Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:39 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid....
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
tkermit
Apr 5, 03:27 PM
That's so awesome! :D
NOT! :rolleyes:
NOT! :rolleyes:
Eye4Desyn
Apr 16, 07:09 AM
I'm calling it B.S. for sure. The shell geometry is insanely archaic and looks nothing like the fluidic form-factor seen on current and previous iPhones as well as the iPad. Creases where edges and surfaces meet are way too harsh for Apple's I.D. standards. FAKE!!
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 10:06 AM
I think grotesque should be a word reserved for murderers and child pornographers, not some dude who got a very cheap iPad due to some employee error. We're pretty much all adults here- there's no need to lecture people on morals and what their personal character may or may not include.
I think stealing, gloating, and putting someone's job at risk is grotesque. The OP walked out of BB knowing the cashier had made a mistake and decided to keep quiet. Anyone who has a concious would have gone back.
I think stealing, gloating, and putting someone's job at risk is grotesque. The OP walked out of BB knowing the cashier had made a mistake and decided to keep quiet. Anyone who has a concious would have gone back.
BlueRevolution
Oct 28, 02:36 PM
That's hardly surprising. I'm more interested in the 100% legal bit - it's interesting that Apple hasn't yet moved to explicitly ban running OS X on non-Apple hardware.
hamlin
Nov 8, 03:11 PM
I pre-ordered it for PS3 from ebgames. I'll pick it up after work tomorrow.
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
The best was COD 4: MW. That set the bar for COD games.
Swift
Apr 15, 07:20 PM
Notice? They're "open." They have "principles." They're renegades, and they don't have anybody to negotiate, hard-nose, one-to-one, with the old-line companies. They really look down on them anyway. Google Books? They just went ahead and copied millions of them, and then looked around like little angels when the Authors and Publishers said, "No way!" Google TV? Nice idea, but very poor execution -- and no deals with networks or movie companies. So you have to search, a la Google, for previews of movies only. No Hulu. It seems like there's no licensing at all, except maybe Netflix, but then, Netflix goes everywhere.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
This is the fundamental problem with Google. Nobody makes any money anywhere they go, except, well, Google.
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
You're probably looking into the future.
Absolutely correct!
What I meant is that a competitor, that might stick around, would be a good thing for iTunes store users in terms of both pricing & usability. I don't have any particular beef with iTunes store - it is fine, but who knows what sort of improvements some decent competition might bring.
What about Amazon? Jobs made the big fuss about ending DRM, but he kept negotiating with the labels unsuccessfully, because he didn't want variable pricing either. So all the labels gave DRM-free tracks to Amazon. No DRM, but variable pricing. Jobs had to cave eventually.
SockRolid
Apr 15, 01:13 PM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
Yes, the photoshopper got the perspective and angle wrong on text in the 3rd shot. Also, the volume switch hole shading is obviously off.
All that, plus the graininess of the image is exactly what you would get when you apply the "noise" filter in photoshop. Not what you would get from the natural low-light graininess of either high speed color film or digital cameras.
I'm not a photoshop pro, but I've photoshopped tons of color slides and digital images and all 3 of the images look fake to me. Having said that, as much as I love my '08 iPhone 3G, I think it's time for either a mostly-aluminum or zirconium dioxide redesign in 2010.
Apple has apparently patented some kind of zirconium dioxide manufacturing process for electronics enclosures. It's strong material, won't scratch, and is radio-transparent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium_dioxide
Yes, the photoshopper got the perspective and angle wrong on text in the 3rd shot. Also, the volume switch hole shading is obviously off.
All that, plus the graininess of the image is exactly what you would get when you apply the "noise" filter in photoshop. Not what you would get from the natural low-light graininess of either high speed color film or digital cameras.
I'm not a photoshop pro, but I've photoshopped tons of color slides and digital images and all 3 of the images look fake to me. Having said that, as much as I love my '08 iPhone 3G, I think it's time for either a mostly-aluminum or zirconium dioxide redesign in 2010.
Apple has apparently patented some kind of zirconium dioxide manufacturing process for electronics enclosures. It's strong material, won't scratch, and is radio-transparent: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zirconium_dioxide
TeppefallGuy
Aug 2, 12:50 PM
Apple�s response is linked as a PDF. Norwegian text and partially censored with a big black marker.
http://www.nettavisen.no/it/article699846.ece
Nettavisen
"We will not give up, we believe that this is an important consumer question and that the product lock-in they (Apple) have is unreasonable. The Ombudsman believes that locking music to a certain brand of player - is a problem that affects many people. Most people have cell phones that can take many songs, but all the music I have bought from iTunes I can�t listen to via my cell phone, she says."
(direct translation and no cleanup so it�s a bit rough)
-- TeppefallGuy Newsroom --
http://www.nettavisen.no/it/article699846.ece
Nettavisen
"We will not give up, we believe that this is an important consumer question and that the product lock-in they (Apple) have is unreasonable. The Ombudsman believes that locking music to a certain brand of player - is a problem that affects many people. Most people have cell phones that can take many songs, but all the music I have bought from iTunes I can�t listen to via my cell phone, she says."
(direct translation and no cleanup so it�s a bit rough)
-- TeppefallGuy Newsroom --
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.
vendettabass
Nov 16, 04:23 PM
uk store down too.. my moneys on maintenence
davepoint
Aug 9, 12:31 PM
This has been a continual problem with the 23". With decent color management you can "fix" the cast by changing the RGB values sent to the monitor in an effort to counterbalance the pink. This has limitations, however, and tends to impact the overall consistency of color reproduction.
Most color-savvy companies will agree that the 20" and especially the 30" are more suited to color-managed workflows. Hopefully this new generation fixes that.
The pink cast etc are the main things holding me back, and even if they are 'really' fixed with this revision there's still the dodginess of whether or not you're getting a new or old revision. I suppose if you buy direct from the apple store that would be less of an issue but then it's a hassle if you need to return it etc
Most color-savvy companies will agree that the 20" and especially the 30" are more suited to color-managed workflows. Hopefully this new generation fixes that.
The pink cast etc are the main things holding me back, and even if they are 'really' fixed with this revision there's still the dodginess of whether or not you're getting a new or old revision. I suppose if you buy direct from the apple store that would be less of an issue but then it's a hassle if you need to return it etc
donlphi
Sep 25, 11:01 AM
So... what are we supposed to run this monstrosity on? The G5 QUADS had a hard enough time running the first one. I can't imagine running this on an iMac or worse... a mac mini.
JOKE JOKE JOKE
JOKE JOKE JOKE
overbyte
Jan 10, 07:09 AM
dell are making the latitude xt with mutitouch and stylus support (built by n-trig and notable because both actions are governed by the same hardware rather than 2 competing systems as seen on previous touch/stylus tablets)
it sucks that apple hasn't done anything for it's traditional design audience - i can't believe that i'm actually thinking about going over to pc so that i can do what i want with my hardware rather than waiting for apple to deign to look in my direction
pah
would be nice if they did tho - asus said the tablet was on it's way and n-trig have hinted about 'other hardware manufacturers' being quite keen on their tech
it sucks that apple hasn't done anything for it's traditional design audience - i can't believe that i'm actually thinking about going over to pc so that i can do what i want with my hardware rather than waiting for apple to deign to look in my direction
pah
would be nice if they did tho - asus said the tablet was on it's way and n-trig have hinted about 'other hardware manufacturers' being quite keen on their tech
Northgrove
May 3, 02:26 PM
Fees for the data for that one device. But please don't start a "tethering is awesome v. tethering is against the rules" war here, there's plenty of other threads for that.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
vnle
Apr 10, 06:56 PM
Similar tastes...I have the 23" and M10's as well. But where did you find black Swans?...unless it's painted after the fact
Not the OP but here ya go! (http://lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Not the OP but here ya go! (http://lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Erwin-Br
May 4, 04:51 PM
But by not signing you ARE doing something about it: Hitting the provider's bottom line and that, possibly more than anything else, will lead them to make changes.
And they will know exactly what to change by reading your mind?
You have to open your mouth to be heard, sir.
And they will know exactly what to change by reading your mind?
You have to open your mouth to be heard, sir.
someguy
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
Will we be able to watch this event live? How will coverage (if there will be any) be brought to us?
Leoff
Oct 29, 05:50 AM
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.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
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.
What's funny is, you could easily swap "Software" for "Hardware" in your little mantra and it still rings just as true.
"Apple is a Software Company"
"If they didn't sell the Mac OS they would be out of business"
"The Hardware is what makes the Software valuable"
"The Hardware is easy to use and works well"
"If they Hardware worked with any software, it would not be so easy to use"
"It would also not work so well"
Apple is not a hardware company, it is a computer company. There is quite a difference. Apple has a symbiotic relationship between it's hardware and software. One without the other, the company would be dead.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:41 AM
Where is The Gong anyway? Dont tell Chundles but Im his stalker!
Little over an hour south of Sydney.
Looks like I'm slowing the thread down a bit. Good, people need to stop and have a breath for a second.
Little over an hour south of Sydney.
Looks like I'm slowing the thread down a bit. Good, people need to stop and have a breath for a second.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 9, 12:06 PM
Other than keeping applications in self-contained folders, I don't see any of this as copying. Even so, having applications run as self-contained folders isn't even an Apple idea.
Different Microsoft IE versions for mobile phones, and computers? OH NOES!! :eek:
Built-in PDF reader?! OMG!! What next, will Windows let you resize windows from all 4 corners rather than.......oh wait, it already does.
yeah that was my though on it.
Something like Time Machine was not even an Apple idea to begin with and I know MS has been working on it a very long time.
I also know the built-in PDF reader has taken so long because of fears with Adobe. Hell to be able to save to PDF in Office MS had to make it an option to download it from them and install it. It could not be installed by default because of Adobe.
Sounds like MS either is paying Adobe a small fee or they are done being scared. It is not like Acrobat reader is anything more than just a PDF reader. Something the OS as sorely needed built in.
Different Microsoft IE versions for mobile phones, and computers? OH NOES!! :eek:
Built-in PDF reader?! OMG!! What next, will Windows let you resize windows from all 4 corners rather than.......oh wait, it already does.
yeah that was my though on it.
Something like Time Machine was not even an Apple idea to begin with and I know MS has been working on it a very long time.
I also know the built-in PDF reader has taken so long because of fears with Adobe. Hell to be able to save to PDF in Office MS had to make it an option to download it from them and install it. It could not be installed by default because of Adobe.
Sounds like MS either is paying Adobe a small fee or they are done being scared. It is not like Acrobat reader is anything more than just a PDF reader. Something the OS as sorely needed built in.
MacRumors
Oct 3, 12:15 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
Coming as little surprise to veteran Apple watchers, IDG World Expo announced on Tuesday that Apple CEO Steve Jobs would deliver the opening keynote address (http://www.macworld.com/news/2006/10/03/jobs/index.php) at Macworld Expo San Francisco. The expo will be held at San Francisco's Moscone Convention Center from January 8-12, with the keynote on Tuesday January 9th at 9 am Pacific at Moscone West.
Last year's keynote brought software updates including iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110141828.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142618.shtml) 06 and Mac OS X 10.4.4 (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110180240.shtml). Also, the first Intel Macs were announced 6 months early in the form of the iMac (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142730.shtml) and MacBook Pro (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/01/20060110142811.shtml).
While still early, this year's expectations have already begun to gain steam, with obvious expectations of iLife (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802125923.shtml) and iWork (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060717122553.shtml) updates as well as the formal launch of the "iTV". Also possible is Apple's long-awaited phone and similarly long-awaited "true" video iPod, although both products have seen several setbacks. Lastly, with OS 10.5 Leopard's release around the corner, Jobs will undoubtedly take the opportunity to highlight some already announced (and perhaps some remaining "top-secret") features of the new operating system.
Digg This (http://digg.com/apple/Steve_Jobs_To_Keynote_Macworld_San_Francisco_2007)
alexprice
Jan 9, 04:28 PM
How long does it usually take before they post the stream? I'm dying to watch it!
"Good things come to those who wait"
I won't give any info, but for those waiting to see it and don't know anything about whats been shown.... its all really cool.
"Good things come to those who wait"
I won't give any info, but for those waiting to see it and don't know anything about whats been shown.... its all really cool.
MCIowaRulz
Mar 24, 06:20 PM
I remember using OS 10.1.5 at home when my school was hell bent on using OS 9.
I skipped 10.2 but 10.3 and 10.4 I have this year FINALLY I am making the leap to Lion!
With a new iMac sandy bridge:)
I skipped 10.2 but 10.3 and 10.4 I have this year FINALLY I am making the leap to Lion!
With a new iMac sandy bridge:)
No comments:
Post a Comment