Roy Hobbs
Aug 2, 01:38 PM
If you 'can't have cameras' dont use them. It doesnt matter if they are built in. And for people with dual monitors they will have... er... oh yeh two cameras :D
It does matter if they are built in or not......many government facilities adn the like will not allow ANY cameras in the building regardless if you are using them or not. More and more companies are implementing policies like this.
It does matter if they are built in or not......many government facilities adn the like will not allow ANY cameras in the building regardless if you are using them or not. More and more companies are implementing policies like this.
EricNau
May 3, 09:48 PM
I don't have the time to write an exhaustive response to this magnum opus, but I'm going to leave with a few concluding points:
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
It doesn't matter what normal body temperature is because that's not what people are looking for when they take a temperature; they're looking for what's not normal. If it can be helped, the number one is seeking should be as flat as possible.
There is a distinctive quality about 100 that is special. It represents an additional place value and is a line of demarcation for most people. For a scientist or professional, the numbers seem the same (each with 3 digits ending in the tenths place), but to the lay user they are very different. The average person doesn't know what significant digits are or when rounding is appropriate. It's far more likely that someone will falsely remember "37.2" as "37" than they will "99" as "98.6." Even if they do make an error and think of 98.6 as 99, it is an error on the side of caution (because presumably they will take their child to the doctor or at least call in).
I realize this makes me seem like I put people in low regard, but the fact is that most things designed for common use are meant to be idiot-proof. Redundancies and warnings are hard to miss in such designs, and on a temperature scale, one that makes 100 "dangerous" is very practical and effective. You have to keep in mind that this scale is going to be used by the illiterate, functionally illiterate, the negligent, the careless, the sloppy, and the hurried.
The importance of additional digits finds its way into many facets of life, including advertising and pricing. It essentially the only reason why everything is sold at intervals of "xx.99" instead of a flat price point. Marketers have long determined that if they were to round up to the nearest whole number, it would make the price seem disproportionately larger. The same "trick" is being used by the Fahrenheit scale; the presence of the additional digit makes people more alarmed at the appropriate time.
I believe the discussion of body temperature has reached a senseless level. I disagree with your claim that body temperatures in celsius are more difficult to remember, and I don't believe there's any substatial evidence to support this claim. Regardless, Celsius seems to work just fine for the entire world (...practically), unless you know something about European mothers that I don't.
Of course any amateur baker has at least a few cups of both wet and dry so they can keep ingredients separated but measured when they need to be added in a precise order. It just isn't practical to bake with 3 measuring devices and a scale (which, let's be real here, would cost 5 times as much as a set of measuring cups).
I see no reason why baking with a scale is impractical. It's not what you're used to, but that doesn't reflect upon the merits of a metric system.
This also relies on having recipes with written weights as opposed to volumes. It would also be problematic because you'd make people relearn common measurements for the metric beaker because they couldn't have their cups (ie I know 1 egg is half a cup, so it's easy to put half an egg in a recipe-I would have to do milimeter devision to figure this out for a metric recipe even though there's a perfectly good standard device for it).
Written weights are more accurate. What's problematic is that there's an additional requirement for measuring volumes of dry goods. Flour must be measured after sifting, brown sugar must be packed, etc. Not only does weighing dry goods eliminate the need to standardization of volume, but it's always going to be more accurate.
So what would you call 500ml of beer at a bar? Would everyone refer to the spoon at the dinner table as "the 30?" The naming convention isn't going to disappear just because measurements are given in metric. Or are you saying that the naming convention should disappear and numbers used exclusively in their stead?
As balmaw explained, it doesn't really matter what you call a pint of beer at a bar. Every culture and language has their own name for it.
In that case, what would I call 1 cup of a drink? Even if it is made flat at 200, 250, or 300ml, what would be the name? I think by and large it would still be called a cup. In that case you aren't really accomplishing much because people are going to refer to it as they will and the metric quantity wouldn't really do anything because it's not something that people usually divide or multiply by 10 very often in daily life.
If you ask for a "cup of water" at a restaurant, will you be given exactly 8oz? I don't think so.
Most cups hold more than a cup. So, in the absence of a measuring cup, there's really no need for such a designation. So, assuming we do away with the customary system, why do you need a word to describe 8oz of water? You would stop thinking in cups and start thinking in quarter liter intervals (which is equally, if not more, convenient).
No, that would be 1/4 of a liter, not 4 liters. I'm assuming that without gallons, the most closely analogous metric quantity would be 4 liters. What would be the marketing term for this? The shorthand name that would allow people to express a quantity without referring to another number?
I believe milk in Germany is bought by the liter, though I'm sure European members here could elaborate on that.
You might find purchasing milk by the liter cumbersome, but it works well for them.
Well I'm assuming that beer would have to be served in metric quantities, and a pint is known the world over as a beer. You can't really expect the name to go out of use just because the quantity has changed by a factor of about 25ml.
Beer is served in metric quantities all over the world. ...And there are plenty of names for it that aren't "pint." Additionally, I assure you that an American pint of beer is served with less precision than 25ml from bar to bar.
Except you can't divide the servings people usually take for themselves very easily by 2, 4, 8, or 16. An eighth of 300ml (a hypothetical metric cup), for example, is a decimal. It's not very probable that if someone was to describe how much cream they added to their coffee they'd describe it as "37.5ml." It's more likely that they'll say "1/4 of x" or "2 of y." This is how the standard system was born; people took everyday quantities (often times as random as fists, feet, and gulps) and over time standardized them.
And metric units, too, are used the world over to describe household amounts.
Also, dividing 300ml (though, I find it interesting that you keep choosing to compare metric units to customary units, since this is counter-productive) can easily be rounded to 38 or even 40ml, which is precise enough even for baking.
Though it's entirely a moot point. Metric recipes are normalized to "easy" measurements, just like American recipes are normalized to the nearest cup or 1/2 for items like flour and sugar.
Every standard unit conforms to a value we are likely to see to this day (a man's foot is still about 12 inches, a tablespoon is about one bite, etc). Granted it's not scientific, but it's not meant to be. It's meant to be practical to describe everyday units, much like "lion" is not the full scientific name for panthera leo. One naming scheme makes sense for one application and another makes sense for a very different application. I whole heartedly agree that for scientific, industrial, and official uses metric is the way to go, but it is not the way to go for lay people. People are not scientists. They should use the measuring schemes that are practical for the things in their lives.
I don't find the customary system practical. To the contrary, I find it convoluted with no consistency.
It's onerous to learn how to multiply and divide by 10 + 3 root words? :confused: Besides, so many things in our daily lives have both unit scales. My ruler has inches and cm and mm. Bathroom scales have pounds and kg. Even measuring cups have ml written on them.
I've witnessed many students struggle with it. When you grow up using Fahrenheit, feet, miles, inches, cups, teaspoons, etc. you get a sense of what each one means; you can "feel" it. The same can't be said about the metric system for most Americans, and it's extremely difficult to teach yourself what each unit intuitively represents as a high school student, for example.
It's something many of us will never get. Kilometers, Celsius, liters, centimeters, etc. will always "feel" foreign because of the units we were raised with at home. We owe our kids better.
Caliber26
Mar 29, 02:46 PM
I'm really neutral toward all this, but I really just have one very valid question.......... Why, WHY does EVERYTHING Amazon does have to be sooooooooooooo DISGUSTINGLY HIDEOUS!!!??? :rolleyes:
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
craigslist.org? :p
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
craigslist.org? :p
Gasu E.
Mar 29, 03:37 PM
I dont understand the point of this. Is storage really an issue on peoples computers? I understand the mobile app, but why not just store the files locally?
You can access it from any device, and it's still there if your house burns down.
You can access it from any device, and it's still there if your house burns down.
ChrisTX
Mar 27, 12:16 AM
If true...sounds like iPhone 3GS and iPad 1 owners are going to be shown the door.
We'll see, but I plan to upgrade from my iPad 1 to an iPad 3 when available anyways.
We'll see, but I plan to upgrade from my iPad 1 to an iPad 3 when available anyways.
CellarDoor
Aug 4, 01:58 PM
what do you mean, with 64-bit software or 32-bit software?
i assumed software optimized for 64 bit hardware.
i assumed software optimized for 64 bit hardware.
vincenz
Apr 18, 03:14 PM
couldn't Samsung simply get back at Apple by NOT making Apple's stuff? I mean, come on.
They would stand to lose a lot of money if they decided overnight that they are not going to deal with Apple anymore.
They would stand to lose a lot of money if they decided overnight that they are not going to deal with Apple anymore.
QCassidy352
Aug 11, 12:33 PM
I've said all along the imac will get conroe. With woodcrest in the mac pro, I'd say it's pretty well guaranteed. The imac only got a laptop processor because it was the only choice. From here on out it'll get the desktop processor it deserves.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
I also think the macbook will get merom sooner rather than later. The two lines will still be differentiated by size, screen res, casing, backlit keys, dedicated graphics, and express card slot. The macbook needs to compete against PC laptops, not the macbook pro. The processors will pretty similar on the G4 laptops before intel (1.33/1.42 for the ibook, 1.5/1.67 for the powerbook) and yet there were still plenty of compelling reasons to go for the powerbook. Same thing still applies.
Josias
Sep 16, 02:55 AM
I believe the new macbook pro merom's will be .1-.3 inches thicker, and POSSIBLY incorporate a new blu-ray DVD burner, 160GB HD, ATI X1800 Graphics card, and improved display to 1920X1200 for 17". I believe this to be true based on the information gathered from brenthaven's website, showing the 12/15 pro case that is out of stock is 1/4" thicker in the space needed to hold the macbook. The only reason for this is if they know "something" we don't...such as a thicker machine. Also, they are coming out around the 26th-30th. Maybe? what do you guys think?
Hello
My name is Mr. Burns.
Goodday Mr. Burns, may I ask what your first name is?
...I don't know.
WTF?!!?
The 12/15" Pro cases are designed for the 12/15" PowerBooks which were 2.8 and 3.0 cm thick.
You may be right about the 160 GB HDD option and the X1800.
There is no way the MBP's will recieve resolution upgrades before Leopard. Santa Rosa MBP's will definiantly be bumped to 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Tiger is resolution dependent, which means that a higher DPI would make it nearly impossible to see anything.
Why would they put Blu-Ray drives in? And where would they get them from? Sony just moved the release of PS3 in Europe to March '07 duo to lack of sufficient Blu Ray readers.
At last, why 26th-30th? Why would Apple have a large event where it would be appropriate to release MBP's, and then instead announce 1-4 days after? I believe it might be a few days prior to Photokina, as the iMac was before the Paris Expo.;)
Hello
My name is Mr. Burns.
Goodday Mr. Burns, may I ask what your first name is?
...I don't know.
WTF?!!?
The 12/15" Pro cases are designed for the 12/15" PowerBooks which were 2.8 and 3.0 cm thick.
You may be right about the 160 GB HDD option and the X1800.
There is no way the MBP's will recieve resolution upgrades before Leopard. Santa Rosa MBP's will definiantly be bumped to 1680x1050 and 1920x1200. Tiger is resolution dependent, which means that a higher DPI would make it nearly impossible to see anything.
Why would they put Blu-Ray drives in? And where would they get them from? Sony just moved the release of PS3 in Europe to March '07 duo to lack of sufficient Blu Ray readers.
At last, why 26th-30th? Why would Apple have a large event where it would be appropriate to release MBP's, and then instead announce 1-4 days after? I believe it might be a few days prior to Photokina, as the iMac was before the Paris Expo.;)
Gepat
Jul 30, 05:06 AM
I guess the guy who told you that story can kiss his career (with apple) goodbye ;) There's not that many photographers who take pictures of upcoming Apple products ...
Anyway, I can't wait to see the phone...
Anyway, I can't wait to see the phone...
mcrain
Apr 18, 11:59 AM
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
Of course people don't "want" risk. But, again, you MISSED THE POINT. Let's try again. People want to take their savings and invest it in the safest investment with the return they desire. If US treasuries beat the stock market, no one would trade stocks If trading in established fortune 500 companies beat out riskier investments, would anyone trade riskier stocks? The answer is probably someone foolish would, but the majority will invest in the safest investment that will provide the rate of return desired. If taxes reduce the rate of return of the safer investments, people naturally begin investing in riskier propositions that have the potential to generate higher rates of return.
Have you ever represented a company so that it can sell its ownership interests to the public, or have you ever represented the investors in an IPO? Your perspective would change if you ever had. Your assumption that I don't invest is pretty silly considering just about anyone can do it.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? How is taxing something at the same rate as other income an attack? Oh no, you're treating my capital gains income the same as everyone elses income! I'm under attack! Poor me! The government is no longer going to subsidize my gambling on the success or failure of someone else's established business. Boo hoo.
Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. Really? That's not true. What about administrative hearings where the burden is on the accused to overcome a prima facie case? (FYI, for a good example of this concept, look at the situation with the proposed rules regarding copyright owners and the presumption that you are pirating if you receive a letter from them accusing you).
spazzcat
Mar 29, 09:06 AM
I dont think so, Amazon cannot get the app needed for the streaming/storing of content on your phone or tablet approved in the appstore since. It violates apples terms, if you or anyone else has an issue with it, contact apple.
Will Arnett, is going to
Will Arnett
Will Arnett
david-cross-will-arnett
Will Arnett and Jon Heder
Will Arnett
Will Arnett: #39;When In Rome#39;
B.Boston
Apr 26, 03:43 PM
That's awesome... Android OS is run on exponentially more devices than iOS is. Of course Android is going to be ahead in Market Share. They reach a wider customer base, from low end Android devices closer to feature phones up to flagship devices that better compete with the iPhone and iOS.
If you really want to know how the two are doing, you should be looking at Profit Share as well. My guess... Apple and iOS are the leader in that.
If you really want to know how the two are doing, you should be looking at Profit Share as well. My guess... Apple and iOS are the leader in that.
aimbdd
Apr 20, 06:36 AM
I believe it. Makes perfect sense. The iPhone 4 is an awesome phone so it doesn't need much improvement. A little power under the hood combined with a iOS update and the thing will continue the trek of top of the smart phone market.
There will not be a 4" screen on the next iPhone, so let us just cut that off right now. It is not necessary it is not better, although I know some of you think anytime has anything with a bigger number in it you think Apple needs to follow. That is not how they work. They make whole devices, they don't just compile disparate parts with no real rhyme or reason.
Without a 4 inch screen apple will wont get a cent from me. So much easier to browse the web.. and funner to play games on.
There will not be a 4" screen on the next iPhone, so let us just cut that off right now. It is not necessary it is not better, although I know some of you think anytime has anything with a bigger number in it you think Apple needs to follow. That is not how they work. They make whole devices, they don't just compile disparate parts with no real rhyme or reason.
Without a 4 inch screen apple will wont get a cent from me. So much easier to browse the web.. and funner to play games on.
DakotaGuy
May 6, 12:44 AM
Another option:
they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.
Unless they want to make you pay for something you don't need... not necessary. The new Intel Macs that are being released right now have so much power that they could run every iOS app in emulated mode and the processor would hardly even notice it. That's today. Imagine where Intel will be in a couple of years? An ARM chip sitting next to an Intel powerhouse is not needed. As far as being instant on... I'd say my iMac wakes up from a sleep just about as fast as my iPad.
they may include an instant-on iOS in addition to an intel OSX environment. Several other manufacturers have done something similar.
Unless they want to make you pay for something you don't need... not necessary. The new Intel Macs that are being released right now have so much power that they could run every iOS app in emulated mode and the processor would hardly even notice it. That's today. Imagine where Intel will be in a couple of years? An ARM chip sitting next to an Intel powerhouse is not needed. As far as being instant on... I'd say my iMac wakes up from a sleep just about as fast as my iPad.
natharvey
Mar 30, 05:45 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
I agree, I just want dome minor UI changes. nothing too major. can't wait for Lion!
I agree, I just want dome minor UI changes. nothing too major. can't wait for Lion!
steve_hill4
Jul 30, 05:04 AM
My contract exprires at the end of September, but I doubt I'd go for this too soon. Depends on what features it would have if it did materialise. However, good news Apple may still be positioning themselves for mp3 phones as well as smartphones, (that would play back mp3/aac). As Zune arrives, the market has already moved on.
This also reminds me, I need to go and pick up some AAAs for my Newton. ;)
This also reminds me, I need to go and pick up some AAAs for my Newton. ;)
MacLawyer
Mar 27, 11:00 AM
as far as I can tell, has no basis in fact whatsoever. The Techcrunch article leads back to "unnamed sources."
Maybe Fred at the local donut shop told them?
Maybe Fred at the local donut shop told them?
yg17
Jul 30, 01:06 AM
I think it's real. No signs of photoshopping and the pic was taken in an elevator :D
Erwin-Br
Apr 26, 02:30 PM
Well Apple doesn't sell its software for use on any other phones (or computers), so how is it competing with software-installed numbers on all hardware types?
Apple isn't forced to allow iOS only on their own devices.
Besides, Apple is doing the same thing with OS X, it's made for Macs only, and people have always been comparing their sales against Windows.
Seems to me you're just bitter about it.
Apple isn't forced to allow iOS only on their own devices.
Besides, Apple is doing the same thing with OS X, it's made for Macs only, and people have always been comparing their sales against Windows.
Seems to me you're just bitter about it.
cdavis11
Apr 26, 03:41 PM
In related news, all models of Ford vehicles combined outsold the toyota prius.
Film at 11.
Film at 11.
toddybody
Mar 31, 08:55 AM
I'm so glad I hung onto my 2010 MBP.
Hey Dude, how does your 2010 MBP benefit you over the 2011 refresh...its not like they axed important HW and made things more of an iOS experience. Just curious. :D
Hey Dude, how does your 2010 MBP benefit you over the 2011 refresh...its not like they axed important HW and made things more of an iOS experience. Just curious. :D
ste1989
May 9, 10:37 AM
Couldn't they have people use their iTunes account?
remember not everybodys itunes account is an email address, for use with ichat etc
when setting up a mac, I got an Apple ID(which is my itunes account) and its just a username not an email address
remember not everybodys itunes account is an email address, for use with ichat etc
when setting up a mac, I got an Apple ID(which is my itunes account) and its just a username not an email address
dlowe402
Nov 30, 06:42 AM
I have had a lot of Apple products in my life (see below) and I have a Treo650. I would dump it in a heartbeat and pick up an iPhone. Especially if it has intigration with iLife apps. I'm sick of having to run flakey software just to hear my phone. I'm on my second 650 in 6 months (Speaker quit working) and while the Palm OS is outdated, I wouldnt touch Windows Mobile with a 10' pole. I'm excited with the prospect of an Apple phone.
My Stuff:
Mackbook Pro 15" 2.16 ghz w/Glossy Screen:D
Powerbok 12" (Cat killed it though) :mad:
Silver iPod mini
iPod Shuffle
Palm Treo650
Wife's Stuff:
Intel iMac Core Duo 2ghz
iPod Nano
Other:
iMac G5
20gb Ipod (Sons)
Pink iPod Mini (Daughters)
Airport Wireless Home Network
My Stuff:
Mackbook Pro 15" 2.16 ghz w/Glossy Screen:D
Powerbok 12" (Cat killed it though) :mad:
Silver iPod mini
iPod Shuffle
Palm Treo650
Wife's Stuff:
Intel iMac Core Duo 2ghz
iPod Nano
Other:
iMac G5
20gb Ipod (Sons)
Pink iPod Mini (Daughters)
Airport Wireless Home Network
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar