Glideslope
Apr 25, 01:35 PM
I agree, you're good!
Good looking for sure. :cool:
Good looking for sure. :cool:
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 03:47 PM
I am still in the middle of setting everything up and the monitor for example is not even out of the box yet...just been really busy. Hopefully in about 1 month's time I can share. Sorry :(I look forward to seeing it.:o
i.mac
May 3, 11:32 PM
The reason why I didn't buy an Ipad yet. I would only browse on Safari and play games. Something that is available on my Macbook Pro.
With regards to this particular ad, should we presume from your comment that you are not an engineer, a doctor, a business person, a teacher, a student, a parent or a child? All these folks love their iPads, and do more with it than browse the Internet or play games...
With regards to this particular ad, should we presume from your comment that you are not an engineer, a doctor, a business person, a teacher, a student, a parent or a child? All these folks love their iPads, and do more with it than browse the Internet or play games...
Burgess07
Apr 29, 06:56 PM
Odd, I don't have that option in "System Preferences"
I used Photoshop.
I used Photoshop.
more...
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 01:48 PM
yeah. I think a bit more "use" needs to be decided about these things. plus conformity to the look of MR.
They worked a bit funky too.
They worked a bit funky too.
balamw
Oct 2, 04:46 PM
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
Maybe they should just work with Rockbox and make a third party firmware that opens up the iPod to a new open DRM and forget Fairplay compatibility...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
Maybe they should just work with Rockbox and make a third party firmware that opens up the iPod to a new open DRM and forget Fairplay compatibility...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
more...
leekohler
Apr 18, 12:38 PM
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
It's already been explained to you that left-handedness is mentioned in history classes. Why do you have a problem with gay people being discussed? WHY?
Answer the question, although I think I already know your answer.
pistolero
Apr 6, 02:35 AM
Agreed. Sadly, I was working on an App nearly IDENTICAL to what Apple just came out with. I am about 80% done but am wondering if it is even worth completing: http://computerharmonyinc.com/ibillboard.html
I just saw your page. Wht a shame. It's pretty much the same concept. Btw. Would you need permission of the advertiser to feature their iAd in your gallery? What about storage? Can they be stored for archive and reference purposes?
I just saw your page. Wht a shame. It's pretty much the same concept. Btw. Would you need permission of the advertiser to feature their iAd in your gallery? What about storage? Can they be stored for archive and reference purposes?
more...
Wacker293
Apr 16, 04:49 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)
Looks to me that Google are thinking if Amazon arent breaking there backs to get record labels on board,then why the hell should we!! There just planting a seed in this article saying "talks are breaking down" to get us ready for music lockers rather than an iTunes competetor.
Looks to me that Google are thinking if Amazon arent breaking there backs to get record labels on board,then why the hell should we!! There just planting a seed in this article saying "talks are breaking down" to get us ready for music lockers rather than an iTunes competetor.
mytakeontech
Apr 5, 06:23 PM
I wanted to test my ad-block on iPhone is working fine so I wanted to download the app but App Store says I need to have iOS 4.2.6 :confused:
more...
SuperCachetes
Apr 15, 08:35 PM
Wow! I don't think I've ever seen a more freaky Orwellian comment on this forum. Is the only point of education to create little drones for the military-industrial complex?
If "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," does that mean if there is no gay history taught, we all become homosexuals? :p
If "those who cannot remember the past are doomed to repeat it," does that mean if there is no gay history taught, we all become homosexuals? :p
Suture
Mar 23, 08:12 AM
rtdgoldfish -- that's awesome. I hope you catch the thief. Keep us updated.
more...
Diode
Apr 21, 04:21 PM
I like the reputation system slickdeals uses. Give points to useful posts (that the user then accumulates) - allows people to realize who the better posters are, as having a high post count can be worthless.
Mord
Apr 27, 01:19 PM
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
more...
martymcr
Nov 27, 06:01 AM
It says it's a "shopping event" (http://www.apple.com/uk/retail/shopping/?CDM-EU-0994) though, not a sale.
It's hard to decide from the ad whether it means special prices or not - I'm about to order a Macbook and can't decide if it's worth waiting!!
It's hard to decide from the ad whether it means special prices or not - I'm about to order a Macbook and can't decide if it's worth waiting!!
leekohler
Apr 25, 07:26 PM
I agree they are idiots and I already stated they should call the cops.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
OP, I clicked on the article and the title is different from this thread. I do agree that the employees on duty at McDonald's be held responsible in the beating of a trans woman.
I know. Sloppy on my part, but I had to shorten the title. It would not fit.
more...
ron dj
Sep 12, 02:44 AM
The whole Movie Store (iFlicks/iMovies, what have you) idea is too similar to the iTune's introduction, with the iPod, and those third-party music download sites that popped up everywhere all because of the "music store idea". Already, Amazon.com has a movie store, and I'm sure there are more to come/already out, but what these businesses are forgetting is that the reason iTunes was/and still is so successful was almost entirely because of the iPod, and its ultimate ease of accessibility with iTunes. Of course Movies are alot different than Music, but if Apple releases a movie-based (widescreen, easy upload, etc) iPod that has the same user-friendliness as it relatively did/does with music, these third-party "Movie Stores" are going to follow the same path of every attempted third-party music-download site to "over-do" iTunes, insofar that those businesses don't charge significantly less than Apple does. In all, Apple WILL release its Movie-ample iPod with the Movie Store or subsequently and immediately after the Movie Store opens, since there is every reason TO do so.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
carlgo
Sep 28, 09:56 PM
Simple designs have indeed existed for thousands of years, but most of the McMansions going up aren't like that, more like castle imitations. These people have all the money in the world and access to the best architects and designers to build something memorable and they end up getting a McCastle that the Beverly Hillbillys would like.
So, good for Jobs for having some taste and building something worthwhile.
And, yes, there will be a secret ATT antenna buried in the walls so Jobs will think his reception is normal.
I would have a turntable in front of the garage. You can devote less space to the driveway area. A water feature too. Any sign of solar? It is still a big house and will use a lot of energy no matter what.
So, good for Jobs for having some taste and building something worthwhile.
And, yes, there will be a secret ATT antenna buried in the walls so Jobs will think his reception is normal.
I would have a turntable in front of the garage. You can devote less space to the driveway area. A water feature too. Any sign of solar? It is still a big house and will use a lot of energy no matter what.
ctdonath
Oct 1, 02:06 PM
I live in one of fairly many Grade II Listed (http://www.heritage.co.uk/apavilions/glstb.html) buildings in the United Kingdom, much older but not quite as large as old Steve's, and there is no surprise when purchasing such a building that you are significantly restricted in what you can do to it.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
England has a very long history of common people being subject to the will & whim of the rich & powerful & connected.
The USA exists precisely because some of those common people got tired of such treatment and made it clear they would do with their land what they saw fit.
What is it about the past that you don't like, Jobs?
How it gets in the way of the present & future.
When people stop shelling out good money, time & resources of their own (not confiscated-at-gunpoint taxpayer funds) for old things, maybe it's time to stop preserving what people don't actually want and start replacing it. Remember, Apple does not maintain a "museum of past Apple products" because those products no longer sold are, by current standards, failures - they may have been great then, but nobody wants to put up their own money for them today.
Yes, there is a valid argument and sociopolitical expenditure to preserve things which may not be of sustained current value. Question is where to draw the line. AFAIK, nobody actually wanted that house, and few are truly enamored by Spanish Revival architecture to a degree worth the substantial cost of preservation of such an example, and fewer still are truly enamored by the decedent who built it. The argument, IMHO, centers more around those wanting to either criticize Jobs at any opportunity, or whose relevance hinges on ability to find old homes they can spin as "historic".
Suitable acreage is costly in that region. The cost of preserving the "interesting creation" far exceeds the cost of replacing it with another interesting creation; as none are interested in putting up the money to preserve the former, those interested in putting up the money to create the latter win.
And yes, the old gives way to the new. Physical things are not important of themselves. It's not about wanton destruction for sake of destruction, it's about moving forward and removing obstacles thereto.
leekohler
Apr 27, 12:56 PM
When did I say anything about what people are "entitled" to be???
You and leekohler have just created a strawman before our very eyes. Very impressive.
Nah- you did that all on your own. We can't take credit for that one.
You and leekohler have just created a strawman before our very eyes. Very impressive.
Nah- you did that all on your own. We can't take credit for that one.
kdarling
Mar 16, 12:33 PM
Licensing out your OS to anyone that can slam together a box and unloading product via the likes of ZTE and cheap Asian outfits (i.e., the "other" category) is hardly impressive.
Note that Google only counts activations of devices with Google services. They're not counting all the "cheap Asian" Android devices from companies that haven't licensed those pieces from Google.
As for ZTE, they have some of the most popular phones in Europe right now, because they're both usable and affordable.
Note that Google only counts activations of devices with Google services. They're not counting all the "cheap Asian" Android devices from companies that haven't licensed those pieces from Google.
As for ZTE, they have some of the most popular phones in Europe right now, because they're both usable and affordable.
Ommid
Apr 25, 11:55 AM
Looks good, I've been holding out since my first-gen iPhone.
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
...hopefully we'll see a Summer or Fall release? :)
Wow! You're patient!
Evoken
Apr 6, 11:30 PM
Considering that we haven't had any substantial update since Leopard (as Snow Leopard was more an under the hood thing), which launched 4 years ago, the same year the original iPhone launched; the list of features that are being shown for Lion are downright underwhelming.
- The Mac App Store
This is not a part of the OS itself and I can use it right now. This is also hardly an innovation.
- Launchpad
This is just a slightly different take on the stacks concept, borrowing from the way it is handled in the iPad.
- Full-screen apps
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Mission Control
Just a tweak on the present expose concept. I find it looks a bit cumbersome/clunky.
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Versions
Hmmm....ok, useful.
- Resume
This one is good.
- Mail 5
Now with conversations, something Gmail has had for a long while already.
- AirDrop
Interesting but I think not all that different from using Bonjour to transfer files.
And...that's very much it...
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Apple as much as the next guy but this feature set is hardly impressive. I remember back when Apple released 10.4, I was actually excited about the new features and couldn't wait to update my computer. But now? I feel very much indifferent about Lion, don't see anything innovative or exciting at all, specially when one considers that the last update to include additional features as opposed to under the hood improvements (10.5) was released four years ago.
- The Mac App Store
This is not a part of the OS itself and I can use it right now. This is also hardly an innovation.
- Launchpad
This is just a slightly different take on the stacks concept, borrowing from the way it is handled in the iPad.
- Full-screen apps
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Mission Control
Just a tweak on the present expose concept. I find it looks a bit cumbersome/clunky.
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
- Versions
Hmmm....ok, useful.
- Resume
This one is good.
- Mail 5
Now with conversations, something Gmail has had for a long while already.
- AirDrop
Interesting but I think not all that different from using Bonjour to transfer files.
And...that's very much it...
Don't get me wrong, I am a fan of Apple as much as the next guy but this feature set is hardly impressive. I remember back when Apple released 10.4, I was actually excited about the new features and couldn't wait to update my computer. But now? I feel very much indifferent about Lion, don't see anything innovative or exciting at all, specially when one considers that the last update to include additional features as opposed to under the hood improvements (10.5) was released four years ago.
No comments:
Post a Comment