Benjy91
Apr 8, 03:11 PM
+1. Hopefully Lion will be worth the added system requirements.
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
.jpg "justin bieber cute pics 2010.")
justin bieber cute pics 2010.
Justin Bieber Sings For Radio
cute justin bieber backgrounds
Justin Bieber Age
Anyways, he features I've heard that are to new to Windows 8 so far is:
h00ligan
Mar 17, 12:53 AM
Good luck with this thread, you better get your flame suit at the ready.
Rookies1000
Mar 17, 07:36 AM
That's pretty low and the need to come here and brag about it. Great if you can live with yourself, I couldnt
Lurchdubious
Apr 9, 09:47 PM
New car for the wife! '08 Honda Odyssey EX-L
http://imageexp.dealercarsearch.com/Media/2383/H7052460_17.jpg
http://imageexp.dealercarsearch.com/Media/2383/H7052460_17.jpg
Don't panic
Apr 27, 04:30 PM
You're not. Look back a bit, for one of my posts.
Just knock out the wall between, put stalls where urinals are, and you're done.
Bonus: You now have both an entrance and an exit.
I r analyst. :D
Do I love seeing Justin Bieber
justin bieber cutest pics.
justin bieber cute quot;babyquot;
justin bieber cutest pics.
justin bieber cutest pics ever
justin bieber cute. justin
Justin Bieber fans soon can
cute justin bieber pics 2011.
justin bieber recent pics
Cute justin Bieber - cute,
justin bieber cutest pics.
.jpg "justin bieber-Cute justin")
justin bieber-Cute justin
super cute justin bieber
Justin Bieber is the best boss
Just knock out the wall between, put stalls where urinals are, and you're done.
Bonus: You now have both an entrance and an exit.
I r analyst. :D
snberk103
Apr 12, 11:10 PM
Without context .... who knows? The story has been updated to state that the TSA does not do drug tests.... which makes sense. If there is another test, then it's possible that it's an explosive test.
She (the little girl) may have the chemical signature for explosives on her. There are lots of innocent ways this could happen, from borrowing the sweater of her friend, whose father works in a mine, to using a fabric softener that uses a chemical that is similar to one of the many chemicals that can combined with others to make a bomb.
If the TSA has a chemical sniffer at that security station, and that sniffer is indicating the presence of a possible explosive.... do you really want a TSA staffer making judgement calls on who needs to be double-checked and who gets a bye?
We don't know what happened.... there is no context.... who knows....
She (the little girl) may have the chemical signature for explosives on her. There are lots of innocent ways this could happen, from borrowing the sweater of her friend, whose father works in a mine, to using a fabric softener that uses a chemical that is similar to one of the many chemicals that can combined with others to make a bomb.
If the TSA has a chemical sniffer at that security station, and that sniffer is indicating the presence of a possible explosive.... do you really want a TSA staffer making judgement calls on who needs to be double-checked and who gets a bye?
We don't know what happened.... there is no context.... who knows....
dpaanlka
Jan 12, 06:37 PM
You all need to stop worrying about Steve Jobs rightful attitude is. Apple lost him once. Ten years later he came back. Now ten years after that, you all can't stand him? Are you kidding me? He can do whatever he wants! Worry about something more important!
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
And white text is not the best choice, because the background of MacRumors isn't white, it is color #FAFAFA. Get with the program people.
tofagerl
Apr 29, 01:18 PM
Can I possible take the power, and switch the magic with something else? Like pizzazz, or awesomeness or something?
Amazing Iceman
May 4, 11:39 AM
In iTunes you can see a banner ad that says "Apps from iPad TV ads." That will take you to a page where you will see the apps.
Thanks, but as I wrote on my original post, I have already checked there but the list was not updated with the apps featured in the latest Ad.
Thanks, but as I wrote on my original post, I have already checked there but the list was not updated with the apps featured in the latest Ad.
Monkey194545
Dec 13, 10:31 AM
This is utter ********. The experience is key, and LTE hardware is nowhere near advanced enough to guarantee the experience that Apple would demand for a device the stature of the iPhone.
Remember: we're talking about the company that withheld phone wallpapers on the Original and 3G iPhones because the experience would have been several milliseconds too slow.
Fact: Verizon is not expecting LTE-capable hardware until mid-2011. There's no way Apple magically has an LTE phone ready to go while everyone else won't have one for 6 months.
Fact: Apple declined to integrate 3G into the iPhone when 3G was already available, because the hardware wasn't power-efficent enough. One of the main distinguishing features of the iPhone is its battery life. They're not going to tarnish that image by hacking first-generation, power-hogging LTE hardware into the phone, in ADDITION to CDMA, which is another radio tech they're only now deploying.
These sources are full of ****. QED.
On your first point: It is also the company that came out with the iphone 4 and its antenna problems.
Your second point: Don't you think Verizon would take the oppurtunity to give apple what they really want over the Android phones: The first 4g phone on Verizon network. That would be a huge advantage. Just because the network isnt fully up yet doesn't mean Verizon couldn't have given apple the tech to make a 4g iphone. Verizon see android phone sales dropping and know that an iphone would boost sales by a huge amount.
Your third point: It would only be one chip, read the article for reference. How do you know how much battery it uses? It may be only a small amount more than 3g. Att's 3g sucked when the 3g iphone came out. It still sucks. Don't underestimate apple and verizon. You may be surprised!
Edit: By no means am a I acknowledging the merit or lack there of of this article
Remember: we're talking about the company that withheld phone wallpapers on the Original and 3G iPhones because the experience would have been several milliseconds too slow.
Fact: Verizon is not expecting LTE-capable hardware until mid-2011. There's no way Apple magically has an LTE phone ready to go while everyone else won't have one for 6 months.
Fact: Apple declined to integrate 3G into the iPhone when 3G was already available, because the hardware wasn't power-efficent enough. One of the main distinguishing features of the iPhone is its battery life. They're not going to tarnish that image by hacking first-generation, power-hogging LTE hardware into the phone, in ADDITION to CDMA, which is another radio tech they're only now deploying.
These sources are full of ****. QED.
On your first point: It is also the company that came out with the iphone 4 and its antenna problems.
Your second point: Don't you think Verizon would take the oppurtunity to give apple what they really want over the Android phones: The first 4g phone on Verizon network. That would be a huge advantage. Just because the network isnt fully up yet doesn't mean Verizon couldn't have given apple the tech to make a 4g iphone. Verizon see android phone sales dropping and know that an iphone would boost sales by a huge amount.
Your third point: It would only be one chip, read the article for reference. How do you know how much battery it uses? It may be only a small amount more than 3g. Att's 3g sucked when the 3g iphone came out. It still sucks. Don't underestimate apple and verizon. You may be surprised!
Edit: By no means am a I acknowledging the merit or lack there of of this article
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)
Telp
Jan 10, 05:29 PM
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.
stefan15
Jul 24, 11:39 AM
MAN.. these designers aren't getting it.. The ipod looks great because the design is ultra simple, clean. Why doesn't anyone else get this? Less is more.. That grey border around the screen is horrendously ugly. And why SILVER on the middle button? Arhghgh
One way or another, this means the ipod will only get better (that's the nature of competition)
One way or another, this means the ipod will only get better (that's the nature of competition)
ghostlyorb
Dec 13, 08:27 PM
How could Apple keep production of an LTE iPhone so completely quiet when a release is pending in two weeks? We would have heard something in the supply chain before this.
This supposed source also says that Apple may be financing some of the carrier's LTE buildouts -- if Apple were doing that they would be asking for exclusive use of those LTE networks for a period. It would also set a terrible precedent.
Also, I don't imagine that AT&T & Apple signed a contract that had exclusivity expiring on December 26, 2010. It would make far more sense for a contract to be written that extends through the end of though some have even speculated it extends through 2012 (heaven help us and Apple if that's the case).
Nothing in this article from MacDailyNews seems close to the truth.
EDIT: In other news, rumor has it that Apple and NASA are launching a series of iPhone satellites on December 26th that will support the iPhone-SAT which will have 100MBps speeds with worldwide coverage using a series of Apple-owned satellites and taking the carrier completely out of the equation. There will be no more carrier exclusivity, because there will be no carrier. Apple will sell the phone for $700 unlocked with no monthly service charge, but will require you purchase an annual subscription to MobileMe for $99 for service.
I'd buy that... If it were true, it would be legit.
This supposed source also says that Apple may be financing some of the carrier's LTE buildouts -- if Apple were doing that they would be asking for exclusive use of those LTE networks for a period. It would also set a terrible precedent.
Also, I don't imagine that AT&T & Apple signed a contract that had exclusivity expiring on December 26, 2010. It would make far more sense for a contract to be written that extends through the end of though some have even speculated it extends through 2012 (heaven help us and Apple if that's the case).
Nothing in this article from MacDailyNews seems close to the truth.
EDIT: In other news, rumor has it that Apple and NASA are launching a series of iPhone satellites on December 26th that will support the iPhone-SAT which will have 100MBps speeds with worldwide coverage using a series of Apple-owned satellites and taking the carrier completely out of the equation. There will be no more carrier exclusivity, because there will be no carrier. Apple will sell the phone for $700 unlocked with no monthly service charge, but will require you purchase an annual subscription to MobileMe for $99 for service.
I'd buy that... If it were true, it would be legit.
longsilver
Sep 12, 07:45 AM
The Stores seem to be listing MacBook delivery times as 5-7 working days. Is that normal or has it been increased? If it's an increase might that suggest a speedbump or something? There's not been much rumour activity around that though.
sartinsauce
Oct 17, 10:23 AM
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
OKay, so I've heard both sides now. Can anyone say if the "pr0n industry" has chosen a format, and if so, which format have they chosen?
OKay, so I've heard both sides now. Can anyone say if the "pr0n industry" has chosen a format, and if so, which format have they chosen?
iJon
Jul 21, 10:19 AM
I love the way that every time Apple show an image or video of one of their employees "holding" another phone to demonstrate this signal attenuation, they always appear to be literally crushing the phone in their hand. Whereas, with the i4, you just sit it comfortably in the pocket of your palm.
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
"If you don't want an iPhone 4 don't buy it. If you bought one and you don't like it, bring it back."
Apple has become the new Microsoft. They have lost that connection they had with their customers where they would strive to please. Now they just sit back like the rest and go "well you bought it, it's your problem."
"If you don't want an iPhone 4 don't buy it. If you bought one and you don't like it, bring it back."
Anthony T
Apr 15, 04:41 PM
I was all for having an aluminum design, but not if it looks like that. That thing is just ugly. I like this concept the most, just without the circle around the Apple logo, and none of those ugly colors like the pink, blue, green, etc.
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
Vegasman
Apr 6, 01:05 PM
Even bends Apple's own rules... :eek:
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20051322-37.html
http://news.cnet.com/8301-13579_3-20051322-37.html
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 09:30 PM
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
They were "called" smart phones. But the iphone defined the direction the iphones of the future would take.
They were "called" smart phones. But the iphone defined the direction the iphones of the future would take.
Mac.World
Apr 17, 01:43 PM
Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
moderately
Apr 30, 10:19 AM
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
SeaFox
Oct 28, 11:10 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment