MacAodh
Sep 12, 05:38 AM
i've a feeling that there's some wierd law that i heard of that all films being launched europe wide had to be launched simultanously in all languages. not sure if that's true or not but that might affect european films coming through (sorry bout the spelling, me no like words :) )
slb
Oct 29, 02:26 AM
Well, Logic Pro 7 has been cracked and can be downloaded via usenet...
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
CasaRed
Jul 27, 03:36 PM
I agree that as priced that the majority of people getting this car would lease it. Keep in mind though that if you have a daily commute of less than 40 miles, you'll seldom need to purchase gasoline, so compared to a regular car or even a Prius, those savings will add up faster.
Either way, at this point this car seems to be at an early-adopter stage where you would expect to be paying a premium until it becomes more of a commodity or there's more competitors in the space. Kinda like how a 5gb iPod used to cost $400. ;)
Either way, at this point this car seems to be at an early-adopter stage where you would expect to be paying a premium until it becomes more of a commodity or there's more competitors in the space. Kinda like how a 5gb iPod used to cost $400. ;)
Anthony T
Apr 15, 04:41 PM
I was all for having an aluminum design, but not if it looks like that. That thing is just ugly. I like this concept the most, just without the circle around the Apple logo, and none of those ugly colors like the pink, blue, green, etc.
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
http://cdn.erictric.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/iphone-4g-concept-3-march-4.jpg
more...
Links
Aug 14, 09:37 PM
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Cooknn
Sep 12, 09:20 AM
Perhaps they'll include HD-DVD burners in the new MBP's. :)I figure that's why the new Mac Pro's come with the extra optical drive bay - to accomodate a Blu-Ray / HD-DVD drive when they hit the streets. Then we can burn true HD content (with Dolby Digital EX sound).
more...
takao
Nov 15, 07:04 PM
my personal gripes/opinions:
single player:
* so far graphically it's more on the miss side comapred to bad company 2
* game design: pop up enemies and respawns in plain sight: get a grip this is 2010 calling
*frustrating check points where you respawn directly with an enemy 1 step behind you
*i like the story etc. especially some of non fighting scenes .. of which there are simply too few so far... for my taste it's simply too much nonstop shooting and too little actually tense moments
*on the negative side i can only take so many "my character lies on the ground and get's kicked/punched in the face scenes"
*also i didn't get big point being made about <20thcenturyvilliancountry> secretly having developed <plotdeviceWMD> in <lastyearofwarXYZ> when in reality they had developed other <sametypeofWMDs> even before they started the war ? also why make up artificial <WMDs> when real ones could have been easily used ?
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
single player:
* so far graphically it's more on the miss side comapred to bad company 2
* game design: pop up enemies and respawns in plain sight: get a grip this is 2010 calling
*frustrating check points where you respawn directly with an enemy 1 step behind you
*i like the story etc. especially some of non fighting scenes .. of which there are simply too few so far... for my taste it's simply too much nonstop shooting and too little actually tense moments
*on the negative side i can only take so many "my character lies on the ground and get's kicked/punched in the face scenes"
*also i didn't get big point being made about <20thcenturyvilliancountry> secretly having developed <plotdeviceWMD> in <lastyearofwarXYZ> when in reality they had developed other <sametypeofWMDs> even before they started the war ? also why make up artificial <WMDs> when real ones could have been easily used ?
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
trunten
Apr 5, 03:03 PM
Next up, iAd the movie!
more...
amin
Oct 10, 09:07 PM
Yeah, Apple isn't going to sit back and let Zune steal its lunch!
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
Can't speak for the others, but as a happy new 80GB iPod owner, I wouldn't be bummed. A new iPod doesn't make mine any less great!
Those who bought the 5.5g ipods lately probably are going to feel bummed.
Can't speak for the others, but as a happy new 80GB iPod owner, I wouldn't be bummed. A new iPod doesn't make mine any less great!
Blakjack
Mar 17, 07:15 AM
Lay off the OP. Half of u are dogging him and would have done the same thing. Thats the sad part
more...
TheSlush
Apr 15, 01:17 PM
Kind of inspired by... ? LOL
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/09/zune_back.jpg
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2009/09/zune_back.jpg
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.
more...
Yvan256
Aug 1, 01:11 PM
"the songs can only be played on Apple's iPod"
I'm really tired of hearing this. First of all, people are not forced to buy from the iTMS, CDs still exist.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
I'm really tired of hearing this. First of all, people are not forced to buy from the iTMS, CDs still exist.
Second, the songs can be played on a Mac computer with iTunes, a Windows computer with iTunes, iPods. They can also be burned to an audio CD which can be played on millions of devices.
How is that "iPod-only"?! :confused:
GQB
Apr 16, 12:05 AM
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
Name anything that did not build upon previous knowledge.
The 'Apple hasn't invented anything' meme is such nonsense.
Making things usable and desired is probably the biggest invention possible.
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
Yeah... And how's that Curve doing?
more...
eawmp1
Apr 12, 06:37 PM
Clip has absolutely no context, so hard to tell if reasonable. Did she trip the metal detectors? Did something show on body scan? Did mom refuse body scan? Were they acting suspicious?
I agree the current screening policies are ridiculous. I'll play devil's advocate. Drugs have been smuggled on children. Why couldn't bombs be stashed on them?
I agree the current screening policies are ridiculous. I'll play devil's advocate. Drugs have been smuggled on children. Why couldn't bombs be stashed on them?
Eidorian
Nov 16, 05:08 PM
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.Yeah, I got an email for that page ages ago. Looks like they might have brought it to the front store page and maybe some hidden Black Friday updates.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.Yeah, I got an email for that page ages ago. Looks like they might have brought it to the front store page and maybe some hidden Black Friday updates.
more...
amols
Sep 12, 12:25 AM
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
It's a start. What's tricky is the execution itself. Other studios will join the bandwagon like they did with music store.
It's a start. What's tricky is the execution itself. Other studios will join the bandwagon like they did with music store.
MacRumors
May 2, 09:25 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/02/ios-4-3-3-coming-soon-to-address-location-tracking-bugs/)
As part of its comments (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/) on the recent iOS location-tracking controversy, Apple acknowledged several bugs in the mobile operating system that have led to more data than originally intended being stored on devices and caused data to be stored even when Location Services are disabled. The company reported that the issues would be addressed in a software update to be addressed "sometime in the next few weeks".
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/102216-bgr_ios_4_3_3.jpg
sucumban a la bulimia,
As part of its comments (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/27/apple-officially-addresses-location-data-controversy/) on the recent iOS location-tracking controversy, Apple acknowledged several bugs in the mobile operating system that have led to more data than originally intended being stored on devices and caused data to be stored even when Location Services are disabled. The company reported that the issues would be addressed in a software update to be addressed "sometime in the next few weeks".
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/02/102216-bgr_ios_4_3_3.jpg
one1
May 4, 10:32 AM
It's basically the ultimate "access" machine. Just yesterday I used my phone as a dictionary, store, terminal to enterprise software, link to external contact database. (also made some phone calls) iPad would be similar. Lookup, lookup, lookup. Web browsing is covered under that, too.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
What, you don't carry a projector in your back pocket? :D Even with the retina display I feel like my i4 is just too small to really "show anyone" anything on. It's almost like a toy coming out of the pocket when you are in a serious situation. The iPad produces a more serious tone to it. Still, if at all possible I use my iPhone much more because it doesn't take both hands to manage it. There will always be the size advantage/disadvantage between the two.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
What, you don't carry a projector in your back pocket? :D Even with the retina display I feel like my i4 is just too small to really "show anyone" anything on. It's almost like a toy coming out of the pocket when you are in a serious situation. The iPad produces a more serious tone to it. Still, if at all possible I use my iPhone much more because it doesn't take both hands to manage it. There will always be the size advantage/disadvantage between the two.
Belly-laughs
Oct 3, 01:35 PM
I�m guessing we�ll see iTV coupled with iPod Hi-Fi wireless + iPod Hi-Fi mini satellites.
sunfast
Nov 16, 12:41 PM
I can't see Apple ditching intel this early somehow.
unless Intel ****s up...
slips up? Tell me I'm right! :D
unless Intel ****s up...
slips up? Tell me I'm right! :D
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:05 AM
So tell me since you seem to be so wise, what would you do to fix this problem? Rather than tear down the current solution how about telling us what you would do to FIX it? We clearly can't get rid of screening as that leaves us open for attack using planes as missles.
Very simple. The way MOSSAD has done it for decades on El Al planes. 2 armed Sky Marshals on the plane. Problem solved. And it's cheaper and less intrusive. The problem is that the airlines don't want to give up 2 business class seats behind the cockpit.
Very simple. The way MOSSAD has done it for decades on El Al planes. 2 armed Sky Marshals on the plane. Problem solved. And it's cheaper and less intrusive. The problem is that the airlines don't want to give up 2 business class seats behind the cockpit.
Cerda
Apr 15, 12:26 PM
its very Ugly
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 04:54 PM
Sounds like the Record companies are being their typical stupid selves. Only reason Apple is really able to get away with it is because they are Apple. It is not the closed system part but because they are Apple. I bet if the record company could they would say F you to Apple and pull out. I also would not be surpised if they regreat now making a deal with them when iTunes first launched.
Amazon on it cloud stuff just said F-You to the record company and Amazon has enough sells like Apple iTMS that they can force the music company to bend over and take it.
This stinks over all. It is not closed or open argument. This is a record company being record companies.
Amazon on it cloud stuff just said F-You to the record company and Amazon has enough sells like Apple iTMS that they can force the music company to bend over and take it.
This stinks over all. It is not closed or open argument. This is a record company being record companies.
No comments:
Post a Comment