eye
Mar 23, 05:06 PM
I'm simultaneously amused and saddened by the number of people who believe that drunk driving is a constitutionally protected right.
Hope you never have to see the results of the 'patriots' who would have a use for this and then kill innocent people.
This app enables murder. Rationalize all you want.
Pretty sure nobody came close to saying anything of the sort, so it's all good.
Hope you never have to see the results of the 'patriots' who would have a use for this and then kill innocent people.
This app enables murder. Rationalize all you want.
Pretty sure nobody came close to saying anything of the sort, so it's all good.
andy721
Mar 29, 12:42 PM
Why do you guys keep posting your crappy Market Share records they're not even close to the other leading OS's
Are you guys morons or just smoking crack? :mad::confused:
Are you guys morons or just smoking crack? :mad::confused:
kansast
Sep 13, 09:52 PM
But why should it? This isn't Motorola... this is Apple. They are supposed to be the masters of industrial design and software integration. No doubt the phone will have an awesome user interface, but I expect more from Apple than sticking an antenna and GSM chip inside a nano, putting a keypad underneath it, and calling it a day. This couldn't have taken very long to dream up... it seems like the most obvious and un-Apple idea of them all.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
that's just it.. if it is an ipod/iphone.. any phone with a slide out keyboard, which apparently is getting to be popular.. and has a limited number of buttons ALWAYS available.. then on the iPHone those limited buttons are created using the iPod clickwheel.. so for me, I think it could be brilliant. ANd by now we all know how to use the clickwheel, without even looking at it.
If this is the fabled iPhone then Apple is losing its touch... the design was already done when they introduced the nano.
I hope Apple wants this to be a phone with iPod functionality opposed to a nano with phone functionallity. The difference is huge. What is the primary function of this device? To play music or use as a phone? Thus far it looks like a nano with a software update and a GSM chip sadly.
that's just it.. if it is an ipod/iphone.. any phone with a slide out keyboard, which apparently is getting to be popular.. and has a limited number of buttons ALWAYS available.. then on the iPHone those limited buttons are created using the iPod clickwheel.. so for me, I think it could be brilliant. ANd by now we all know how to use the clickwheel, without even looking at it.
ctdonath
Apr 30, 03:50 PM
I could care less at the moment about external storage.
um, ok. Some of us do care, when there is no way an iMac will hold enough internal storage.
And it's "couldn't". Pet peeve.
um, ok. Some of us do care, when there is no way an iMac will hold enough internal storage.
And it's "couldn't". Pet peeve.
flopticalcube
Sep 9, 11:06 AM
Just like the "good" old days all over again.
68000 32-bits inside, 24-bits (16MB) address outside.
8088 16-bits inside, 20-bits (1MB) address outside.
Software (excepting some parts of the OS) doesn't care. Merom is somewhat of a milestone in its 64-bit internals. Down the road there will be an OS release that will not support a 32-bit CPU like Yonah. Of course, 18 months later the next release probably won't support Merom (or Woodcrest) either. :rolleyes:
68000 32-bits inside, 24-bits (16MB) address outside.
8088 16-bits inside, 20-bits (1MB) address outside.
Software (excepting some parts of the OS) doesn't care. Merom is somewhat of a milestone in its 64-bit internals. Down the road there will be an OS release that will not support a 32-bit CPU like Yonah. Of course, 18 months later the next release probably won't support Merom (or Woodcrest) either. :rolleyes:
Vegasman
Apr 28, 10:36 PM
They did. And boy, does it show! Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Part of the reason Apple has done so remarkably well for years now? Sure. However it is also mostly the reason Apple still only had 5% of that market.
Peace
Aug 31, 04:44 PM
Well if they do the announcement late on Monday 12 in Cupertino that will be Tuesday in Paris (time zone difference is +9) so will comply with the tradition LOL :rolleyes: :p :D
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
swingerofbirch
Oct 12, 05:30 PM
As much as I love rumors approximating nearer and nearer some state of acuity, actually seeing the product a day ahead is a tad disspaointing. It reminds me of the late night when Time Canada unveiled the G4 iMac. Well it'll still be fun to watch me Opie tomorrow, especially since she's promoting iPods over the Dell Ditty she did a couple years back.
Danner909
Apr 4, 12:37 PM
This Apple bites back . . .
houttbe
Sep 10, 12:53 AM
I stopped at the Apple store this morning and tried out the 24 inch iMac and the Mac Pro. These are sweet machines. No did not buy anything.
Is the 24" as quiet as the MacPro? Have you been able to compare to the 20"?
Is the 24" as quiet as the MacPro? Have you been able to compare to the 20"?
scottsjack
Apr 30, 07:58 PM
It cracks me up reading posts that stress how something is dead and done for it or that something will never happen. Some posters seem to put so much effort trying to promote how BluRay (which they most likely don't personally use) is dead or that Thunderbolt (a brand new technology just barely getting off the ground) can't be any good because no one is using it.
Maybe doom and gloom is just empowering for some folks. It seems short sighted to me.
Based on my daughter's C2D iMac 21.5 I'm expecting the news ones to be pretty spectacular in spite of the shiny screen that kept me from wanting one.
Maybe doom and gloom is just empowering for some folks. It seems short sighted to me.
Based on my daughter's C2D iMac 21.5 I'm expecting the news ones to be pretty spectacular in spite of the shiny screen that kept me from wanting one.
dashiel
Sep 15, 06:26 PM
Wasn't the iPod introduced in late 2001?
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
you are correct, brain glitch on my part, i'm looking at by 1g ipod purchased the weekend they were in stores -- i really should know better.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
What is NIH syndrome?
Thanks
you are correct, brain glitch on my part, i'm looking at by 1g ipod purchased the weekend they were in stores -- i really should know better.
NIH = not invented here. apple was notorious for this behavior in the 80s and 90s, much to their detriment, and success.
poppe
Sep 4, 08:49 PM
Who wants to be that Steve, when he gets his live press release that is streaming to London or where ever it was, will be using this new technology to show how wonderful it works.
Jason Beck
Apr 14, 12:53 PM
Of course they will. They are pretty up on things over there. Thats a smart company decision.
MacSA
Sep 4, 06:28 AM
Well, I just hope we get new Mini's this week and the iMac/iPod stuff on the 12th. :)
iGary
Sep 5, 02:10 PM
I could care less about movies, especially as slow as TV shows download on busy nights.
I would like to see new pods, though, which I think would be a pretty solid bet. Been almost a year.
I would like to see new pods, though, which I think would be a pretty solid bet. Been almost a year.
koskesh
Apr 4, 12:52 PM
Just wow to the morons who are questioning if it was necessary to shoot him in the head. If the security guard had been killed you would be like "oh that's just sad. He's a hero". WTF kinda a$$ backward thinking is that?
He's a "SECURITY" guard for fock's sake. it's what he's there for. These guys threatened to kill people and yet it's wrong to shoot one in the head.
I personally would prefer the criminal social parasites to die than the security guard. And why the fock are you so concerned about a security guard carrying a weapon? The poor guy is putting his life out there to bring some bread to his home while protecting your moron a$$. He's offering the society a legitimate service instead of joining a gang and you're worried about him having a gun? My god people. This country is going to ***** if we have people this dumb doing any kind of work and having this kind of mentality.
And I'm a complete liberal, btw, but I do have a sense of the real world.
He's a "SECURITY" guard for fock's sake. it's what he's there for. These guys threatened to kill people and yet it's wrong to shoot one in the head.
I personally would prefer the criminal social parasites to die than the security guard. And why the fock are you so concerned about a security guard carrying a weapon? The poor guy is putting his life out there to bring some bread to his home while protecting your moron a$$. He's offering the society a legitimate service instead of joining a gang and you're worried about him having a gun? My god people. This country is going to ***** if we have people this dumb doing any kind of work and having this kind of mentality.
And I'm a complete liberal, btw, but I do have a sense of the real world.
EagerDragon
Sep 9, 07:03 AM
Driving 1.5 hours to the Apple store this morning and the same on the way back. But I am not buying yet, just looking and getting a feel for the entire line. Oh I forgot.... and turning green with envy. Boy is going to be hard.
fblack
Sep 10, 12:25 PM
I agree that the expandability of the 24inch imac is impressive, but until I see ease of upgradability as well Im all for a mid range. Its also about the CPU, the C2D's are nice, but their not really a match for their desktop counterparts, there are some of us that want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range...
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
I'm right with you when you say "that some of us want the power of a desktop but dont have the budget for the xeon range." Also I dont like all in one solutions. However, the 24" might be apple's way of saying that's close enough. Plus looking at what Macworld had to say about the 2.16 C2D and the potential for the 24" 2.33 it sure does narrow the performance some what and this might be what apple is thinking.
More significant, the 2.16GHz system narrowed the performance gap between iMac and Mac Pro product lines. With twice the number of processor cores, all running faster than the iMac, the Mac Pro had a definite advantage in this match up. But because not all applications and tasks take full advantage of the Mac multiprocessing capabilities, most results showed the Mac Pro between 20 and 30 percent faster than the 2.16GHz iMac. I expect that test results of the new 24-inch model�with its faster graphics and the optional 2.33GHz processor upgrade�could close this performance gap even further.
http://www.macworld.com/2006/09/firstlooks/imacbench/index.php
I cant wait to see the benchmarks on the 24". :)
But dont get me wrong I would still prefer a headless tower. :cool:
Rocketman
Sep 1, 02:55 PM
While it sounds good, I don't see this happen soon at all. Also, Verizon disagrees with you, because they are pulling fiber to the homes in several (large) cities and more to come. The investment for 4G (802.16e I assume you're talking about)will be much too high while not providing enough guarantees it will be financial feasible in short and mid term to make shareholders feel confortable. But if it will, Apple will get my money :) But are there enough gadget geeks like me in the world? That will make or break the project.....
It boils down to suburban, rural, and rural-suburban access.
Currently Satellite will do it at high cost. (hughesnet.com)
2G will do it with crippled bandwidth and high cost.
POTS will do it with crippled speed and uncrippled cost.
Big cities are never the biggest nut to crack.
Rocketman
It boils down to suburban, rural, and rural-suburban access.
Currently Satellite will do it at high cost. (hughesnet.com)
2G will do it with crippled bandwidth and high cost.
POTS will do it with crippled speed and uncrippled cost.
Big cities are never the biggest nut to crack.
Rocketman
fetchmebeers
Sep 12, 03:17 PM
There are no major differences but if i were you i'd go back and trade for the new one or just return the iPod and order a new one. Your windows is close not to upgrade..
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
what do you mean my windows is close not to upgrade??
and also, is there any chance that i might be succeeding in returning it... or even getting a refund??? i mean i took the vinyl cover off and just totally used it... can i return it right back to the apple store??
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
what do you mean my windows is close not to upgrade??
and also, is there any chance that i might be succeeding in returning it... or even getting a refund??? i mean i took the vinyl cover off and just totally used it... can i return it right back to the apple store??
10layers
Sep 4, 07:49 PM
This is exactly what we have been predicting in the article Apple movie downloads soon, what about the TV?. (http://10layers.com/2006/09/apple-movie-downloads-soon-what-about-the-tv/)
Apple has been driving iPod sales with music sales. We think that they will be driving some new device sales with movie sales. In addition, we do not think that movie downloads will go mainstream until it is convenient to view them on the best device: your home entertainment system. This is what Apple has been redying before launching movie downloads. Apple want the picture to be complete.
Apple has been driving iPod sales with music sales. We think that they will be driving some new device sales with movie sales. In addition, we do not think that movie downloads will go mainstream until it is convenient to view them on the best device: your home entertainment system. This is what Apple has been redying before launching movie downloads. Apple want the picture to be complete.
GGJstudios
Mar 19, 02:17 PM
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
"fanboy"
Again, who are you referring to? I'm not a fanboy, or a boy of any kind. I have no allegiance or loyalty to any brand or manufacturer (except Harley-Davidson, but for very different reasons). It's amusing to see how people try to bash Apple or Macs for the wrong reasons, then resort to calling people "fanboys" when their arguments aren't accepted. Apple and Macs have plenty of weaknesses. Attack one of the legitimate ones and you'll have sensible people agree with you. Make a case against Apple or John Deere or Mattel or Coca-Cola or any other company that isn't based in fact, and you'll get resistance. That doesn't make those who oppose such a case "fanboys".
Malware includes computer viruses, worms, trojan horses, spyware and other malicious and unwanted software or programs. The idea that OSX and/or Unix/Linux based operating systems is free from such threats is absurd.
No one has presented the idea that Mac OS X is free from all malware threats. Since your reading comprehension might need some help, I'll repeat my statement again:
there is no Mac malware in the wild that can't be avoided with some common sense and prudent action on the part of the user.
Viruses for Mac OS X don't exist, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Trojans for Mac OS X do exist, but can be avoided by the user being careful what they install, so antivirus isn't needed to protect against them.
Meanwhile, the answer on here to avoiding potential pitfalls in things like Flash is to (surprise), not install or use it. Hey guys, don't power on your computers and you will always be safe! :rolleyes:
I use Flash all the time and have never had any issues with it.
Even Apple themselves regularly release security updates. WTF is the point of a security update if there's no possible threat to OSX?
Again, no one has said there are not threats to Mac OS X; only that those threats don't require any AV software to defend against them.
Just because a threat is less likely than on other systems does not mean that it does not exist. Yet people on here won't even admit that much.
Either you're not reading or not comprehending the posts that have been made. No one is saying that NO threats exist; only that those threats can be avoided by the user without the need for AV software.
Only a fanboy would take a post that suggests that a false sense of security can lead to dangerous behavior that might be a liability in the future (good advice in almost any market/situation) and twist it into "Boy you're ignorant; we are INVULNERABLE! OSX cannot be hacked or attacked! It's impossible!
Who are you referring to? I haven't seen anyone say such things in this thread or any other.
Chundles
Oct 13, 03:32 AM
I agree, this thing is not about doing something good, it's about buying a gimmick that says to everyone "I gave to charity" while in reality you were not spending one dime more than you would have spent on the gimmick that you wanted to buy anyway. What kind of shite is this where you just want to show around that you're a good person while in reality you couldn't get your thumbs out of your butt to donate anything at all, not even 10 bucks. It's called VANITY, not Charity. Write a small check for crying out loud if you want to do something, it's even deductable, and attach the receipt to your favourite shirt so everyone can see if you feel so strongly about it.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
Who cares if it's vanity? I'd rather somebody buy a Red iPod and feel good about themselves, be able to brag to their friends and show off to the community than for the same person to otherwise do nothing.
As long as it's legal I'm pretty sure the folks in charge of the aid money don't care where the money's coming from. I don't think the AIDS sufferers in Africa give a rat's arse that the money that helps their problems comes from rampant western consumerism - they're just happy to have some help.
I think it's a good idea.
This ipod thingy is about you feeling good, not about much else. To you it feels like a 200 Dollar donation, also might help you to convince yourself to buy yet another gadget..pardon me, do some charity for africa, apple's sales go up a bit, they'll make a little less money on the ipod, 10 bucks (which may however be deductable, I don't know) but basically will benefit from it too because they sold a couple more at a slightly lower but still pretty good profit margin. Sure, some bucks go to Africa but let's be honest here: Apple makes more money, the consumer gets to wear a stylish gimmick with good-person-tag at no extra charge... now that's some serious altruism there.
Hooray to those that, the next time they will be confronted with some reporting on Aids in Africa, will be able to caress that small, hard bulge in their pocket (red iPod!), touching it and whispering "I did my share to solve the problem".
Who cares if it's vanity? I'd rather somebody buy a Red iPod and feel good about themselves, be able to brag to their friends and show off to the community than for the same person to otherwise do nothing.
As long as it's legal I'm pretty sure the folks in charge of the aid money don't care where the money's coming from. I don't think the AIDS sufferers in Africa give a rat's arse that the money that helps their problems comes from rampant western consumerism - they're just happy to have some help.
I think it's a good idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment