Grasbak
Jan 9, 08:30 AM
Realistically, this is want I want:
Cricket World Cup 2011 Logo
World Cup 2011 Logo Cricket
cricket world cup 2011 logo
of Cricket World Cup 2011
Cricket World Cup 2011 Logo
Cricket+world+cup+2011+
Icc+world+cup+cricket+logo
Cricket+world+cup+2011+
cricket world cup 2011 logo. ICC Cricket World Cup 2011 logo wallpaper
Icc World Cup 2011 Logo Png.
The 2011 Cricket World Cup
world cup cricket 2011 logo.
Cricket+world+cup+2011+
Icc World Cup 2011 Logo Vector
world cup cricket 2011 logo
cricket world cup 2011 logo.
cricket world cup 2011 logo.
world cup cricket 2011 images.
tvachon
Jan 9, 01:49 PM
Darn, I expected to come home from school and have it be there. :P I'm not going to be tempted to check any sites or do anything where there might be a spoiler. I think this will be a good time to practice piano & do homework. :)
Question: When did the keynote end? Was it 11 PM EST or PST? If it was PST, that would mean the keynote only ended 44 minutes ago (about). :eek:
Edit: MR is being really slow right now for me.
It ended 2:00pm EST
Question: When did the keynote end? Was it 11 PM EST or PST? If it was PST, that would mean the keynote only ended 44 minutes ago (about). :eek:
Edit: MR is being really slow right now for me.
It ended 2:00pm EST
Melrose
Mar 9, 08:15 AM
Yes, and you don't have to look too far to find examples of that ;)
...well in that case it sure puts a new perspective on presidential elections w/ mass hysteria.
...well in that case it sure puts a new perspective on presidential elections w/ mass hysteria.
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:38 AM
And what was the motivation of the third party app makers? To make a fast buck out of serving ads to people more interested in the ad than the product. That is bad for advertisers and probably the real reason the app was rejected.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
Who know whether clicks inside this app count as regular impressions? Unlike any third party, Apple is in a position to refund any advertisers for clicks on these ads. If they are doing that then I don't see anything wrong with them releasing this niche product.
I see your point, but I think that it's quite uncharitable to question the motives of individuals but let apple have a pass. They are in the position to do whatever they want, and there's no way that they WOULD reimburse those whose apps were rejected for the same function, but my point is that they shouldn't have rejected those apps at all. It's hypocritical of them to reject an app for a reason, and then when they get desperate for their iAd program to catch on more with advertisers (which apparently aren't as excited for the platform as Apple had hoped) they change their mind and create their own app.
And besides, an ad impression is an ad impression. The only iAds that I click on are accidental. If people want to download an app to see what an iAd looks like, they are also getting the best of what the advertisers had hoped for: the chance to make somebody want to use their product. They pay for the option of changing somebody's mind, not to actually do it. They pay to put the advertisement in partial view. Not to actually sell products directly.
It doesn't matter who makes the app, if they are putting the ads in front of people, they deserve the money. That goes for Apple or any of the several individuals that have already created such apps.
iphoneIA
May 3, 11:18 PM
A great commercial. As a teacher who is getting 30 ipads for next years students I am super pumped. These truly are the future of education and I can't wait to have my students start using them.
bearbo
Jan 12, 02:36 AM
I would love to see you come up with something revolutionary.
just because i can't come up with something revolutionary doesn't mean i can't say other things aren't.
The hardware, what do you want them to do? Come out with a floating phone? They do have to make something that is relatively affordable. They can't possibly make a platinum apple phone with surround sound speakers floating around it and tag it at $20,000. You would complain anyway.
hm. i think the point of revolutionary is so its function is not so obvious?
and just for the record, i don't want platium apple phone with surround sound speaker floating around it. ew.
again, i'm not saying iphone is crap, it's not the best thing in the world. gah
What else were you hoping for?
if he want to call it revolutionary, i was hoping for something revolutionary.
just because i can't come up with something revolutionary doesn't mean i can't say other things aren't.
The hardware, what do you want them to do? Come out with a floating phone? They do have to make something that is relatively affordable. They can't possibly make a platinum apple phone with surround sound speakers floating around it and tag it at $20,000. You would complain anyway.
hm. i think the point of revolutionary is so its function is not so obvious?
and just for the record, i don't want platium apple phone with surround sound speaker floating around it. ew.
again, i'm not saying iphone is crap, it's not the best thing in the world. gah
What else were you hoping for?
if he want to call it revolutionary, i was hoping for something revolutionary.
ClimbingTheLog
Oct 29, 08:16 PM
If I use the free(GPL) software as a baseline for a project I then have to turn around and release all the changes I made for free as well. This may be hundreds of hours of work and I don't know anyone that works for free.
Umm, how much did you pay for that 'baseline' GPL software? Did it just write itself?
Anyway to explain the difference, the BSD license maximizes the freedom of the end-user and the GPL license maximizes the freedom of the community. The two aims are mutually incompatible, so you have to pick which you're going for before you start.
Umm, how much did you pay for that 'baseline' GPL software? Did it just write itself?
Anyway to explain the difference, the BSD license maximizes the freedom of the end-user and the GPL license maximizes the freedom of the community. The two aims are mutually incompatible, so you have to pick which you're going for before you start.
Detlev
Mar 28, 02:41 PM
Next they'll want everyone to have an Apple ID to use their services.
Wait�
Wait�
yg17
Apr 21, 10:12 PM
So same system but without the down vote button at all?
arn
It's better than what we have now, but I still think it's a useless feature IMO.
arn
It's better than what we have now, but I still think it's a useless feature IMO.
NAG
Jan 12, 04:34 PM
Obviously.:rolleyes: I was responding to the idea that is was somehow ironic (and funny) that such a low-tech device could disrupt such a high-tech show. There are many other low-tech ways to cause problems for exhibitors. You can't have an open, accessible show floor and protect against everyone's idea of a "prank." Exhibitors have to be able to trust that attendees, especially press credentialed attendees, won't make them look foolish in order to drive traffic to their blogs.
Anyway, I hope you took notice of the real point of my comment:
That's nothing to laugh about.
Yes, and disagreeing with President Bush means you support the Terrorists. Yes, I just went there.
Seriously, that is such a slippery slope argument it isn't funny. Blaming some pranksters for the end of big expos is silly.
Anyway, I hope you took notice of the real point of my comment:
That's nothing to laugh about.
Yes, and disagreeing with President Bush means you support the Terrorists. Yes, I just went there.
Seriously, that is such a slippery slope argument it isn't funny. Blaming some pranksters for the end of big expos is silly.
spillproof
Sep 28, 04:25 PM
I do love the pocket door idea.
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
I wonder if he will have a glass spiral staircase?
ironsienna
Apr 30, 04:04 AM
The idea of having a slider for changing tabs, having the active tab lighter in color than darker, reminds me of the interface of my LED Machines app, where you have to choose between music from the itunes collection or sound for the alarm.
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/led-machines-led-flashlight/id384295424?mt=8
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4656/alarma.png
Its being there since August. Do you think it was a source of inspiration for them?? ;)
http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/led-machines-led-flashlight/id384295424?mt=8
http://img69.imageshack.us/img69/4656/alarma.png
Its being there since August. Do you think it was a source of inspiration for them?? ;)
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
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.
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 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.
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. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
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.
....
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.
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.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. 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.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
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 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.
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. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
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.
....
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.
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.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. 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.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
D*I*S_Frontman
Jan 12, 06:28 PM
Look, people--
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
There is nothing amazingly new or innovative technology-wise in the iPhone. Everything in it has been done before, and it does not even employ some of the latest (3G) features that its competition does.
Niether did the original iPod. Grasshopper, go and learn from Thread #500. People thought that product was "crippled" by high price and no new technology ("An overpriced HDD-based mp3 player with a B&W LCD display? Who cares?").
I predict that Apple will have 20% of the entire cell phone market and 50+% of the high-end communication device within three years of its June release. That will mean 150-200 million units.
In the intervening six months before formal release, or shortly thereafter, some of the smaller issues will be attended to (like the ability to at least open and review MS files, sync'ing issues, interfacing w/iTunes Store, what have you). The rest won't matter.
Apple does not sell products, people. They sell personal productivity, great user experiences, wow and chic. This phone phone meets all of those criteria. For consumer devices like these, a streamlined and intuitive user experience is like money in the bank. The only thing innovative about the iPod is the stupid click-wheel, and yet 75% of the ENTIRE aac/mp3 player market is controlled by ONE COMPANY. The one with the click-wheel.
So it is with this product. If the final build quality of the unit proves durable, reliable, and cosmetically superior, and the unit functions as billed, it will not only make a huge forray into that giant market, but essentially create a new one.
Right now, the "smartphone" is really a piece of business equipment. Apple just invented the quintessential "consumer" version of the same product. It doesn't matter that it is expensive or lacks some high-end features. If is actually works as effortlessly and seamlessly as billed, it will become another cultural icon. Apple marketing will see to it that everyone on the planet is aware of how "cool" this device is.
I'm glad to be on record here. I hope that when this thread is reviewed three years from now, everyone is talking about the foolish naysayers of Thread #3245138 (or whatever this one is).
camelsnot
Apr 8, 02:18 PM
What a surprise, Tech Crunch got a story completely wrong
and more importantly the mentally blind apple zealots on these forums blasted Best Buy any way they could because of the story. It's pathetic how some people act like sheep.
and more importantly the mentally blind apple zealots on these forums blasted Best Buy any way they could because of the story. It's pathetic how some people act like sheep.
thejadedmonkey
Oct 11, 01:21 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
That's really funny.. I was just wishing my iPod (3G) could sync my email from outlook for reading on-the-go.
dsnort
Aug 2, 02:06 PM
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.
That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.
That's just wrong on so many levels. I wish I had more time...
CalfCanuck
Sep 25, 12:05 PM
I hope that we'll all be pleased with the improved DB code for searching, keywords, etc. It always seemed to me that THIS was the major failure of Aperture. It's RAW onscreen conversions were never bad in terms of speed, given the amount of processing that was going on. But the old DB searchs of 15 seconds (with NO conversions!) always implied poorly written code/bad code design.
With 1.5 and the expanding list of supported computers, it appears that the Aperture team finally cleaned up this mess. Hopefully the result will be a pleasant surprise for all.
Here's my earlier post where I talked more about keyword imprivements, esp the new "no" keyword option which was MY major gripe for such a minor issue:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2878430#post2878430
With 1.5 and the expanding list of supported computers, it appears that the Aperture team finally cleaned up this mess. Hopefully the result will be a pleasant surprise for all.
Here's my earlier post where I talked more about keyword imprivements, esp the new "no" keyword option which was MY major gripe for such a minor issue:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=2878430#post2878430
iMeowbot
Sep 12, 08:12 AM
First iTMS wasn't working, now it is.. it's like they're updating the DNS or something.
Something like that. I've been noticing that http://phobos.apple.com/showtime/showtime.html has been there and 404 intermittently.
Something like that. I've been noticing that http://phobos.apple.com/showtime/showtime.html has been there and 404 intermittently.
takao
Jan 12, 10:22 AM
The bloody thing is not even released yet and you are already an expert? Give me a break.
the iphone not being out makes it even worse
especially for the european market where it's still 1 year away and you can get UMTS phones _today_ .etc
can you download music from itms on your iphone ?
one provider here offers such a service except that you pay 1 buck for the phone and the contract is somewhere around 25 or so per month ( 0cent per minute into 4 networks) but you get the top 40 charts for free every month or something like that
1 year is a lot in the mobile phone business
edit: oh and i just found the W850i and it _has_ a 2mp camera around here (but only 1 GB)
but it only costs _3_ bucks with a contract
the iphone not being out makes it even worse
especially for the european market where it's still 1 year away and you can get UMTS phones _today_ .etc
can you download music from itms on your iphone ?
one provider here offers such a service except that you pay 1 buck for the phone and the contract is somewhere around 25 or so per month ( 0cent per minute into 4 networks) but you get the top 40 charts for free every month or something like that
1 year is a lot in the mobile phone business
edit: oh and i just found the W850i and it _has_ a 2mp camera around here (but only 1 GB)
but it only costs _3_ bucks with a contract
Sun Baked
Aug 3, 07:36 PM
The Volt should sell for no more than $20,000. What a ripoff!!!!
It is going to sell for that much above MSRP, according to some dealers.
So expect to fork out 50-60k for a Volt the first 6-18 months.
It is the new New Beetle, Mini, Mercedes SLK, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Smart Car, etc. which all had some markups the first year.
It is going to sell for that much above MSRP, according to some dealers.
So expect to fork out 50-60k for a Volt the first 6-18 months.
It is the new New Beetle, Mini, Mercedes SLK, Chrysler PT Cruiser, Smart Car, etc. which all had some markups the first year.
SBlue1
May 4, 03:53 AM
I don't really see why Apple will never do that. When Jobs said styluses are crap, obviously he didn't mean styluses as writing devices, he meant styluses as the way to interact with OS.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
Education applications seem to be of some importance to Apple, and stylus support is pretty much required to make iPad useful for students, for example.
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
tell me i'm wrong.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
You are maybe wrong, cause I don't use a stylus. :)
A friend is using one and he said it works perfectly once you find the best stylus. There are a lots of different pens. He tried out a few in the store and he said the bad drawing comes from the cheap pens not because of the ipad screen. Try the griffin stylus if you can test it somewhere.
jonharris200
Jan 5, 04:34 PM
guys don't forget also to quit your chat aps.
imagine:
u wait 3 hours for the stream and then...
an ichat message pops up...
"Hi buddy. I just went down to the apple store and now I'm writing to you with my new iPhone. Yeah.
Wanna come over and check it out?"
:D
Dave
Also switch off mobile, unplug landline, wear iPod, raise volume, close curtains, disconnect TV, put head under pillow, sing loudly ... and retreat to a remote Hebridean island until the keynote is posted.
Alternatively, if you're feeling more extreme...
imagine:
u wait 3 hours for the stream and then...
an ichat message pops up...
"Hi buddy. I just went down to the apple store and now I'm writing to you with my new iPhone. Yeah.
Wanna come over and check it out?"
:D
Dave
Also switch off mobile, unplug landline, wear iPod, raise volume, close curtains, disconnect TV, put head under pillow, sing loudly ... and retreat to a remote Hebridean island until the keynote is posted.
Alternatively, if you're feeling more extreme...
mdntcallr
Oct 2, 05:42 PM
well. i wish apple would allow record companies to sell cd's that are copy protected, with copies of songs in AAC fairplay protected. so that people can also use them digitally.
