Socratic
May 4, 01:58 PM
So by your logic, if you end up in court on flagrantly made up charges, you're guilty by implication? Jesus...
Er, no. That doesn't follow from my logic at all. The poster was asking for proof that this russian site had any kind of problems with the labels "you have no idea what money goes where" or words to that effect were used. The fact that they are in court proves there is a dispute, not guilt.
I'd be happy to break the argument out for you in formal logic if you are familiar with the logical languages?
Er, no. That doesn't follow from my logic at all. The poster was asking for proof that this russian site had any kind of problems with the labels "you have no idea what money goes where" or words to that effect were used. The fact that they are in court proves there is a dispute, not guilt.
I'd be happy to break the argument out for you in formal logic if you are familiar with the logical languages?
stockscalper
Apr 18, 07:37 AM
While these Sandy Bridge processors are considerably faster in lab benchmarks, they offer no discernible real-world improvement for most users. Having used a MacBook Pro with a C2D and then one of the new Sandy Bridge, I couldn't tell the difference.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
As MacBook Air owners know, it's all about the SSD speed for improving the experience for everyday users.
Very true. Plus, turbo mode is mostly marketing hype. It should be called turbo fraud. It doesn't work the way it's advertised, ie, most of the time when you need it to. So, what you're really getting is a 1.4 GHZ computer that's advertised as a 2.3 GHZ one. That's taking marketing hype to the extreme. The only way I would buy a computer with one of Intel's turbo hyped CPU's is if the bottom score met my needs. I would never rely on the hyped theoretical upper score in making my decision and in this case 1.4 GHZ doesn't cut it for me.
zap2
Jul 25, 11:02 AM
2+ full size optical drives opppsed to a single slow notebook drive
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
iMac is perfect for most home users.. few "home users"(people who buy a computer and use it, not super up to date about it) upgrade anything..maybe RAM and Harddrive but thats really it
2+ hard drive bays
Card reader
Easy CPU upgrading
Easy RAM upgrading
Upgradable x16 PCI-Express slot compared to underclocked fixed notebook GPU
3+ PCI/ PCI-E x1 slots for upgrading to new devices
Choice of display
iMac is perfect for most home users.. few "home users"(people who buy a computer and use it, not super up to date about it) upgrade anything..maybe RAM and Harddrive but thats really it
SensaiMinstixs
Jun 6, 11:51 AM
$1000 worth of a beating he'd get if i were his parent. Luckily for kids, i hate them and would never have one. Ever.
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
So let get this right sarcasm is bad, but advocating the physical assault of children on a public MR forum is ok I'm new to MR so I'm still trying to figure how this whole thing works:confused:
You sound like a wonderful human being.
Your sarcasm is inappropriate. This poster has a right to her/his opinion. There are plenty of folks that think that kids are a bad idea, especially in their case. I'm proud of the fact I don't have kids: I'd beat them just like Joan Crawford did in Mommy Dearest. :mad:
So let get this right sarcasm is bad, but advocating the physical assault of children on a public MR forum is ok I'm new to MR so I'm still trying to figure how this whole thing works:confused:
katewes
May 3, 07:53 AM
No matte antiglare screens on the new iMacs. If you need matte screens, there's something you can do - add your voice to 1,300+ petitions at http://macmatte.wordpress.com Unlike personal emails to Apple - which Apple just ignore, asserting everyone loves glossy screens - make it count by adding to the online petition where your voice will remain visible on the net until Apple listens. Remember, adding your comment to transient news articles on the net is fine, but those articles go out of date in a few weeks, and also there is no long-term accumulation and consolidation of numbers, like there is at a petition site.
emotion
Jul 25, 10:00 AM
I've been checking the UK store (Higher Ed + Normal) since the announcement, the Wireless Mighty Mouse is still not up there. Are you sure you're not confusing the Mighty Mouse with the wired one? ( The Wired Mighty Mouse is is �31.73 H.E, �35.00 Retail)
Plus, I think we've already had a link to MacWorld showing the price at �49.99
Sorry for the confusion, see my edit above.
Plus, I think we've already had a link to MacWorld showing the price at �49.99
Sorry for the confusion, see my edit above.
nagromme
Jul 24, 10:22 PM
Some Apple patents are just "out there" and don't sound useful in practice. I never expect to see them in a product.
But THIS sounds actually very useful--the problem of whether a keyboard hogs the screen or not is solved, etc. etc.
Apple's hiring says they're serious about touch computing. For an iPod? For a Mac? And when? I can't wait to find out!
But THIS sounds actually very useful--the problem of whether a keyboard hogs the screen or not is solved, etc. etc.
Apple's hiring says they're serious about touch computing. For an iPod? For a Mac? And when? I can't wait to find out!
RTee
May 4, 07:23 AM
Maybe they're waiting to see what everyone else puts out!:rolleyes:
aperry
Apr 26, 12:48 PM
Can you point me to were you are getting your 2TB hard drives for free? :cool:
I am pretty sure you won't be storing 2TB of your music with Apple for $20/yr.
Is it even known yet exactly how this will work? The fact that Apple needed to make agreements with all of the labels makes this service look a little suspect to me. For example, would I be allowed to store my music that was ripped from a CD under a different label (one which Apple doesn't have an agreement?)
I am pretty sure you won't be storing 2TB of your music with Apple for $20/yr.
Is it even known yet exactly how this will work? The fact that Apple needed to make agreements with all of the labels makes this service look a little suspect to me. For example, would I be allowed to store my music that was ripped from a CD under a different label (one which Apple doesn't have an agreement?)
Rogue.
May 3, 07:41 AM
UK store now up, i7 still a BTO :p
Smokin AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 [+ �80.00] though :D
Smokin AMD Radeon HD 6970M 2GB GDDR5 [+ �80.00] though :D
Ugg
May 1, 11:33 PM
I'm glad you get to decide what facts are facts. I guess someone has to do it.
It's true he's big. A big figurehead.
So was this guy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/CheHigh.jpg
It's true he's big. A big figurehead.
So was this guy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/58/CheHigh.jpg
mcornill
Aug 15, 07:22 PM
Whats happening with iChat, are they getting it to work with MSN Messenger networks like with AOL?
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
You can use aMsn an open-source MSN client which supports web cams (including the embedded iSight).
http://amsn.sourceforge.net/download.php
It's available as a universal binary.
Matt
I have just switched to Mac, and it's annoying I cant Video Conference with any MSN Messenger users (MSN Messenger on Mac doesnt support it). iChat is awesome but I have no contacts, lol. Anyone know of any other way, I have tried AdiumX and looked into Jabber.
You can use aMsn an open-source MSN client which supports web cams (including the embedded iSight).
http://amsn.sourceforge.net/download.php
It's available as a universal binary.
Matt
ten-oak-druid
Apr 28, 03:51 PM
They look the same to me in the picture. The white one is tipped slightly so that you see the front face surface a little. I think this makes the difference in appearance.
KnightWRX
Apr 12, 10:45 AM
It's amazing how people who hang out at a site dedicated to Apple don't really know anything about Apple R&D. This is so old news. But here for your edification:
http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm
Take hard note of the sentence: "Developed by Intel (under the code name Light Peak), and brought to market with technical collaboration from Apple."
What's amazing is how you haven't provided a citation to match your earlier post :
TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
So again, Citation needed. The citation provided does not indicate Apple envisionned TB, only that they collaborated with Intel on the project, which might or might not be after the fact that Intel envisionned the tech and not Apple.
Again, you state Apple basically came up with it, burden of proof lies on you for this. I don't think I've ever heard that about LightPeak until this thread. It always either was a joint venture or an Intel tech developed in collaboration with Apple.
http://www.intel.com/technology/io/thunderbolt/index.htm
Take hard note of the sentence: "Developed by Intel (under the code name Light Peak), and brought to market with technical collaboration from Apple."
What's amazing is how you haven't provided a citation to match your earlier post :
TB was envisioned by Apple and then handed off to Intel for development and implementation.
So again, Citation needed. The citation provided does not indicate Apple envisionned TB, only that they collaborated with Intel on the project, which might or might not be after the fact that Intel envisionned the tech and not Apple.
Again, you state Apple basically came up with it, burden of proof lies on you for this. I don't think I've ever heard that about LightPeak until this thread. It always either was a joint venture or an Intel tech developed in collaboration with Apple.
NoNothing
Mar 29, 01:48 PM
So the reason apple charges more is because??? Seems like google is a better deal.
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
It is 5 days and not 2? Apple has more sessions?
Not like that matters, if you develop for OSX, iOS or both... Then the sky high price might be worth it.
It is 5 days and not 2? Apple has more sessions?
hayesk
Jul 26, 04:02 PM
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
Just touching it is not tactile feedback. That would be like saying a piece of paper provides feedback if you touch it. Feedback means a signal is sent back to the user to acknowledge the the pressing of the control. The 3G iPod buttons gave an audio click - that is aural feedback. They also showed things on the screen - that is visual feedback. But they didn't spring, or have a physical barrier that you push through, so there was no tactile feedback (i.e. nothing that can be physically felt) to let you know that you pressed the button.
When you press a button on a dead iPod, it does nothing, and it feels exactly the same as pressing a button on a working iPod - no tactile feedback.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface.
Who said it was revolutionary? And it could consitute a none-touch interface. It depends on if the patent is describing the control or the entire iPod. If there is a cover, you are not touching the control (the screen underneath), but the cover over it - hence none-touch.
The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
A better (i.e. more scratch-proof) cover would be better. Who cares about fingerprints? You can clean those off. I don't want to hover my finger over something to control it - I'd always have to be careful not to touch the screen (unless it was durable). Not very good when on a bus, train etc., where the vehicle is shaking.
paulrbeers
Apr 14, 12:48 PM
Are people firing up their lawyers because Apple does not update their iPhone 3G that came with iOS 3 when they bought it in june 2010 ? Doesn't the licence flyer in the box say Apple will supply the current iOS version +1 ?
Yeahhhh... iPhone 4 came out in 2010. The 3G came out in June of 2008 and ran until June of 2009. Any purchases after June of 2009 was as the "cheap" last years iPhone model just like the 3GS. And since iOS did originally come on the device as 2.0 and then released updates until 4.2, that's more than covering their agreement of iOS +1.
Yeahhhh... iPhone 4 came out in 2010. The 3G came out in June of 2008 and ran until June of 2009. Any purchases after June of 2009 was as the "cheap" last years iPhone model just like the 3GS. And since iOS did originally come on the device as 2.0 and then released updates until 4.2, that's more than covering their agreement of iOS +1.
nies
Apr 26, 05:00 PM
I'm liking the Narration so far too, nice work Intell
steadysignal
Apr 29, 05:45 PM
Competition = Good Thing
I disagree with this....
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
why is paying less out of your pocket not a good thing? (unless i am reading you incorrectly...)
I disagree with this....
Its been my observation that most of the prices on existing content was increased to 1.29. I don't have hard number to back this up, just my observation that most of the content was bumped to the higher price point from being at 0.99 before.
why is paying less out of your pocket not a good thing? (unless i am reading you incorrectly...)
Aduntu
May 2, 02:43 AM
I don't see why not.
He was supposedly thrown overboard at sea.
The portion of the image containing the person's forehead is of a much higher quality than the rest of the image that is obviously the rest of Bin Laden's face. They come from two very different pictures. It's fake, no doubt about it.
He was supposedly thrown overboard at sea.
The portion of the image containing the person's forehead is of a much higher quality than the rest of the image that is obviously the rest of Bin Laden's face. They come from two very different pictures. It's fake, no doubt about it.
peapody
Jan 29, 10:57 AM
I'm currently testing one out :)
Wow that guy is a lot smaller than I thought it would be!
Shipping for a couple items just sold..including an Asus Gaming Laptop.
Wow that guy is a lot smaller than I thought it would be!
Shipping for a couple items just sold..including an Asus Gaming Laptop.
Snowy_River
Dec 1, 07:19 PM
I hope you understand what exactly you are saying. Under 10% is still Millions of systems. Included in that small percentage are hundreds if not thousands of businesses, thousands of schools, and many home businesses. Like anything in life, there are people that like the easy stuff, the work that effects the most people, or the work that provides the most challenge.
Worldwide impact is likely motivation for some hackers, however it doesn't include all of them!
Yes. This is part of why the low market share argument always seemed a bit weak. One can argue that there is a threshold beyond which a platform starts getting more attention from malware writers, but to argue that OS X had a small enough market share such that NO malware writers were trying to write a virus, trojan, worm, adware or spyware has just never made sense.
Worldwide impact is likely motivation for some hackers, however it doesn't include all of them!
Yes. This is part of why the low market share argument always seemed a bit weak. One can argue that there is a threshold beyond which a platform starts getting more attention from malware writers, but to argue that OS X had a small enough market share such that NO malware writers were trying to write a virus, trojan, worm, adware or spyware has just never made sense.
TheOnlyJon
Sep 13, 09:27 AM
Best $400.00 anyone has ever spent.
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs624.snc4/58484_10150268729160035_781965034_14890079_2692040_n.jpg
D'awww. What kind? Looks like our 100+ pound Great Pyrenees did when she was a puppy...she's slightly larger now :p
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs624.snc4/58484_10150268729160035_781965034_14890079_2692040_n.jpg
D'awww. What kind? Looks like our 100+ pound Great Pyrenees did when she was a puppy...she's slightly larger now :p
synp
Apr 14, 09:30 AM
A native Mac OS X app that will run iOS apps.
