croooow
Apr 8, 01:26 PM
Why would you run a promotion on something that sells out the moment they come into inventory?...
It's not to promote the iPad 2, it's to promote BestBuy (get people into the stores and try to get them to buy other stuff. iPad accessories or maybe some of the other rubbish they have in there)
It's not to promote the iPad 2, it's to promote BestBuy (get people into the stores and try to get them to buy other stuff. iPad accessories or maybe some of the other rubbish they have in there)
nli10@mac.com
Jan 9, 06:24 PM
i'm 1:40 in - only one glistch and it ironed itself out.
Full Screen QT FTW :)
& I love all the stuff so far. :D
------
Just finished - felt shorter than the 1:56 running time. Glad I waited for video - as we all knew it makes everything much clearer. Keep trying on those links if you can't get it - as Europe sleeps they will onloy get faster - night!
Full Screen QT FTW :)
& I love all the stuff so far. :D
------
Just finished - felt shorter than the 1:56 running time. Glad I waited for video - as we all knew it makes everything much clearer. Keep trying on those links if you can't get it - as Europe sleeps they will onloy get faster - night!
nospleen
Jan 11, 11:55 PM
I like how you speak for the masses, "something WE wanted". I for one was thrilled with the keynote and I am going to buy the iPhone. Just because you were not happy with the keynote, it does not mean the Keynote was horrible. I would have liked some updates on ilife and leopard too, but they will come soon enough.
Alphaeus47
Mar 28, 03:18 PM
If sparrow mail doesn't win something I'll be shocked. Best mail client ever.
more...
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.
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.
more...
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
Eidorian
Apr 29, 01:28 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.Credit card numbers are much more important.
more...
wtmcgee
Oct 20, 12:00 PM
when CS3 ships, watch the marketshare explode.
flottenheimer
Apr 16, 02:43 PM
Wishing for a matte black plastic finish on the next iPhone.
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 09:32 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Where can I find the definition of a smart phone?
Macnoviz
Oct 11, 10:50 AM
A bigger screen than the iPod's would be preferable, even without an increase in pixel count. A 320x240 video on my iMac display is far easier on the eyes than a 320x240 video on my iPod when both are set to the same brightness. Why? Because the iPod display is too damn small for long-term comfortable viewing.
Yep, I fear that the Zune may let the iPod screen look small. Now is Apple's turn to make people think the Zune has a small screen in comparison to the vPod
Yep, I fear that the Zune may let the iPod screen look small. Now is Apple's turn to make people think the Zune has a small screen in comparison to the vPod
more...
Mexbearpig
Apr 8, 10:56 PM
Portenzo case finally came in as did my beats that I got for $80. <snip>
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3117/p4080881.jpg
How did you get beats for $80?
http://img716.imageshack.us/img716/3117/p4080881.jpg
How did you get beats for $80?
Cleverboy
Jan 13, 10:13 AM
Agreed that it was stupid, and may hurt credibility, but i still love reading gizmodo, and would not wish to see them banned from MW or the next CES. People do stupid things, if they do it again, ban them, but i say let them off the hook for this one.They did not emphatically apologize for poor judgement. Briam Lam himself says that the only thing he didn't approve was doing it during press conferences... but when the error has occurred, you need to apologize for the whole incident, not say, "Sorry, we only wanted to screw around with some people, not others." Vendors PAID MONEY to attend this event. Gizmodo willfully inteferered with press conferences, and hasn't editted the article to include anything resembling a wholesale apology. --Just, "Look at this COOL thing we did! Isn't it hilarious! You can do it too!"
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
more...
Download HD Widescreen
desktop wallpaper hd
more...
desktop wallpaper hd
desktop wallpaper hd
desktop wallpaper hd
Sorry, they bring anything on themselves to be so childish. I honestly went looking for why people were making more out of this than they should have. I read the CNET article and Brian Lam's casual response.
http://valleywag.com/343531/cnet-editor-proves-theres-no-difference-between-press-and-blogger
BY BRIAN LAM AT 01/10/08 06:04 PM
@OMG! Ponies!: @rafe: Relax. It was a joke. Just because we don't do things the way you do, I don't see why that is stupid. The site has proved its intelligence. Did you see that we got Bill Gates to cop to Vista not being so good today? The point is that if we do things the way you do them at CNet, we're CNet. If you do things the way Giz and Engadget do them, you're actually...Crave. (Which I like, and do not call stupid.) Why is this so emotionally disturbing to you both? Motorola, well that was a mistake, as my explicit orders to my video person were to not interrupt press conferences. But that is for me and Moto to sort out tomorrow.
So... "presentations", fair game, "press conferences"... avoid them... but "whoops" if we did. That's infuriatingly bad.
BAN THEM. My opinion. It would have been different had they owned up, but they're not... which means they're proud of it. No good.
Gizmodo is responsible for this because it vouched for the prankster and obtained a credential for him. Media organizations put their reputations at stake each time they obtain a credential for someone, whether it's to a high school basketball game, a trade show or a political event.Gizmodo WAS the prankster (http://gizmodo.com/343348/confessions-the-meanest-thing-gizmodo-did-at-ces). This wasn't a "rogue" guy. Just read their own description of it.
Confessions: The Meanest Thing Gizmodo Did at CES
CES has no shortage of displays. And when MAKE offered us some TV-B-Gone clickers to bring to the show, we pretty much couldn't help ourselves. We shut off a TV. And then another. And then a wall of TVs. And we just couldn't stop. (And Panasonic, you're so lucky that 150-incher didn't have an active IR port.) It was too much fun, but watching this video, we realize it probably made some people's jobs harder, and I don't agree with that (Especially Motorola). We're sorry. [Thanks to Phil Torrone for the gear, video, editing and mischief by Richard Blakeley]
more...
hancock
Mar 17, 01:57 PM
When does apple charge your credit card for a purchase? I ordered my wifi 64gb iPad 2 on the day of and used a $450 gift card plus my credit card. The order has gone through and I have tracking info for the case I ordered but not the iPad. The total was $829 but I still have yet to be charged the remaining balance. Have they forgotten to charge me or does it not charge until the iPad actually ships?
thanks
thanks
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 08:39 AM
I'll buy one when it gets a capacitive pressure based screen/stylus (Like the HTC Flyer)
Never heard of the HTC Flyer, I'll look into it. The problem with most pressure sensitive devices is that the pressure sensors start failing after a while.
Never heard of the HTC Flyer, I'll look into it. The problem with most pressure sensitive devices is that the pressure sensors start failing after a while.
more...
Truffy
Mar 25, 06:32 AM
Ridiculous? I defy you to name one thing (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2003/04/finder.ars) that Apple has fixed in the single-worst, most user-hostile app ever written for the Mac!
<pedantry>
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
<pedantry>
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 11:53 AM
You were asking for that.
It's a test of a feature. I do agree that you should be able to revert to a no vote. Mostly I was explaining that you really aren't moving the post vote by 2.
It's a test of a feature. I do agree that you should be able to revert to a no vote. Mostly I was explaining that you really aren't moving the post vote by 2.
dsnort
Aug 2, 07:06 AM
Does anyone know what became of the constitutional challenge to the french iTunes law? I had read somewhere that the opposition party was trying to get the law overturned, haven't seen anything more about it since.
macaddict3
May 4, 03:05 AM
love the ad, truly a great device. a year ago everyone joke about the name but now people see the true side of the device what it could actually do.
Mr_Brightside_@
Apr 11, 12:14 AM
What disappoints me in Lion is the system requirements. It is massively bloated. Core2Duo and 2GB of RAM minimum is terrible. Even though my Mac is capable of running it, I'm still not impressed. Hopefully the Resume feature will kick ass so much that it will be worth it. Other than Resume and Versions, the rest of Lion's features are a big 'meh'.
You are aware that the Core2Duo 'requirement' is because Lion is 64-bit, right?
You are aware that the Core2Duo 'requirement' is because Lion is 64-bit, right?
darwen
Oct 10, 11:01 PM
What a shocker. Can this really be considered news anymore?
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
I saw this on Engadget a couple days ago... it is seriously getting old. Engadget does not have any good sources at apple.
dunk321
Mar 17, 10:59 AM
And I'm also a Microsoft Fanboy!!! Haaaaaaa Long live the Microsoft Zune the ultimate iPod Killer!!!
TeppefallGuy
Aug 2, 12:50 PM
Apple�s response is linked as a PDF. Norwegian text and partially censored with a big black marker.
http://www.nettavisen.no/it/article699846.ece
Nettavisen
"We will not give up, we believe that this is an important consumer question and that the product lock-in they (Apple) have is unreasonable. The Ombudsman believes that locking music to a certain brand of player - is a problem that affects many people. Most people have cell phones that can take many songs, but all the music I have bought from iTunes I can�t listen to via my cell phone, she says."
(direct translation and no cleanup so it�s a bit rough)
-- TeppefallGuy Newsroom --
http://www.nettavisen.no/it/article699846.ece
Nettavisen
"We will not give up, we believe that this is an important consumer question and that the product lock-in they (Apple) have is unreasonable. The Ombudsman believes that locking music to a certain brand of player - is a problem that affects many people. Most people have cell phones that can take many songs, but all the music I have bought from iTunes I can�t listen to via my cell phone, she says."
(direct translation and no cleanup so it�s a bit rough)
-- TeppefallGuy Newsroom --
