple TV good enough for the goal of getting the iOS and iTunes worlds into the living room?
I think the changes to the latest Apple TV is a sign of where Apple wants to be headed. The next Apple TV will be even smaller and come free when you buy a Mac, iPad, or iPhone. Wait and see! Just like giving e-mail away helps Google's ecosystem, so does getting Apple TVs into people's houses help Apple's ecosystem.
Selling some $2,000 TV doesn't help with that.
I'd agree that it doesn't make much sense. But that doesn't mean I think Apple will never do it! Apple (i.e. Jobs?) are obsessed with controlling the entire user-experience, and as such might love to add their own HDTV to complete the solution.
There's a lot of potential to add a lot more integration between TV and Mac/PC. Typically this has just been "PC as a video/audio source for the TV", but you could add on-screen notifications/messages even while watching other sources (such as cable), far better TV-based browsers, faster & better looking TV-guides etc.
Yes there is a lot of competition out there, but Apple are quite good at taking on a "commodity" low-margin market and adding value to it and thriving. And I'd love to see the design they come up with.
gri
Jun 17, 02:20 PM
Well, I guess the app contain an official exam and your results get posted directly... Obviously, it's not only a "text book" kind of app...
That examen is worth nothing than - I would have the textbook lying next to me. Did you ever do a board examen here in the US...? No cell phones, no watches, no nothing. Camera watching you all the time...
That examen is worth nothing than - I would have the textbook lying next to me. Did you ever do a board examen here in the US...? No cell phones, no watches, no nothing. Camera watching you all the time...
Xavier
Sep 13, 09:15 PM
This shipped today, 3 weeks for International Shipping though. Ouch
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
I have this shirt. It does attract quite a bit of attention
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3132/2692481788_ec23411e7c.jpg
I have this shirt. It does attract quite a bit of attention
AppleScruff1
Apr 21, 11:19 PM
The ITC staff just ruled against them, they lost the famous case against MS, they ended up paying Apple Corps, etc.
What have they actually WON?
They won one suit against Apple Records but lost a few others. Talk about copying and violating agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
What have they actually WON?
They won one suit against Apple Records but lost a few others. Talk about copying and violating agreements.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
iMJustAGuy
Apr 14, 06:31 AM
Called it! (About 8 months ago. ;))
tigress666
Apr 29, 01:03 AM
It's thinking like that which makes lotteries so successful for raising revenue in so many states. Total cost is always a factor, and total cost includes not only plan costs for two years, but it also includes the value of the respective phones at the end of the contract period. At a minimum, a 3GS is going to be worth $100 less than an iPhone 4 after 2 years. So, with a total expenditure in the $1500-$2000 range, you'll be lucky if you save $50 in the long run by going with the slower, lower resolution, older technology model. Hardly worth it.
Ok, that works if you are thinking of getting a cellphone vs. not getting a cellphone.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
Ok, that works if you are thinking of getting a cellphone vs. not getting a cellphone.
But when you are thinking of getting what type of cellphone, no, it doesn't count. Cause by deciding you are getting a cellphone but trying to decide which type, you already committed to buying the plan,what type of cellphone does not affect the cost of the plan, you are going to pay it regardless. So the cost of the plan really doesn't count for the cost of the cellphone when you are comparing cellphones together.
Maybe if we were comparing getting a landline to a cellphone (where the costs of the service for the landline are going to be drastically different).
Or even if we were comparing going from AT&T to Verizon there might be some small difference. So only if the cellphones are on different networks (with the iphone though, this only matters if you are comparing to a T-Mobile or Sprint phone as you can get an iphone on either AT&T or Verizon so the plan cost will be the same for the iphone as whatever other phone you want to get on either network).
You still don't get the point.
The point is when we are comparing different cellphones to each other, the service doesn't matter cause if you are getting the cellphone, you are going to pay the service regardless and which cellphone you get isn't going to affect the service's price. Therefore it is irrelevant when talking cost of one cellphone vs. another to bring in the cost o the contract.
mjuarez
Apr 12, 09:27 AM
Agreed, put it on the second page. This "might/might not" constant chatter is not helpful.