likemyorbs
Mar 22, 12:48 PM
Agreed!
goddamn i can't make a joke on these forums. i was kidding dude. it's not a choice, if it were a choice it would have been a fad that went away years ago. Some people are naturally attracted to the same sex, and not just people, homosexuality has been demonstrated in animals as well. Some brains are just wired differently, and to deny them rights for it is just not fair.
goddamn i can't make a joke on these forums. i was kidding dude. it's not a choice, if it were a choice it would have been a fad that went away years ago. Some people are naturally attracted to the same sex, and not just people, homosexuality has been demonstrated in animals as well. Some brains are just wired differently, and to deny them rights for it is just not fair.
alec
Oct 23, 10:11 AM
New MacBook Pro's and video iPods for some, abortions and miniature American flags for others
czardmitri
Nov 28, 02:30 PM
Is anybody surprise by this?
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
I saw a zune ad on TV the other night. The same sweaty teenagers as in every other Zune ad. This time they were breaking through a fence or something. Then "Welcome to the Social" appeared over it. I don't think they showed the actual Zune at all.
Seriously we knew this all along.
Plus, what surprises me is that Microsoft did no TV advertising for the Zune at all. So many people out there have no idea it even exists.
Zune has no chance until they have an integration like ipod and itunes have. Maybe in Vista they will have a chance to get that but my feeling is too late for them.
Apple will not let down and I am pretty sure before spring we'll see updates across the ipod line and maybe finally the widescreen ipod.
I saw a zune ad on TV the other night. The same sweaty teenagers as in every other Zune ad. This time they were breaking through a fence or something. Then "Welcome to the Social" appeared over it. I don't think they showed the actual Zune at all.
Winni
Jun 22, 04:14 PM
As long as Apple needs people to build Apps for their touch screen devices, you will have a machine that can do design and coding. They will be the workhorses that support the consumer product line of handhelds like the ipod, iphone and ipad. Don't worry, the Mac is not going away. It might get a whole lot cooler with added features, but it's going to be capable of running Xcode for a long long time.
Oh, you will always be able to run Xcode on a Mac. You'll just have to buy the developer subscription for a few thousand dollars per year in order to get it activated...
Well, let's wait and see. In worst case, there are still a few hundred Linux and BSD distributions out there that can be installed on our Macs.
Oh, you will always be able to run Xcode on a Mac. You'll just have to buy the developer subscription for a few thousand dollars per year in order to get it activated...
Well, let's wait and see. In worst case, there are still a few hundred Linux and BSD distributions out there that can be installed on our Macs.
DoFoT9
Mar 21, 04:17 PM
I guess I'm number 1 on the team now :cool:
your electricity bill must be outrageous!
what do you do?
your electricity bill must be outrageous!
what do you do?
Evangelion
Jul 14, 05:37 AM
It would be nice - in theory - to have a hyper-fast wireless connection; however, what does it matter if my outside line stays at 2M/512k speed?
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
Because those speeds go up? And because you are not always accessing the outside?
apb3
Aug 16, 12:21 PM
there is a destinct difference between 'sharing' and 'synching'.
Exactly! Now maybe you see my first point.
And, your "solution" to fingerprinting libs could, very well I believe, impact this other distinct feature.
It makes no sense to "share" from an iPod (or to one for that matter) - costs are too high as pointed out ad nauseum (see above posts yet to be refuted).
Making it an iPod w/ AirTunes would cannibalize sales of ATEs and also - again - be too expensive from a power standpoint unless you tether your iPod to a charger defeating one of the great bonus points of wireless. Or get a dock for the TV - oh wait, you've again made the "wireless" not so wireless - and redundant...
Exactly! Now maybe you see my first point.
And, your "solution" to fingerprinting libs could, very well I believe, impact this other distinct feature.
It makes no sense to "share" from an iPod (or to one for that matter) - costs are too high as pointed out ad nauseum (see above posts yet to be refuted).
Making it an iPod w/ AirTunes would cannibalize sales of ATEs and also - again - be too expensive from a power standpoint unless you tether your iPod to a charger defeating one of the great bonus points of wireless. Or get a dock for the TV - oh wait, you've again made the "wireless" not so wireless - and redundant...
rockthecasbah
Jan 11, 08:40 PM
I don't buy it from just the name alone. I really hope Apple releases a subcompact MacBook Pro, external optical drive and all that good stuff. We don't need this new MacBook regular nonsense.
Ted Witcher
Mar 22, 05:38 PM
Just put it in a YoTank case like I did. You can drive your car over it without damaging the iPod.
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
That's an Emmeline DAC? You're not using USB?
http://www.substrata.ca/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/12/CJE3140.jpg
More pics here (http://www.substrata.ca/blog/uncategorized/portable-music-rig/).
That's an Emmeline DAC? You're not using USB?
NebulaClash
Sep 24, 09:40 PM
I'm a Consumer Reports subscriber, but I know their tech coverage is spotty at best. Sometimes it's laughably wrong. And too many people take their word as gospel instead of just one more useful data point. Heh, it's funny but as this thread is developing I just got a subscriber email from them asking for a $26 donation to them so they can continue to buy the products they test. I'll pay them $26 because I believe in their non-advertiser supported model.
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
I just want to confirm that I did send them the $26 donation they asked for from their subscribers. I believe in what they do, even if I disagree with them on this issue (as noted ad naseum in this thread).
DELLsFan
Sep 29, 06:08 PM
Right, and what Apple has proposed doing is very reasonable. They have a product that works well for the majority of users. It's the highest-rated phone CR tested. For a few people, there is an issue. All summer long Apple has allowed everyone, those with the issue and all of those with no problems, to have a free case. Now they are saying you've had plenty of time to get your free case, now we will just give it to those who, you know, actually need one. Just let us know, and you get the bumper free. How on earth is that hard?
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
Maybe ...
For me, the way Apple handled this issue from the VERY beginning was disappointing. The reception issue was laughed away, ignored, then addressed as something else (the software "fix" for signal strength). Eventually, they reported this was a problem ALL phones experience, then they acquiesced the specific problem with the iPhone 4 and ONLY then offered the free bumpers.
I don't care if 1% or less of consumers experience the problem ... a problem exists ... was not corrected by a software fix ... and is still not officially corrected ... just worked around. Consumer Reports was absolutely right about the problem and is well within their right to recommend or not recommend the product. Now how DARE they show the not-so-shiny side of an Apple product ?!? Give me a break.
No sign of any white iPhones, no official word on whether the post-September 30 batches of iPhone 4's will have that insulator installed inside to make death gripping the phone moot, and no warm fuzzy on the software fix pushed to address the 3G performance issues ...
Yeah ... there are still some people waiting to see when Apple will pull their heads out of their :apple:'s before re-upping with AT&T for the new precious. They keep dragging their feet, my current contract will fulfill and I can jump back to Verizon next year. :p
Meanwhile they are going to alter the design of the phone so that even this issue will go away for future models.
What does CR want? A total recall? For what? Most people have no issue, there is no danger, the few people who have the issue get a free solution, what would be the point of doing it any other way?
Auto manufacturers publicize the issue, make a solution possible, but it's up to the car's owner to approach the dealership to get that free solution. CR sez this is a good thing.
Apple publicizes the issue, makes a solution possible, but it's up to the phone's owner to approach Apple to get that free solution. CR sez this is unacceptable.
All other phone manufacturers get ignored.
Hypocrisy.
Maybe ...
For me, the way Apple handled this issue from the VERY beginning was disappointing. The reception issue was laughed away, ignored, then addressed as something else (the software "fix" for signal strength). Eventually, they reported this was a problem ALL phones experience, then they acquiesced the specific problem with the iPhone 4 and ONLY then offered the free bumpers.
I don't care if 1% or less of consumers experience the problem ... a problem exists ... was not corrected by a software fix ... and is still not officially corrected ... just worked around. Consumer Reports was absolutely right about the problem and is well within their right to recommend or not recommend the product. Now how DARE they show the not-so-shiny side of an Apple product ?!? Give me a break.
No sign of any white iPhones, no official word on whether the post-September 30 batches of iPhone 4's will have that insulator installed inside to make death gripping the phone moot, and no warm fuzzy on the software fix pushed to address the 3G performance issues ...
Yeah ... there are still some people waiting to see when Apple will pull their heads out of their :apple:'s before re-upping with AT&T for the new precious. They keep dragging their feet, my current contract will fulfill and I can jump back to Verizon next year. :p
Ozu
Sep 6, 11:04 PM
It seems to me that the distribution of 480i content is pretty much settled. Netflix and Blockbuster do this well and at very competitive prices. I can't see that Apple would benefit much from trying to compete there.
How high-def content is distributed, on the other hand, is far from settled. In fact, the world of high-def video in 2006 looks a lot like the world of digital music in 1999; a technology consumers clearly want, but an emerging technology mired in competing standards and confusing technical details. Apple must have noticed that similarity.
I've had a beautiful 720p TV for eight months, and have yet to actually see anything in 720p on it. The closest I've come is hooking my MacBook up to it and watching quicktime trailers. I'm not going to buy a Blu-Ray or HDDVD player until the standards war is over and the players cost less than $300, and that's not going to happen until late 2007 at the earliest.
If I could buy a movie in 720p from the iTunes Music Store and watch it on my TV next Tuesday night I'd do it. Sure it'd take a few hours to download. But the alternative is to wait at least a year.
How high-def content is distributed, on the other hand, is far from settled. In fact, the world of high-def video in 2006 looks a lot like the world of digital music in 1999; a technology consumers clearly want, but an emerging technology mired in competing standards and confusing technical details. Apple must have noticed that similarity.
I've had a beautiful 720p TV for eight months, and have yet to actually see anything in 720p on it. The closest I've come is hooking my MacBook up to it and watching quicktime trailers. I'm not going to buy a Blu-Ray or HDDVD player until the standards war is over and the players cost less than $300, and that's not going to happen until late 2007 at the earliest.
If I could buy a movie in 720p from the iTunes Music Store and watch it on my TV next Tuesday night I'd do it. Sure it'd take a few hours to download. But the alternative is to wait at least a year.
dreamsburnred
Mar 24, 11:04 PM
A refresh is expected soon...
rasmasyean
Mar 19, 04:56 PM
(Jesus,BBC reporting septics have fired 110 Tomahawks already at $1 million each,Raytheon shares will be on the up soon).
Damn those bastards! That batch cost the Americans 35 cents each! (110/308)
Oh well, at least the rich ones can make it up at Ratheon's next dividend payout. :D
Damn those bastards! That batch cost the Americans 35 cents each! (110/308)
Oh well, at least the rich ones can make it up at Ratheon's next dividend payout. :D
GregA
Dec 28, 05:34 PM
Guys,
For home cinema systems, I would agree that Plasma/LCD outsell tubes/rear projection systems. However, there are still more tube TVs sold for non home-cinema systems (ie people without surround sound) and will be while they are cheaper.
It will be very interesting to watch Apple's moves in this area. I believe Apple's first device will be made as simple as possible to allow them to catch the attention (and understanding) of as many people as possible.
For home cinema systems, I would agree that Plasma/LCD outsell tubes/rear projection systems. However, there are still more tube TVs sold for non home-cinema systems (ie people without surround sound) and will be while they are cheaper.
It will be very interesting to watch Apple's moves in this area. I believe Apple's first device will be made as simple as possible to allow them to catch the attention (and understanding) of as many people as possible.
Doctor Q
Jul 18, 12:53 PM
Rentals are definitely the way to go.I think rentals are sometimes the way to go. If I want to watch a movie once, a rental is perfect. If I want to watch it 2 or 3 times over many years, I might as well rent it more than once. But I want to watch it many times, month after month or year after year, I ought to own a copy, to save the expense and trouble of renting it. I already have both choices in "hardcopy" format. I'd like to have both choices online too, as conveniently as possible.
DJMastaWes
Feb 22, 10:22 PM
Haven't posted my setup in a couple years - last time I was able to post it in the '18 and under setup thread' - oh how I've grown (and begun to proudly pay for everything!!)
27" i7 iMac, 12GBs of RAM, 1TB HDD - 2TB LaCie External HDD.
Also have a four year old - overheating - 17" C2D MacBook Pro I pretty much just use for work. Going to either be getting a MacBook Air or one of the new MacBook Pros when they come out. I don't really need a powerful notebook anymore since I do most of my intensive work on the iMac now.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105391/Screen%20shot%202011-02-22%20at%2011.24.16%20PM.png
*Low light iPhone picture
27" i7 iMac, 12GBs of RAM, 1TB HDD - 2TB LaCie External HDD.
Also have a four year old - overheating - 17" C2D MacBook Pro I pretty much just use for work. Going to either be getting a MacBook Air or one of the new MacBook Pros when they come out. I don't really need a powerful notebook anymore since I do most of my intensive work on the iMac now.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/105391/Screen%20shot%202011-02-22%20at%2011.24.16%20PM.png
*Low light iPhone picture
chrisgeleven
Nov 29, 02:38 PM
You know what I would like with iTV?
Live content.
Think about it for a moment. I think everyone hates how expensive cable TV is. I am paying $45 per month just for 50 channels or so, with maybe 10 of those I actually watch (the networks, MSNBC, NESN, FSNE, ESPN, and a few other random ones).
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes.
However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news. iTV and iTunes does not (yet) allow you to watch live streaming content.
If Apple could somehow strike a deal to cover sports and other live content such as news...that just really opens the door. Major League Baseball already does it with MLB.TV, except it is browser based. Imagine the same thing, but on iTV!?!?
Do that, and I would seriously cancel my cable tv subscription and go a la carte with iTunes. I spend roughly $540 a year on my 50 channels of cable TV, of which I at most watch 10 channels. I would much rather spend say $270 (half of the $540) on the 5 or so shows I watch, plus season passes for my local baseball and football teams, and the news channel of my choice.
That is where iTV could become a real winner.
Live content.
Think about it for a moment. I think everyone hates how expensive cable TV is. I am paying $45 per month just for 50 channels or so, with maybe 10 of those I actually watch (the networks, MSNBC, NESN, FSNE, ESPN, and a few other random ones).
Apple has the TV Shows issue fixed, thanks to $1.99 per show on iTunes and season passes.
However, live content is the big issue. I would love to ditch my cable tv subscription and go soley iTV. But I like to watch sports, especially baseball and football. Also you need TV for news events, especially breaking news. iTV and iTunes does not (yet) allow you to watch live streaming content.
If Apple could somehow strike a deal to cover sports and other live content such as news...that just really opens the door. Major League Baseball already does it with MLB.TV, except it is browser based. Imagine the same thing, but on iTV!?!?
Do that, and I would seriously cancel my cable tv subscription and go a la carte with iTunes. I spend roughly $540 a year on my 50 channels of cable TV, of which I at most watch 10 channels. I would much rather spend say $270 (half of the $540) on the 5 or so shows I watch, plus season passes for my local baseball and football teams, and the news channel of my choice.
That is where iTV could become a real winner.
flashcutter
Apr 12, 10:40 PM
Because Apple says "Tape is Dead" doesn't make it true...just like Blu-Ray isn't gone. So that begs the question--is there tape output support (machine interfacing, et al) for FCX?
MacBoobsPro
Aug 7, 04:15 AM
Steve Jobs Headlines Keynote Address and Leopard Preview (http://developer.apple.com/wwdc/schedules/monday_am.html)
Well thats good. But why are people still speaking about tommorrow?
EDIT: Oh I know, TIME ZONES!!!!
Damn i AM a dumbass!
Well thats good. But why are people still speaking about tommorrow?
EDIT: Oh I know, TIME ZONES!!!!
Damn i AM a dumbass!
3N16MA
Nov 27, 12:48 PM
http://a1.phobos.apple.com/us/r1000/011/Purple/7c/43/75/mzl.nzzioqzb.320x480-75.jpg
ChuChu! Rocket (iPhone 4) on sale for $.99. Classic Dreamcast game.
ChuChu! Rocket (iPhone 4) on sale for $.99. Classic Dreamcast game.
dizastor
Aug 30, 12:11 AM
Oh believe me, I agree with you 100% percent! I would LOVE to see "Mac pro Mini" from Apple.
Mac Pro Cube Mini?
No that's too long...
Mac Pube Mini!
much better
Mac Pro Cube Mini?
No that's too long...
Mac Pube Mini!
much better
chicagostars
Jan 12, 04:37 PM
These whispers seem to have possible validity. I feel that people waiting for a slim MacBook Pro may come away from MacWorld disappointed. A thin machine doesn't seem like it will fit the bill for many pro customers who are often using their MacBook Pros as desktop replacements, but may be great for another market: non-creative professionals, many of whom would like something along the lines of a successor to the 12" Powerbook. (Rumors of an aluminum enclosure don't mean all that much as Apple is going toward aluminum enclosures in more and more of their product lines, regardless the price point or 'pro' image. iPod Shuffle anyone?)
Let's enjoy the show!
Let's enjoy the show!
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
