enil8tr1
Mar 22, 03:56 PM
https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/1561238414/tapose-bringing-the-courier-to-the-ipad?ref=recently_launched
Sydde
Mar 19, 05:46 PM
It's a known fact the Obama Administration monitors MacRumors forums for a populist read on issues... ;) Yes I agree business is in charge colored by perceived economic end-results.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
Until we have publicly funded campaigns, there will be no change. As long as it costs millions to get elected, business will continue to set policy, maintain the farce of two different parties and basically run the country, a situation I think the OP of this thread is in favour of.
hyperpasta
Aug 5, 05:34 PM
Are you "meant" to keep it under your desk? Who says? I had my PowerMac on the desk until I sold it (I will be getting a Mac Pro and I hate to put it on my desk if it's meant to go under it!)
Well some people do. For instance, when I think of a video editing setup, I think of various monitors, a computer, and other devices are all locked into some kinda big rack. But I'm no video editor.
Point is, without an IR sensor in the display, you wouldn't have the OPTION of hiding the computer away.
Well some people do. For instance, when I think of a video editing setup, I think of various monitors, a computer, and other devices are all locked into some kinda big rack. But I'm no video editor.
Point is, without an IR sensor in the display, you wouldn't have the OPTION of hiding the computer away.
skunk
Mar 3, 05:18 AM
If everyone with genitals were always morally free to do that, homosexually abusive pedophile priests would have been morally free to molest their victims.Why do you conflate homosexuality with abuse and paedophilia?
You might say, "Bill, if the sex was consensual, maybe there nothing morally wrong with it." But people can coerce others into consenting.Your arguments are increasingly bizarre.
You might say, "Bill, if the sex was consensual, maybe there nothing morally wrong with it." But people can coerce others into consenting.Your arguments are increasingly bizarre.
obeygiant
Apr 27, 01:43 PM
Hey! The birth issue is closed! End of story! I am yelling this!
boo-hoo my all-caps was undid. :(
boo-hoo my all-caps was undid. :(
Abstract
Sep 18, 11:40 PM
Of course they're going to refresh the laptops before the holidays. Duh. :rolleyes:
Agreed.
I can't believe this would even count as a rumour. It's more an "inevitability."
Agreed.
I can't believe this would even count as a rumour. It's more an "inevitability."
Erasmus
Jul 23, 05:09 AM
(Lots of Stuff...)
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
Well I bet that took a while...
Excellent points. Especially liked the Microsoft joke!
Never mind. Perhaps this forum will be ready for another of my spanners soon?
Let's hope Apple engineers don't do anything bodgy.
No word on TDP's of Clovertown and Kentsfield (Thanks mwswami)? Did I see that Kentsfield is two Conroes on the same chip? Would that mean the TDP would be roughly 130??? :eek: :eek: :eek:
Certainly Uncool :cool:
Won't give up hope yet on upgradeable iMac. Quad Cores here I come!
BTW, I feel like such a noob for asking this, but when they say Santa Rosa will be able to support an 800Mhz FSB, is that talking about the RAM speed, up from 667Mhz?
valiar
Jul 27, 01:02 PM
Ouch.
And I have just bought a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro.
I know what everybody would say - "buy the machine that is available now". That is what I am saying to myself.
Still - ouch :(
And I have just bought a 2.16 GHz MacBook Pro.
I know what everybody would say - "buy the machine that is available now". That is what I am saying to myself.
Still - ouch :(
Dicx
Nov 28, 07:55 PM
Was trying for a long time to find this article:
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8751
A good story of how Microsoft got screwed into paying the $1. Long story short, because of them not controlling a market for once and not having the largest publisher of music to get tunes from, Universal held MS's feet to the fire and said pay up or forget it.
Good read nonetheless.
http://db.tidbits.com/article/8751
A good story of how Microsoft got screwed into paying the $1. Long story short, because of them not controlling a market for once and not having the largest publisher of music to get tunes from, Universal held MS's feet to the fire and said pay up or forget it.
Good read nonetheless.
WillEH
Mar 25, 10:26 PM
Good stuff, waiting and ready to pay! :o
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:54 AM
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704123204576283580249161342.html
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
kvizzel
Apr 8, 05:09 AM
When you are as HUGE as best buy, and you are selling a product as huge as the iPad, it makes sense to create a demand. People do this all the time. You can't get it now, so the second it becomes available to you, you buy it in fear that you might have to wait another month. This happens all the time with a lot of products.
Why would this matter.
I would understand it if they were able to raise the prices, but no...
So... the point of this?
Why would this matter.
I would understand it if they were able to raise the prices, but no...
So... the point of this?
Mr. Mister
Jul 14, 06:55 PM
Power supply at the top? Blah! :mad: I hate the power supply on the top, not that
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
it would keep me from purchasing a new MacPro though. ;)
Power supplies produce a lot of heat. It makes great sense according to simply the most basic laws of thermodynamics.
BoyBach
Aug 7, 04:27 PM
I voted for the Enhanced Dashboard. This seems really useful to me - my own personal web clipping service of the things I want to check regularly with the click of the Mighty Mouse Scrollball :)
I also think 'Spaces' will become invaluable within a few hours of getting used to it.
I also think 'Spaces' will become invaluable within a few hours of getting used to it.
X2468
Mar 31, 11:03 PM
Probably what bothers me the most about the discourse that Android is open is that underlying that logic is an implicit (or perhaps really explicit, depending on who is touting that discourse) assumption that it is democratic, liberal, progressive, and for "the people" and thus prevents a "draconian future" from happening because instead of letting corporations dictate our digital worlds, the people will a) have a say in it and b) have a choice.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
Your verbose attempt to cloud the truth is impressive, even if wildly false. It's readily apparent you've gone to great lengths to cover up your lack of technical erudition.
I do agree that Apples current advantages are:
1) Brand Name
2) Excellent Product Design
3) Huge Population Of Cult Like Followers
4) Steve Jobs, Worlds Best Sales Person
Yet change is brewing, nothing lasts forever.
Be prepared.
Baloney!
This discourse makes a false link between software being open source and political ideology. The two are not necessarily corresponding. And furthermore, that Android is actually open source is highly debatable but I won't go there.
Why do so many technophiles fall for the discourse that open means choice means freedom mean democracy discourse? It's all BALONEY! Google isn't really interested in protecting your freedom, democracy etc.. It's really interested in surviving and making money. Let's try not to fall AGAIN for that political cover.
In this case, I find Apple much more honest. They don't talk about political ideologies like freedom, democracy etc. All they say is they want to make devices that are friendly and easy to use. They don't couch their products in political ideological terms.
Your verbose attempt to cloud the truth is impressive, even if wildly false. It's readily apparent you've gone to great lengths to cover up your lack of technical erudition.
I do agree that Apples current advantages are:
1) Brand Name
2) Excellent Product Design
3) Huge Population Of Cult Like Followers
4) Steve Jobs, Worlds Best Sales Person
Yet change is brewing, nothing lasts forever.
Be prepared.
Blue Velvet
Mar 23, 06:11 AM
Libya is more like Bosnia than Iraq. A moment of force has the potential to change the scope of the conflict, hopefully for the positive, in a way that a full-blown invasion would merely complicate. That's the central part that fivepoint, who is merely interested in making another partisan screed, is ignoring.
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
Well exactly. Far easier to tag together some buzzwords, maybe pull something from FoxNews than it is to think critically about the issue. This inane comparison between coalition numbers was also picked up by Steve M.:
Fox Nation huffily declares that "Bush Had 2 Times More Coalition Partners in Iraq Than Obama Has in Libya." Bush's thirty-nation list, of course, included such global powers as Azerbaijan, Estonia, Latvia, and Uzbekistan, and didn't include the likes of, y'know, Germany and France.
But if we're going to play games like this, in the run-up to the war, how many coalition partners did Bush attract per week? The Libyan uprising started just about a month ago and Obama's coalition is fifteen nations. When do you date the start of the "Iraq crisis" the Bushies manufactured? The Axis of Evil speech, fourteen months before the war began? The Battle of Tora Bora, a month before that? The first administration meetings on Iraq regime change, mere days after Bush's inauguration, and more than two years before the Iraq War started? By that standard, Bush barely acquired one coalition partner a month! Obama obtained more than three partners a week!
I'm reminded of the 2000 electoral maps that measured Bush's vote by geography, as if winning a county with more jackrabbits than people was the equivalent of winning a county full of apartment buildings.
http://nomoremister.blogspot.com/2011/03/well-if-were-going-to-be-ridiculous.html
Meanwhile, Juan Cole lays out ten reasons why this is not like Iraq:
Here are the differences between George W. Bush�s invasion of Iraq in 2003 and the current United Nations action in Libya:
1. The action in Libya was authorized by the United Nations Security Council. That in Iraq was not. By the UN Charter, military action after 1945 should either come as self-defense or with UNSC authorization. Most countries in the world are signatories to the charter and bound by its provisions.
2. The Libyan people had risen up and thrown off the Qaddafi regime, with some 80-90 percent of the country having gone out of his hands before he started having tank commanders fire shells into peaceful crowds. It was this vast majority of the Libyan people that demanded the UN no-fly zone. In 2002-3 there was no similar popular movement against Saddam Hussein.
3. There was an ongoing massacre of civilians, and the threat of more such massacres in Benghazi, by the Qaddafi regime, which precipitated the UNSC resolution. Although the Saddam Hussein regime had massacred people in the 1980s and early 1990s, nothing was going on in 2002-2003 that would have required international intervention.
4. The Arab League urged the UNSC to take action against the Qaddafi regime, and in many ways precipitated Resolution 1973. The Arab League met in 2002 and expressed opposition to a war on Iraq. (Reports of Arab League backtracking on Sunday were incorrect, based on a remark of outgoing Secretary-General Amr Moussa that criticized the taking out of anti-aircraft batteries. The Arab League reaffirmed Sunday and Moussa agreed Monday that the No-Fly Zone is what it wants).
5. None of the United Nations allies envisages landing troops on the ground, nor does the UNSC authorize it. Iraq was invaded by land forces.
6. No false allegations were made against the Qaddafi regime, of being in league with al-Qaeda or of having a nuclear weapons program. The charge is massacre of peaceful civilian demonstrators and an actual promise to commit more such massacres.
7. The United States did not take the lead role in urging a no-fly zone, and was dragged into this action by its Arab and European allies. President Obama pledges that the US role, mainly disabling anti-aircraft batteries and bombing runways, will last �days, not months� before being turned over to other United Nations allies.
8. There is no sectarian or ethnic dimension to the Libyan conflict, whereas the US Pentagon conspired with Shiite and Kurdish parties to overthrow the Sunni-dominated Baathist regime in Iraq, setting the stage for a prolonged and bitter civil war.
9. The US has not rewarded countries such as Norway for entering the conflict as UN allies, but rather a genuine sense of outrage at the brutal crimes against humanity being committed by Qaddafi and his forces impelled the formation of this coalition. The Bush administration�s �coalition of the willing� in contrast was often brought on board by what were essentially bribes.
10. Iraq in 2002-3 no longer posed a credible threat to its neighbors. A resurgent Qaddafi in Libya with petroleum billions at his disposal would likely attempt to undermine the democratic experiments in Tunisia and Egypt, blighting the lives of millions.
http://www.juancole.com/2011/03/top-ten-ways-that-libya-2011-is-not-iraq-2003.html
playaj82
Aug 7, 03:37 PM
If the rumor sites were right....
Mac Pro
Leopard
iPhone
Core 2 Duo
iMac
Tablet, etc...
the keynote would have been 6 hours.
I'm glad they took their time with Leopard and highlighted some neat new and much needed additions to tiger.
Mac Pro
Leopard
iPhone
Core 2 Duo
iMac
Tablet, etc...
the keynote would have been 6 hours.
I'm glad they took their time with Leopard and highlighted some neat new and much needed additions to tiger.
satzzz
Aug 26, 03:38 AM
Not everywhere is the apple support poor. Here in the netherlands I can't complain about the service and support!
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
I think it is also because of the knowlegde of apple. They have worked years with the "old" powermacs, and they know how to repair or support every problem and/or hardware, just because there expirience..
Now apple is switching to Intel, They don't have that expirience that they had with the "old" powermacs...
epitaphic
Sep 13, 12:14 PM
I'd be happy to divert a whole core just to frickin WindowServer. :D
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
going out on a limb here and assuming you have a heavily cluttered desktop
EagerDragon
Aug 27, 11:03 AM
Apple is now getting their parts from the same bin that PC makers use. Intel = cheap parts. Cheap parts = low quality.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
If Apple could not get IBM to provide cooler and more powerful chips back then with the full set of customers behind them......... what makes you think that the pro comunity will be able to do so?
I have no idea what the pro vs the rest of us is but I am sure it is less than 100% of all users, as such it is less likely.
IBM has no incentive to produce a cool and fast chip, our pro comunity also wants performance to create all those videos and edit all those photos.
There are a few snags, but they will iron them out. I am glad they did the switch to Intel. Do notice from my signature I do not yet own one, I am waiting for Leopard to take full advantage of the Intel chips. So this time next year I will be looking to get my 1 or 2 additional systems based on SantaRosa and Leopard.
Same thing with the batteries....
OS X can run on PPC and X86. Apple should target X86 to consumers and PPC for pro's.
That $100 million that Apple just wasted on Creative could have meant new supercooled mobile G5's if it would have been pumped into IBM (Power.org). Instead we have these halfbaked Wintel parts to deal with MUCH fewer problems with PowerPC based Mac's.
http://www.appledefects.com/?cat=6
http://www.appledefects.com/wiki/index.php?title=MacBook_Pro
If Apple could not get IBM to provide cooler and more powerful chips back then with the full set of customers behind them......... what makes you think that the pro comunity will be able to do so?
I have no idea what the pro vs the rest of us is but I am sure it is less than 100% of all users, as such it is less likely.
IBM has no incentive to produce a cool and fast chip, our pro comunity also wants performance to create all those videos and edit all those photos.
There are a few snags, but they will iron them out. I am glad they did the switch to Intel. Do notice from my signature I do not yet own one, I am waiting for Leopard to take full advantage of the Intel chips. So this time next year I will be looking to get my 1 or 2 additional systems based on SantaRosa and Leopard.
M87
Mar 26, 01:54 PM
Mt. Fuji. A hat tip to Japan.
The use of the Mt. Fuji desktop picture in Lion actually pre-dates the disaster in Japan. Just a very cool coincidence.
The use of the Mt. Fuji desktop picture in Lion actually pre-dates the disaster in Japan. Just a very cool coincidence.
OutThere
Apr 27, 09:22 AM
Can you really blame them? They won't have a purpose in life without Birtherism.
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
Si Dieu n'existait pas, il faudrait l'inventer.
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 07:24 PM
Bbiz,
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
Keep us posted. Worse case I pre order from Apple first
thing tomorrow then cancel if Radio Shack guarantees me
a phone later that day with their PIN program.
4JNA
Jul 20, 12:06 PM
'speakable items on' 'selecting hal9000 voice'
what are you doing dave?
you know i can't let you apply the filter to those pictures in that manner.
dave, i'm scared...
'speakable items off'
now we just need the big red glowing light on the front instead of the white one...:eek:
what are you doing dave?
you know i can't let you apply the filter to those pictures in that manner.
dave, i'm scared...
'speakable items off'
now we just need the big red glowing light on the front instead of the white one...:eek: