marktwain
Nov 23, 06:52 PM
So wait... a $101 discount on the 17" iMac but only a $41 discount on the 24" model? That doesn't make sense. Usually the more expensive the item, the larger the discount.
The dicount is around $100...the highest end model is $2059...the 24" iMac with wireless keyboard and mouse...it's a configuration they stock in the stores.
The dicount is around $100...the highest end model is $2059...the 24" iMac with wireless keyboard and mouse...it's a configuration they stock in the stores.
Hastings101
Apr 5, 03:45 PM
Gee, this sounds exciting
p8ntballguy
Oct 10, 09:48 PM
i made a quick mockup of what it could be like, i left out some details. I changed the dvd icon to a mail/gtube one(youtube) because it supossdly has wi-fi.....opinions?
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/374/ipodmockzr0.jpg
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/374/ipodmockzr0.jpg
iOrlando
Apr 25, 10:26 AM
I think this is a great feature, and long overdue. It is very difficult to actually read through these comment threads once they hit 100 posts or so.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
Few things:
1) I suggest have absolute tallies for the up and down votes. If one post got 300 votes on it, but the up votes offset the down votes, it would end up showing as 0 vs. a relatively obscure post that simply gets 4 up ratings would show up as 4. I want to see the comments that garnered a lot of attention/votes.
2) I also suggest coloring up arrows as green and down arrows as red. Much easier on the eye.
3) For those arguing about abuse with this feature, this site is geared for pro-Apple people, so any sense of impartiality or neutrality within the comments is non-existence. If people come to this site wanting pro-Apple stuff, they shouldn't be faced with trolls and other Apple haters.
more...
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 06:29 PM
It was the french.
hate the french.
Sweeeeeeet! Thanks for clarifying! :eek: ;) :D
hate the french.
Sweeeeeeet! Thanks for clarifying! :eek: ;) :D
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
why would they take the uk store down if there were not going to add movies for us here!! woohoo..
more...
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.
aaronsullivan
Oct 3, 12:40 PM
With Apple focusing on smaller amounts of products at a time and with all the potential announcements, I predict record numbers of disappointed rumor fed drooling frenzy folk.
I love seeing what Apple does with iLife and iWork. I passed on the iWork update last year, I wonder if ol' Steve will convince me this year. I really like iWeb in principle, but we have been juggling computers at home too much to have a good central place for all the pictures and movies... that's due to MacBook intermittent shutdowns... an entirely different issue. Still, we haven't skipped an iLife upgrade since the beginning. We probably won't this year, either.
The good news (in a way) is that there is tons of room for improvement in iPhoto and iWeb. Maybe that was the plan.
Ramble, ramble...
I love seeing what Apple does with iLife and iWork. I passed on the iWork update last year, I wonder if ol' Steve will convince me this year. I really like iWeb in principle, but we have been juggling computers at home too much to have a good central place for all the pictures and movies... that's due to MacBook intermittent shutdowns... an entirely different issue. Still, we haven't skipped an iLife upgrade since the beginning. We probably won't this year, either.
The good news (in a way) is that there is tons of room for improvement in iPhoto and iWeb. Maybe that was the plan.
Ramble, ramble...
more...
steviem
Mar 13, 12:35 PM
Apple used to innovate, right now they have acheived the goal of any capitalist company, they've hit the big time with the iPhone and are resting on their laurels.
Notebooks / Computers, these aren't innovative, infact the PowerPC was innovative, OSX 10.1 was innovative but now... it's got to a point where they don't innovate, Intel does; Nvidia does; AMD does, apple are a box maker using the same components as everyone else.
Apple A series mobile processors, these are innovated by ARM (spun off from Acorn, a british company). Again they don't innovate.
Where they DO innovate is the idea of a vertical system where typically companies have gone to a horizontal view. The innovation is to capture you with something (be it a Apple TV, iMac, iPhone, iPod) and get you into their vertical structure. The innovation comes at creating a market for all possible user needs within this vertical structure, e.g. Movies, Music, Apps... where they can't make it themselves they take a cut from other developers (30% split).
What is innovation?
Apple have done a lot since the PowerPC. In fact, especially in the laptop area, Apple were severly lacking in innovation with the iBook and PowerBook. PowerBook to original MacBook Pro, not a lot changed, but let's look at what has changed since the first MacBook to now.
Apple has found a way of manufacturing beautiful Aluminium cases out of a block of aluminium. During my day job, I work with Dell D-series, E-Series laptops and Macbook Pros. Admittedly, we get less Apple hardware with failure than we do with the Dells, and the 2-3 year old Dells are dropping like flies due to their Nvidia graphics chipsets failing. Last week I had 6 Dell laptops fail and had to replace their motherboards. Which leads me onto another of Apple's innovations. Component layouts. Yes, Apple use the same components as other PCs, they did during the late PowerPC era too (save the processor) and the way they engineer the layout and cooling is just of a much higher quality than Dell, where the parts do seem to be more cobbled together.
Then let's look at 2007. Yes there were Blackberry and Windows Mobile phones around first, but the innovation that Apple made was making smartphones useful to more people. They also helped create an entire new software development industry, in the background they had a tablet, unlike any Tablet PCs, but too hard to make into a product at the time.
Apple are great at taking something already there and making it work either in other applications or making the entire package in a way that their competitors just get confused on how to combat. Look at how Motorola desgined the Xoom, Samsung Designed the Galaxy Tab 10, there's something lacking in these designs in the entire packages. Yes they will be great against the original iPad and its original OS, but look at Garageband and iMovie. The iPad is geting powerful enough to be a device to create on. That is innovation.
I'm not talking about the lower levels of computing. I'm talking about the parts of computing that End Users, who will never see an IDE in their entire lives. This is where computing is being redefined. They're shifting the way people use the "input. Process. Output.Store".
Notebooks / Computers, these aren't innovative, infact the PowerPC was innovative, OSX 10.1 was innovative but now... it's got to a point where they don't innovate, Intel does; Nvidia does; AMD does, apple are a box maker using the same components as everyone else.
Apple A series mobile processors, these are innovated by ARM (spun off from Acorn, a british company). Again they don't innovate.
Where they DO innovate is the idea of a vertical system where typically companies have gone to a horizontal view. The innovation is to capture you with something (be it a Apple TV, iMac, iPhone, iPod) and get you into their vertical structure. The innovation comes at creating a market for all possible user needs within this vertical structure, e.g. Movies, Music, Apps... where they can't make it themselves they take a cut from other developers (30% split).
What is innovation?
Apple have done a lot since the PowerPC. In fact, especially in the laptop area, Apple were severly lacking in innovation with the iBook and PowerBook. PowerBook to original MacBook Pro, not a lot changed, but let's look at what has changed since the first MacBook to now.
Apple has found a way of manufacturing beautiful Aluminium cases out of a block of aluminium. During my day job, I work with Dell D-series, E-Series laptops and Macbook Pros. Admittedly, we get less Apple hardware with failure than we do with the Dells, and the 2-3 year old Dells are dropping like flies due to their Nvidia graphics chipsets failing. Last week I had 6 Dell laptops fail and had to replace their motherboards. Which leads me onto another of Apple's innovations. Component layouts. Yes, Apple use the same components as other PCs, they did during the late PowerPC era too (save the processor) and the way they engineer the layout and cooling is just of a much higher quality than Dell, where the parts do seem to be more cobbled together.
Then let's look at 2007. Yes there were Blackberry and Windows Mobile phones around first, but the innovation that Apple made was making smartphones useful to more people. They also helped create an entire new software development industry, in the background they had a tablet, unlike any Tablet PCs, but too hard to make into a product at the time.
Apple are great at taking something already there and making it work either in other applications or making the entire package in a way that their competitors just get confused on how to combat. Look at how Motorola desgined the Xoom, Samsung Designed the Galaxy Tab 10, there's something lacking in these designs in the entire packages. Yes they will be great against the original iPad and its original OS, but look at Garageband and iMovie. The iPad is geting powerful enough to be a device to create on. That is innovation.
I'm not talking about the lower levels of computing. I'm talking about the parts of computing that End Users, who will never see an IDE in their entire lives. This is where computing is being redefined. They're shifting the way people use the "input. Process. Output.Store".
Yamcha
Apr 29, 10:17 PM
I just installed Mac OS X Lion DP2 on my Hackintosh, and I love it, its amazing, the experience is a lot better then Snow Leopard, only had the opportunity to use it for a while, still fooling around with stuff..
more...
dmr727
Aug 9, 05:33 PM
I completely agree with your position that we should have access to the efficient and modern diesels in this country.
I hear this comment all the time. I was in Europe a few months back, and diesels were all over the place too. I don't know squat about the automotive industry, but given what you guys are saying about diesel's efficiency and so on - it seems to me that offering a modern diesel would be a slam dunk for an automaker in the States.
So it begs the questions - why isn't it happening?
I hear this comment all the time. I was in Europe a few months back, and diesels were all over the place too. I don't know squat about the automotive industry, but given what you guys are saying about diesel's efficiency and so on - it seems to me that offering a modern diesel would be a slam dunk for an automaker in the States.
So it begs the questions - why isn't it happening?
Prom1
Sep 8, 12:30 PM
So much complaints about Kanye West.
If you've never listened to different artists in the HipHop/Rap world since 1979; you shouldnt comment about a) attitude of a performer (on stage) b) whether or not their performance was appropriate for a musical announcement of a product or service.
b) is just self explanatory! Musical engagement that announces big artist contractual aggreements of their wares for sale on the iTMS service. Also announcing products that has worldwide appeal to all walks of people and their choices of music!
a) Hip-Hop arrived in the 1990's, but Rap was around since 1979 (just before RUNDMC) - as a pure content not mixed with funk (Whodini).
RAP - is a definition of a lifestyle, highly competive, never succumbing to your competition, and always making moves. Somebody mentioned that the audience didnt appreciate nor is West's listenership; of course but them being shocked is mostly at the cursing; which has been around in music since day one - Rap included but not alone.
I've passed by Lawyers, Doctors, even a Judge (I know because as a youth I got schooled by her) listening to Kanye West, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah. Why? Because it gives them a motivative sense of power, a sense of "I'm above the rest" that most other genre's of music doesnt provide. Rock N Roll comes really close, but from what I've heard, I cannot pick 10 artists/groups in all their albums that brings it like Rap/Hip-Hop.
Apple has been, well fighting the power since day one! Most people forget that. Think Different may not be Apple's slogan anymore, but its still part of their existence. They dont follow the status quo.
I enjoyed the first GarageBand announcement, even though I dont prefer the music of god I forgot his name. Still all music artists are creative; except those 1 hit wonders.
If you've never listened to different artists in the HipHop/Rap world since 1979; you shouldnt comment about a) attitude of a performer (on stage) b) whether or not their performance was appropriate for a musical announcement of a product or service.
b) is just self explanatory! Musical engagement that announces big artist contractual aggreements of their wares for sale on the iTMS service. Also announcing products that has worldwide appeal to all walks of people and their choices of music!
a) Hip-Hop arrived in the 1990's, but Rap was around since 1979 (just before RUNDMC) - as a pure content not mixed with funk (Whodini).
RAP - is a definition of a lifestyle, highly competive, never succumbing to your competition, and always making moves. Somebody mentioned that the audience didnt appreciate nor is West's listenership; of course but them being shocked is mostly at the cursing; which has been around in music since day one - Rap included but not alone.
I've passed by Lawyers, Doctors, even a Judge (I know because as a youth I got schooled by her) listening to Kanye West, LL Cool J, Queen Latifah. Why? Because it gives them a motivative sense of power, a sense of "I'm above the rest" that most other genre's of music doesnt provide. Rock N Roll comes really close, but from what I've heard, I cannot pick 10 artists/groups in all their albums that brings it like Rap/Hip-Hop.
Apple has been, well fighting the power since day one! Most people forget that. Think Different may not be Apple's slogan anymore, but its still part of their existence. They dont follow the status quo.
I enjoyed the first GarageBand announcement, even though I dont prefer the music of god I forgot his name. Still all music artists are creative; except those 1 hit wonders.
more...
lordonuthin
May 14, 10:02 PM
Been offline for a day cuz of power and then router trouble. but everything is back running on an older linksys router that I had. It should be trouble free. the other one was a wireless router and it would stop working sometimes for no apparent reason.
TomCondon
Apr 5, 03:26 PM
Well, then I'm a complete moron.
Some people are actually interested in marketing, and would love to have a centralized place to view how large companies are advertising on one of the largest mobile spaces in the world.
By all means, go back to playing Doodle Jump.
gladly, be boring.
Those ads are not exactly the pinnacle of creativity
MCRIB BACK
Some people are actually interested in marketing, and would love to have a centralized place to view how large companies are advertising on one of the largest mobile spaces in the world.
By all means, go back to playing Doodle Jump.
gladly, be boring.
Those ads are not exactly the pinnacle of creativity
MCRIB BACK
more...
york2600
Oct 28, 07:49 PM
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
B) If anyone is trying to get software without paying anyone for it, that would be corporate America. Do you really think Apple could have created OS X on their own. Let us remember the HUGE amount of code in OS X that isn't Apple's and the open standards the have leveraged. Right off the bat we have the Mach kernel project, Apache, and Samba and Webkit (KHTML). Apple's gotten tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of free programming hours from top programmers. They've packaged it together with an amazing API and a slick GUI and made it easy. That's something the OSS community still can't get close to. In return Apple has given a limited amount back. They release source in their own license (as they have a right to), which limits the ability of other projects to incorporate that code. In the end for all this free work they have to deal with a few crackers out there, but really, that's worth it when you look at what they got.
A) It's not the OSS community that's trying to crack Apple's DRM. Lets get that straight. These people have nothing to do with that community. These guys are just pirates using the source that is out there.
B) If anyone is trying to get software without paying anyone for it, that would be corporate America. Do you really think Apple could have created OS X on their own. Let us remember the HUGE amount of code in OS X that isn't Apple's and the open standards the have leveraged. Right off the bat we have the Mach kernel project, Apache, and Samba and Webkit (KHTML). Apple's gotten tens of thousands if not hundreds of thousands of free programming hours from top programmers. They've packaged it together with an amazing API and a slick GUI and made it easy. That's something the OSS community still can't get close to. In return Apple has given a limited amount back. They release source in their own license (as they have a right to), which limits the ability of other projects to incorporate that code. In the end for all this free work they have to deal with a few crackers out there, but really, that's worth it when you look at what they got.
Corndog5595
Nov 14, 07:31 PM
I like the game a lot. I am too lazy at the moment to make a list of the things I like and dislike, but just let me say that I like the game more than MW2.
One thing I really like is Wager Matches, but my television is living on borrowed time thanks to them :(.
One thing I really like is Wager Matches, but my television is living on borrowed time thanks to them :(.
more...
glocke12
May 4, 05:38 PM
Guns are within my scope of practice (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rchoi/detail?entry_id=88328)
Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.
If guns are so important to society, why is it taboo to have an adult conversation about their impact on that society?
Sorry, but whether I have guns in my house with my kids is not anyones business but my own.
Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.
If guns are so important to society, why is it taboo to have an adult conversation about their impact on that society?
Sorry, but whether I have guns in my house with my kids is not anyones business but my own.
Highland
Aug 3, 07:48 PM
:eek: Dare!!??? As in double dog dare!!?? As in triple dog dare with a cherry on top!!?? ( Don't get your bowels in an uproar, I'm only teasing!!:D )
I'm not upset :)
I just find it really strange for people to defend questionable actions of large companies!
Justin Bieber New 2011 Hair
I'm not upset :)
I just find it really strange for people to defend questionable actions of large companies!
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 04:38 PM
Maybe I'm being harsh, maybe what the world really needs is a 3 hour Zoomba infomercial app. Or an app extolling the benefits of the snuggie. And the excuse 'hey dude, I work in advertising' is not a good reason to criticise people who see this app for what it is, a pile of s***. If you work in advertising, the best thing you could do is make a note of the fact that everyone who DOESN'T work in advertising thinks this is a pile of s*** and modify your advertising strategy accordingly.
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
But clearly, anyone who claims they may find the iAd Gallery App useful is instantly labeled a 'Moron', tarred, feathered and burned at the stake. Apparently you seem to have extensive knowledge of what everyone else thinks. Have you taken a survey of EVERYONE who DOESN'T work in advertising to confirm your assessment that the iAd App is a 'Pile of ****'? Add to that, your Burger King analogy is invalid because you can't possibly claim that EVERYONE hates Burger King. The only claim you could possibly make from any of this is that the majority of MacRumors forum members commenting on this post are grossly mis-informed and incredibly immature.
It's like people at burger king reacting to the fact that everyone hates burger king by saying 'these burgers are useful to me, because I work at burger king'
But clearly, anyone who claims they may find the iAd Gallery App useful is instantly labeled a 'Moron', tarred, feathered and burned at the stake. Apparently you seem to have extensive knowledge of what everyone else thinks. Have you taken a survey of EVERYONE who DOESN'T work in advertising to confirm your assessment that the iAd App is a 'Pile of ****'? Add to that, your Burger King analogy is invalid because you can't possibly claim that EVERYONE hates Burger King. The only claim you could possibly make from any of this is that the majority of MacRumors forum members commenting on this post are grossly mis-informed and incredibly immature.
franswa za
May 2, 10:26 AM
No thanks.
thanks, much ado about nothing
people, stop over-reacting about this NON issue
or sue.........
sent from my white ipad2 from afrika
steve
thanks, much ado about nothing
people, stop over-reacting about this NON issue
or sue.........
sent from my white ipad2 from afrika
steve
blanding
Dec 26, 07:33 AM
oh, i already received it ,i like it very much.
triceretops
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Wish this post would have gone up earlier. We could have had a cake.:mad:
Homy
Jan 12, 07:27 PM
he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time.No, not in a couple of weeks. He actually said "Over the course of the next several months we're gonna roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac".
quagmire
Dec 4, 07:55 PM
People who do that take away the fun of the game. They are more worried about their achievements or stats then having fun. That is why I can't stand campers.
No comments:
Post a Comment