berkleeboy210
Oct 11, 11:08 AM
Thats a good call!
They did this same thing last year. in September held an event for the nano and the itunes phone.
and in october an event for the ipod w/ video and for the imacs....
They did this same thing last year. in September held an event for the nano and the itunes phone.
and in october an event for the ipod w/ video and for the imacs....
Rodimus Prime
Apr 29, 05:55 PM
No, smitty was correct. MS uses version numbers that identify it's code. It's how software devs can write code that decides whether the app should be allowed to install.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Umm just going to point this out to but Windows 95, 98 and ME were all the windows 9.x kernel code.
Knight pointed out that what you are reading is just the gui version number. GUI is just a shell around the OS(aka eye candy). The kernel is what really matters and what is really accessed and controlled.
NT and beyond were on different version of NT.
Knight is the one is correct and he has proving he knows his stuff in that deparment.
Windows had 2 lines for the longest time the NT line (business for the most part) and the other one which has been known as the 9.x line.
Windows XP killed off the 9.x line and they went NT only.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Umm just going to point this out to but Windows 95, 98 and ME were all the windows 9.x kernel code.
Knight pointed out that what you are reading is just the gui version number. GUI is just a shell around the OS(aka eye candy). The kernel is what really matters and what is really accessed and controlled.
NT and beyond were on different version of NT.
Knight is the one is correct and he has proving he knows his stuff in that deparment.
Windows had 2 lines for the longest time the NT line (business for the most part) and the other one which has been known as the 9.x line.
Windows XP killed off the 9.x line and they went NT only.
Willis
Sep 12, 06:33 AM
I cant believe how much press Apple is getting. It was never like this before. IE. when the battery recall was on the news, the BBC/ITV were camped outside of Regent street's Apple store talking about the batteries and what went wrong and what not, even though Dell was involved too. Bit harsh I think.
But, it still suprises me about people and their iPods. I was at college the other day and someone had their iPod out. I pulled my first Gen iPod out my pocket and said "Now this is old school. You can only use this with a Mac" and the student said to me "Whats a Mac?"
After explaining that the iPod is made by a company called Apple, which has made PC's since the 70/80s, he then replied... "oooh, those computers are rubbish"
yeah, whatever you say mate...
EDIT: sorry, just a rant really... but on topic!
But, it still suprises me about people and their iPods. I was at college the other day and someone had their iPod out. I pulled my first Gen iPod out my pocket and said "Now this is old school. You can only use this with a Mac" and the student said to me "Whats a Mac?"
After explaining that the iPod is made by a company called Apple, which has made PC's since the 70/80s, he then replied... "oooh, those computers are rubbish"
yeah, whatever you say mate...
EDIT: sorry, just a rant really... but on topic!
tvachon
Jan 9, 01:38 PM
I was hoping when I got back from the gym it will be done. But alas, no.
dukebound85
Apr 21, 01:13 PM
nice, seems like an offshoot of a rep system but applicable to the topic at hand. will be interesting to see how this turns out
MagnusVonMagnum
May 2, 04:02 PM
Actually 10 comes after 9.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
zin
Apr 5, 04:05 PM
I wanted to download this but it's not available from my country's App Store.
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 07:57 AM
Are you just kidding?
Oh well I will just answer it just in case.:rolleyes:
Vista = version 6 :(
Windows 7 = version 7 :) No blue screen ever just in case anyone is wondering.
Windows 8 = version 8 :D When it comes out, 2015?
Actually I have seen a number of explanations on this thread from people who use Windows more than myself. The answer to why it is "7" does not seem to be well known even to Windows users.
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
LOL. And counting.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
Actually 10 comes after 9.
Oh well I will just answer it just in case.:rolleyes:
Vista = version 6 :(
Windows 7 = version 7 :) No blue screen ever just in case anyone is wondering.
Windows 8 = version 8 :D When it comes out, 2015?
Actually I have seen a number of explanations on this thread from people who use Windows more than myself. The answer to why it is "7" does not seem to be well known even to Windows users.
Because it took them 7 years to get it right.
LOL. And counting.
Does that mean it took Apple 10 years to get OSX right? :p
Actually 10 comes after 9.
myca
Mar 28, 10:27 PM
I'm guessing that valve won't get any love for Portal 2 (I know it isn't released yet, but come on it's gonna be amazing).
Seems a little short sighted when there is so much amazing software not yet in the app store, but apple seem to be trying to promote their store, which I'm still hesitant to use as the macupdate bundles normally keep me happy, likewise thee is so much filler and little killer, or maybe I'm just bitter that NI don't offer a Komplete update for a tenner (�200 I'm gonna have to spend soon).
Seems a little short sighted when there is so much amazing software not yet in the app store, but apple seem to be trying to promote their store, which I'm still hesitant to use as the macupdate bundles normally keep me happy, likewise thee is so much filler and little killer, or maybe I'm just bitter that NI don't offer a Komplete update for a tenner (�200 I'm gonna have to spend soon).
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Eraserhead
Mar 4, 02:10 AM
Firing incompetent teachers sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't require unions to be disbanded to achieve. The British teachers unions aren't that strong, and still we have huge problems getting rid of poor teachers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
JAT
Apr 8, 01:20 PM
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
Maybe they'll hire some drunk to stand on the corner in an iPad costume like all the tax preparation places do for March-April 15.
Maybe they'll hire some drunk to stand on the corner in an iPad costume like all the tax preparation places do for March-April 15.
wnurse
Aug 7, 09:00 PM
If Dell uses the same panel, how do they fit the 23" panel in the 24" enclosure without an inch border? Or how does Apple shrink the 24" panel to fit in a 23" frame?
Also how does Dell claim higher contrast ratios and greater brightness?
Dell and Apple may use the same panel manufacturer, but clearly they are NOT identical panels.
Yes, obviously a 23 inch and a 24 inch cannot be the same panel. You are such a genius. But I wonder.. can a 30 inch apple and a 30 inch dell be the same panel?.. how about a 20 inch apple and a 20 inch dell?.
But forget all about that.. Are you saying the manufacturer gives apple the superior panels and leave the rejects for Dell?.. So cause Dell panel is 24 inch, they suck compared to apple 23 inch cause logically, since they are not the same size, it implies the Dell panel sucks!!!...
We must all get together and donate a nobel prize to you. You are such a genius, you make Einstein pale in comparison.
I don't want to leave you hanging but here's what happens.. The manufacter makes the panels. They cut a panel to apple specs and then the make the exact same panel (or one like it, hopefully, this manufacturer has quality control like every other company and can reproduce panels to exact specifications) and cuts the same panel to 24 inch to dell specifications.
Simple enough for you Einstein?.
Also how does Dell claim higher contrast ratios and greater brightness?
Dell and Apple may use the same panel manufacturer, but clearly they are NOT identical panels.
Yes, obviously a 23 inch and a 24 inch cannot be the same panel. You are such a genius. But I wonder.. can a 30 inch apple and a 30 inch dell be the same panel?.. how about a 20 inch apple and a 20 inch dell?.
But forget all about that.. Are you saying the manufacturer gives apple the superior panels and leave the rejects for Dell?.. So cause Dell panel is 24 inch, they suck compared to apple 23 inch cause logically, since they are not the same size, it implies the Dell panel sucks!!!...
We must all get together and donate a nobel prize to you. You are such a genius, you make Einstein pale in comparison.
I don't want to leave you hanging but here's what happens.. The manufacter makes the panels. They cut a panel to apple specs and then the make the exact same panel (or one like it, hopefully, this manufacturer has quality control like every other company and can reproduce panels to exact specifications) and cuts the same panel to 24 inch to dell specifications.
Simple enough for you Einstein?.
0815
Apr 25, 12:20 PM
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Agree. It is just stupid that they in the early years named the phones after features ( iPhone2="now we have 3G network" and iPhone3="now we have a faster phone with 3G network") and than suddenly switched to the generation number .... This is really confusing to many people (my favorite ones are the one that still claim that the iPhone 3G is the "iPhone third generation" ....)
I just hope they stick now with generation numbers and no more 'added feature suffix' .... so would the '4S' be for the bigger screen or for more speed ? - if they have both, would it be the iPhone 4SS ???) -> just bad naming schema.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 25, 04:12 PM
Yes, they did. They encouraged it and called no one. This went on for a very long time too. Some of you need to go watch the video before you comment. I fixed the link. You will not believe what you see.
well that is another story.
If all they did was just call 911 and say nothing then I would of been fine with it. Encouraging the attackers is another story.
I know for me personally as soon as I got over the "Is this really happening question" my cell would of been out with a 911 call. A cop should be there pretty quickly.
I see some employee's being fired for the very least.
well that is another story.
If all they did was just call 911 and say nothing then I would of been fine with it. Encouraging the attackers is another story.
I know for me personally as soon as I got over the "Is this really happening question" my cell would of been out with a 911 call. A cop should be there pretty quickly.
I see some employee's being fired for the very least.
Lostanddamned
Sep 29, 05:43 AM
I like it, its simple - albiet not that simple, with a lot of good designs.
Hastings101
May 3, 10:31 PM
I want that voice-over guy to read me bedtime stories.
I think most people would agree with that statement
I think most people would agree with that statement
ilfn143
May 3, 02:23 PM
take out the sim, go to market on wifi. all carrier restrictions is gone. :p
apfhex
Jan 5, 03:17 PM
Right in the beginning, there was a live video feed to all the Apple stores... I went to two of them, both at the Mall of America store (and both times sat next to some very quirky Mac users... y'know... the regular type). Then one year, I went and it wasn't on. I was pissed. Then I learned Apple wasn't doing that because it was too expensive or something.
I wish they at least did that still. I mean, they offer a streaming video after the event, is it really so much more expensive to to offer it live? That would be something worth getting up early and going to the Apple Store for.
Although I find enough excitement in both reading the live text updates and then getting to go to Apple's site and see the product pages,and watch them in action in the keynote video.
I wish they at least did that still. I mean, they offer a streaming video after the event, is it really so much more expensive to to offer it live? That would be something worth getting up early and going to the Apple Store for.
Although I find enough excitement in both reading the live text updates and then getting to go to Apple's site and see the product pages,and watch them in action in the keynote video.
Gloor
Jan 9, 06:06 PM
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
I'm sorry to say it like that but can't you use spell check? I am foreigner too and I do make mistakes but what you wrote above is really ugly. I understood everything you said but man you should do something with your grammar check. Please
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
I'm sorry to say it like that but can't you use spell check? I am foreigner too and I do make mistakes but what you wrote above is really ugly. I understood everything you said but man you should do something with your grammar check. Please
gr8ful
Jan 15, 04:23 PM
I agree with 'CWallace', I'm pleased with what Apple released today. A few minor gripes, but pleased overall. I believe many of you are suffering from "overhype hangover".
Had this been an unannounced unveiling of new products and software by Apple without all of the pre-hype, I think many of you would not be as harsh. But with months to hope, wish, and speculate and given the vivid imaginations of those in this forum, you were doomed to be disappointed.
Had this been an unannounced unveiling of new products and software by Apple without all of the pre-hype, I think many of you would not be as harsh. But with months to hope, wish, and speculate and given the vivid imaginations of those in this forum, you were doomed to be disappointed.
topmounter
Apr 29, 03:47 PM
Wow, if they don't get those changes implemented immediately Lion is going to be the Mac's Vista!!1! :p
iScott428
Apr 8, 01:52 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
Hey Best Buy, not sure what you are waiting for but last time I checked the special iPad 2 promotion was the release on 3/11...Seriously a BS excuse and weak stuff if they are really holding back supplies.
Hey Best Buy, not sure what you are waiting for but last time I checked the special iPad 2 promotion was the release on 3/11...Seriously a BS excuse and weak stuff if they are really holding back supplies.
*LTD*
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
LTD answer the question that was ask multiple times of you. Your refusal to answer is tell me that you are nothing than someone who will defend apple at all cost and can not think for your self. So please provide reasoning.
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
No comments:
Post a Comment