mdelvecchio
Mar 29, 03:23 PM
Apple's decision to mix-up their refreshment cycles NOW burns me. I have been looking forward--for once--to upgrading my device at around the time the newest iPhone hits the market, and when I finally get the chance to do it, Apple (potentially) shifts the cycle. Not cool with me.
ME ME ME ME! because you want a new phone when you want it, apple sucks? geeze what are we, 12?
ME ME ME ME! because you want a new phone when you want it, apple sucks? geeze what are we, 12?
fluidedge
Jan 11, 04:21 PM
Don't we post the 'tagline' every year?
Does anyone have the list of the slogans for the last few years and how they related to any product releases?? I believe this is a deliberate red herring by Apple. Pigs might be in the air - flying?
Either that or its something small(ish) like new Airport Express iTunes streaming thing. Maybe trying to make 2008 the year that everyone does away with CDs and downloads all their music and streams it around the house.
What about an Apple Radio of some sort? Able to play DAB radio and stream your iTunes.
Does anyone have the list of the slogans for the last few years and how they related to any product releases?? I believe this is a deliberate red herring by Apple. Pigs might be in the air - flying?
Either that or its something small(ish) like new Airport Express iTunes streaming thing. Maybe trying to make 2008 the year that everyone does away with CDs and downloads all their music and streams it around the house.
What about an Apple Radio of some sort? Able to play DAB radio and stream your iTunes.
iOrlando
Nov 13, 08:05 AM
Good developers dislike regulation, but in the case of apps, I think its needed. Without regulation, I can just go and make some crap app (that wouldn't work) put a $0.99 price and hope for 20-40 fools a month to accidently buy it. Repeat this step probably 100s of times with clueless "developers" who don't know what they are doing. Regulation at least guarantees the app works, although the functionality and usefulness of the app is up for judgement by the end user.
R.Perez
Mar 10, 09:47 PM
The budget exercise lets you feel like a politician. I was disappointed that there was no entry box for my pork barrel projects and pay raise.
I glad you guys enjoyed this. I figured that exercise was the perfect counter to that neo-liberal nonsense that 5pt posted.
I glad you guys enjoyed this. I figured that exercise was the perfect counter to that neo-liberal nonsense that 5pt posted.
edoates
Aug 2, 06:08 PM
Well... but at least it's not Apple's fault, because they didn't produce the driver. Therefore it's actually not a concern of Apple's but of the driver's producer's.
On the other hand Apple did include it into it's OS seemingly without testing it thorougly, and that is, of course, a concern of Apple's. So they will have to work together to get rid of that - and I'm sure they will - and I may be smug again. :p
EDIT: Bzzzt to me for my prior comments about it being Apple's issue; apparently, the vulnerability is caused by a third party card driver. Does anyone know if that's apple's driver or the third party card driver which must be installed by the user?
On the other hand Apple did include it into it's OS seemingly without testing it thorougly, and that is, of course, a concern of Apple's. So they will have to work together to get rid of that - and I'm sure they will - and I may be smug again. :p
EDIT: Bzzzt to me for my prior comments about it being Apple's issue; apparently, the vulnerability is caused by a third party card driver. Does anyone know if that's apple's driver or the third party card driver which must be installed by the user?
W1MRK
Mar 28, 02:21 PM
That Hellhole still exists? How?
"you've got questions, we've got confused faces"
"you've got questions, we've got confused faces"
Jason Beck
Mar 11, 11:51 AM
http://fc09.deviantart.net/fs70/f/2011/068/9/4/manic_mallory_vii_mar_2011_by_jasonbeck-d3bb2yo.jpg
Microsoft Windows 8 Beta
Windows 8 Beta Introduction
gsmarena 001 Beta of Windows 8
Windows 8 beta version is
Windows 8 es el sucesor de
Windows 8 Tweaker is a free
links of Windows 8 (eta
acslater017
Aug 29, 09:13 AM
this may be a dumb question, but what is the difference between all those versions? I mean, between "Upgrade" and "Regular Price"? What's considered an upgrade
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
hulugu
Aug 2, 06:00 PM
...Actually it's the smug attitude of so many Mac owners that makes them such satisfying targets. You reap what you sow. I've been using Macs since 1984 (and PCs about as long) and Mac users get on my nerves sometimes.
Um, hello?
You've been using Macs since their inception, therefore you are a Mac user, who is according to you a smug and satisfying target.
Maybe, not all Mac users are the same monolithic group.
Um, hello?
You've been using Macs since their inception, therefore you are a Mac user, who is according to you a smug and satisfying target.
Maybe, not all Mac users are the same monolithic group.
Fukui
Sep 12, 02:58 PM
Generally the layout is fine, but this thing (iTunes 7) looks absolutely FUGLY!
Yea, apple had platinum, then aqua, now, with this release the've invented "Delorean." :(
Yea, apple had platinum, then aqua, now, with this release the've invented "Delorean." :(
Apple OC
Mar 10, 09:11 PM
I like how Thomas V and Quagmire did theirs ... IMO reasonable
FrankPaolino
Mar 23, 05:22 PM
I have shared this with some friends, and re-blogged it with attribution at:
http://blog.maysoft.org/blog.nsf/d6plinks/FPAO-8F8TZM
I wonder how many other people will try this if they have "buyers remorse" and return an iPad?
Cool gesture on Apple's part.
http://blog.maysoft.org/blog.nsf/d6plinks/FPAO-8F8TZM
I wonder how many other people will try this if they have "buyers remorse" and return an iPad?
Cool gesture on Apple's part.
MaddMacs
Mar 2, 07:10 PM
http://agassizimaging.smugmug.com/photos/1203080032_KRFVH-L.jpg
stunning.. where is that?
Windows 8
Windows 8 Leak Setup Windows 8
windows 8 beta.ver download Hotfile Megaupload Fileserve Rapidshare Filesonic download, windows 8 beta.ver download torrent download,
Microsoft#39;s primary Windows 8
windows 8 metro login
stunning.. where is that?
BigDukeSix
Mar 28, 02:03 PM
I am glad to see Apple put their product anywhere it can to increase sales and get devices into peoples hands. Not every place has an Apple store, or maybe even a Target or Best Buy close by. Well done Apple!
Mr Lizard
Nov 7, 12:19 PM
Dude, that's the specs for the current Macbook.
Well, yes and no. The title of the page reads 'Core 2 Duo'. The page also states it's available to pre order, with a release date of the 13th.
Granted, the body of the page refers to the original Core Duo chip, but it's safe to assume that at least Play.com believes they have a new product to sell from the 13th onward.
Well, yes and no. The title of the page reads 'Core 2 Duo'. The page also states it's available to pre order, with a release date of the 13th.
Granted, the body of the page refers to the original Core Duo chip, but it's safe to assume that at least Play.com believes they have a new product to sell from the 13th onward.
simon-says
Aug 24, 01:42 PM
Mine falls in range. But the website has been saying my serial number is ineligible for a recall. Weird?
docpsycho
Nov 8, 09:37 AM
Still no REAL GPU? Yawn
john123
Mar 14, 06:23 PM
I think you're staing a very good point, comrade :) The only people who are going to buy a MBP is the ones that cares and who know they're going to buy it despite of the iPad.
I dont think either that the iPad will loose customers because of a "minor" MBP update. Just look at the pre-order numbers. Haven't they passed over 50,000 now? And that in just days? I mean, it shows the interest for the iPad and people will not ask themself wether go get an iPad or the new Macbook Pro, they know they want that ****INGS iPad.
So in all, mr. Jobs have no reason to delay the launch of the new MBP. Because he know that the iPad will be a sucsess and it won't matter when the hell the MBP is released... Hmmm...that makes me wonder why he haven't released it before allready :S
It has nothing to do with who buys what. It's all about marketing. And I assure you Mr. Jobs is considerably better at marketing than you (or anyone else on these boards).
I dont think either that the iPad will loose customers because of a "minor" MBP update. Just look at the pre-order numbers. Haven't they passed over 50,000 now? And that in just days? I mean, it shows the interest for the iPad and people will not ask themself wether go get an iPad or the new Macbook Pro, they know they want that ****INGS iPad.
So in all, mr. Jobs have no reason to delay the launch of the new MBP. Because he know that the iPad will be a sucsess and it won't matter when the hell the MBP is released... Hmmm...that makes me wonder why he haven't released it before allready :S
It has nothing to do with who buys what. It's all about marketing. And I assure you Mr. Jobs is considerably better at marketing than you (or anyone else on these boards).
iScott428
Apr 2, 12:13 PM
People who are only in love with specs don't want to give the ipad its due.
The device works, because it is optimized for itself, i.e. hardware and software specs are integrated really really well.
It has a great price point and stressing over camera quality is ridiculous, as it is not a camera! Will it be better, yes in the next generation when availability and prices of 8 MP or more fit into what Apple wants to pay for it.
People also don't want to recognize that an ipad is not a laptop. We are IMO about 50% there, but until reliable voice recognition technology replaces a real keyboard, we have to wait.
I always have to laugh when I read about the next ipad killer.
The last ipad killer was actually the ipad2, and that with such a weakly underpowered camera in it.
So very well said, and what a great last line!
On another note its not like people are not buying up the stock of original iPads...I can not wait to see Apples quarterly earnings!
The device works, because it is optimized for itself, i.e. hardware and software specs are integrated really really well.
It has a great price point and stressing over camera quality is ridiculous, as it is not a camera! Will it be better, yes in the next generation when availability and prices of 8 MP or more fit into what Apple wants to pay for it.
People also don't want to recognize that an ipad is not a laptop. We are IMO about 50% there, but until reliable voice recognition technology replaces a real keyboard, we have to wait.
I always have to laugh when I read about the next ipad killer.
The last ipad killer was actually the ipad2, and that with such a weakly underpowered camera in it.
So very well said, and what a great last line!
On another note its not like people are not buying up the stock of original iPads...I can not wait to see Apples quarterly earnings!
Unspeaked
Nov 29, 09:17 AM
Paul McCartney is quite a jerk. I wouldn't want to see Steve Jobs insult himself by appearing with him.
Apple Corps breed, inspire creativity? Geewhiz, I don't know whether that's the case... enough LSD and that helps :mad:
Honestly I like some Beatles songs but this is the most overrated band in the history of mankind. Even Cat Stevens and Steely Dan turned out much better.
Well, it appears someone's certainly looking for some venomous exchanges on the MacRumors forums...
Apple Corps breed, inspire creativity? Geewhiz, I don't know whether that's the case... enough LSD and that helps :mad:
Honestly I like some Beatles songs but this is the most overrated band in the history of mankind. Even Cat Stevens and Steely Dan turned out much better.
Well, it appears someone's certainly looking for some venomous exchanges on the MacRumors forums...
amols
Aug 29, 09:41 AM
Ouch.
400 smackers for Ultimate? :mad:
My wallet hurts.
With few added bucks and student's discount, you can buy a Mini with Leopard and iLife preinstalled in that amount, or iPod Video, or Xbox 360, or ..............I love my Mac ;)
400 smackers for Ultimate? :mad:
My wallet hurts.
With few added bucks and student's discount, you can buy a Mini with Leopard and iLife preinstalled in that amount, or iPod Video, or Xbox 360, or ..............I love my Mac ;)
afornander
Sep 12, 04:25 PM
the new look is kinda "microsoft-ish" if ya know what i mean. not sayin its a bad thing. i hope the leapord takes as much of a gui upgrade as itunes;)
BanjoBanker
Sep 22, 02:01 PM
Having spent a fair amount of time living in a rural environment, I would like to add my distaste for Wal-Mart. They move into an area with their "low prices"
and put all the local stores out of business. There are hundreds of little towns in rural areas of the south that have been devastated by the arrival of a Wal-Mart. I have had business dealings with Wal-Mart and I will tell you they do bully suppliers. I had a shipment to them with the standard invoice terms of 2% discount if paid within 10 days or net invoice if paid withing 30 days. Well, Wal-Mart paid in 90 days and took the discount! PLus they gave me a hrad time when I called them on it! I have not shopped with them in over 15 years, and I plan on keeping it that way. The fact that they sell 40% of the DVDs sold during the Christmas buying cycle does give them clout with the studios, and that is unfortunate. However, I believe that volume could be made up elsewhere, so I am not sure that the studio heads would knuckle under. They have more and more been taking a long term view, so that may diminish Wal-Mart's clout. Let us hope so.
and put all the local stores out of business. There are hundreds of little towns in rural areas of the south that have been devastated by the arrival of a Wal-Mart. I have had business dealings with Wal-Mart and I will tell you they do bully suppliers. I had a shipment to them with the standard invoice terms of 2% discount if paid within 10 days or net invoice if paid withing 30 days. Well, Wal-Mart paid in 90 days and took the discount! PLus they gave me a hrad time when I called them on it! I have not shopped with them in over 15 years, and I plan on keeping it that way. The fact that they sell 40% of the DVDs sold during the Christmas buying cycle does give them clout with the studios, and that is unfortunate. However, I believe that volume could be made up elsewhere, so I am not sure that the studio heads would knuckle under. They have more and more been taking a long term view, so that may diminish Wal-Mart's clout. Let us hope so.
No comments:
Post a Comment