rstansby
Apr 19, 11:21 PM
The logo on the center of the record, not the album artwork. The Beatle's logo looks like an apple to me, Apple's logo looks like an apple to me. We both know if the sides were reversed, Apple would have filed a suit.
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Apple Corps (owned by the The Beatles) did sue Apple.
So there you have it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apple_Corps_v_Apple_Computer
Blakeco123
Mar 23, 05:49 PM
Do it apple!!!
I agree with you. if someone is drunk and is still able to operate the app they could be a hazard if they avoid these points.
I agree with you. if someone is drunk and is still able to operate the app they could be a hazard if they avoid these points.
MrFirework
Oct 27, 01:56 PM
I think that's pretty accurate (well observed) whichever side of this particular fence people are sitting.
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
Yeah, but what is currently out there that's better?
Mainyehc
Jul 15, 10:24 PM
I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.
I know your pain... Just this friday I received an unexpected e-mail from the Uni, telling me to fill the paperwork for the Erasmus (an european interchange programme, for which I supposedly was not accepted for having not-so-great grades... :o )! Now I'll probably have to get a MacBook come September, whether it has a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo inside... I'm figuring it will have the first, even though the latter would be preety sweet. Damn! :rolleyes:
Anyway, either processor will kick my rev.A 20'' iMac G5's ass any day of the week (13'' is tiny, but I can always get an external monitor to go with it later when I come back, now that you can hook'em up without the need for hacks...)! :cool:
I know your pain... Just this friday I received an unexpected e-mail from the Uni, telling me to fill the paperwork for the Erasmus (an european interchange programme, for which I supposedly was not accepted for having not-so-great grades... :o )! Now I'll probably have to get a MacBook come September, whether it has a Core Duo or a Core 2 Duo inside... I'm figuring it will have the first, even though the latter would be preety sweet. Damn! :rolleyes:
Anyway, either processor will kick my rev.A 20'' iMac G5's ass any day of the week (13'' is tiny, but I can always get an external monitor to go with it later when I come back, now that you can hook'em up without the need for hacks...)! :cool:
BWhaler
Sep 27, 04:43 AM
Enough with the dance. Release the product already.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Every cell phone on the market sucks in some way. I'd love to have an Apple phone which simply just works.
Frosticus
Mar 23, 08:54 AM
Well unless a non-glossy screen is an option I won't be getting one.
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
Umm, ok. :rolleyes:
In fact until they do my current Core 2 Duo iMac will be my last Apple - period.
I don't need my computer to also double as a mirror.
And no, I don't want a mini, or a laptop, and I can't afford a Pro.
Umm, ok. :rolleyes:
alent1234
Mar 29, 11:55 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
using the keyboard, how quaint
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Paste
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
Drag and drop to move a file.
using the keyboard, how quaint
G4DP
Mar 22, 04:11 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
Have you paid any attention to the upgrade cycle since the switch to Intel for the Pro Towers?
Have you paid any attention to the upgrade cycle since the switch to Intel for the Pro Towers?
steve_hill4
Sep 9, 08:06 AM
The fact that the new iMacs can't address more than 3Gb of memory and are therefore operating on a 32bit logic-board makes me doubtful as to whether or not these systems are really 64-bit capable... It seems like some kind of hybrid 32/64bit system.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
Will the C2D iMacs be able to run 64bit code, despite not having the 64bit address space (and being able to access over 4Gb or RAM)?
Well, wasn't the iMac G5 restricted to 2GB, yet it was a 64-bit processor? A 32-bit computer can take up to 4GB, but due to the hardware Apple was/is using, they can't even take this.
What i find odd is that it appears to allow 1 or 2GB in either slot, but no more than 3GB in total. That is obviously the maximum the board can take, but it would have made a little more sense to allow 2GB in each. This will not really effect it's ability to run 64-bit software, just restricts how much memory can be used. Remember that you have been able to get AMD systems with 64-bit processors for some time now. They won't take more than 4GB, but will allow you to run 64-bit OSes and Apps.
I'm hoping by the time I'm after an iMac, it will take at least 4GB, have Blu-Ray as an option, (although I may opt for standard Superdrive if it is an option and buy a Mac compatible external later), include bigger hard drives and stick to a similar price point to now.
I'm tempted by the 20" now, but am not buying yet and would want about 320-400GB in there for the same price, perhaps even 2GB RAM. I've got time to wait however.
Qunchuy
Sep 19, 03:45 PM
Studios rely on physical store dealers for "impulse sales" which has a different character than online. If you are in the online store software or website, it tries to cross-sell you. But retail impulse sales are targeting people who are not shopping for music at all. They just walk by and see it while shopping for something else. The most powerful example of this is Wal-Mart. They sell CD's as a loss leader to generate store traffic of a key range of demographics.
I don't understand your point. Why would Wal-mart try to sell you a CD as an impulse buy if they lose money on them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
The iTunes Store is about convenience, which is only slightly removed from impulse. If it takes you less time to click on the "buy" button than it does for you to convince yourself that you really don't need it, it's a sale. :)
I don't understand your point. Why would Wal-mart try to sell you a CD as an impulse buy if they lose money on them? I don't think that's what you meant to say.
The iTunes Store is about convenience, which is only slightly removed from impulse. If it takes you less time to click on the "buy" button than it does for you to convince yourself that you really don't need it, it's a sale. :)
Full of Win
Apr 4, 11:57 AM
Headshot - OUTSTANDING.
It sounds as though he was DRT, but I hope this scumbag suffered some before his dirt nap was about to begin.
It sounds as though he was DRT, but I hope this scumbag suffered some before his dirt nap was about to begin.
Superdrive
Sep 26, 12:13 PM
After the ROKR and SLVR, is anyone really surprised that Cingular will help launch this phone?
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
I'm still waiting for this to hit the market. My SLVR is great, and as long as Apple does NOT make a slider, I will buy an iPhone right away.
2007 is going to be spendy. I'll have to buy "iTV", Leopard, "iPhone", and a new portable. AHHH :eek:
iMacZealot
Sep 17, 11:23 PM
Amen. the US dont use GSM, do they, it's CDMA, right?
Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.
I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?
Dear God, please check your info before posting. We have many GSM carriers, and you can buy certain CDMA phones and use them on a different CDMA network. And you were talking about international roaming in other posts, well, we have that, here. Even CDMA that you bash so much has roaming options. My brother is using a dual CDMA/GSM phone on Sprint right now in London. And the international roaming rates are cheaper with US carriers compared to Vodafone Australia, depending on countries. We also have 3G CDMA and GSM based Cingular uses W-CDMA, so you're not the only ones there, either.
Here (australia) we have both, kinda. All carriers run GSM, and while there is some locking of handsets (if you get a "free" phone on a contract) you can pay it out early, or move to a different carrier when the contract expires, or just buy your own phone.
I could NEVER imagine this whole "i want that phone by xyz carrier doesnt have it". Aren't you americans supposed to demand the best of everything!?
Dear God, please check your info before posting. We have many GSM carriers, and you can buy certain CDMA phones and use them on a different CDMA network. And you were talking about international roaming in other posts, well, we have that, here. Even CDMA that you bash so much has roaming options. My brother is using a dual CDMA/GSM phone on Sprint right now in London. And the international roaming rates are cheaper with US carriers compared to Vodafone Australia, depending on countries. We also have 3G CDMA and GSM based Cingular uses W-CDMA, so you're not the only ones there, either.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
pengu
Sep 17, 08:25 PM
WRONG GSM does NOT work in Japan. You can't go to any country and use it. Japan doesn't have GSM.
ok. see, if you actually READ my post, you would know that I said
I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network
ok. see, if you actually READ my post, you would know that I said
I can take my phone to any country with a GSM network
Joshuarocks
Apr 19, 10:07 PM
The Economy is IMPROVING!
McDonald's hired 50,000 workers today! :eek:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/companies/mcdonalds_jobs_hiring/index.htm
(*gets up and starts clapping...*)
:rolleyes:
DEATH TO MCDONALDS!!!!!!!!!
Because of them most of the US is obese.. The first thing I think that should be dismantled is fast food chains.. Those who believe in making children obese should be put up against a wall and shot in the head...
McDonald's hired 50,000 workers today! :eek:
http://money.cnn.com/2011/04/19/news/companies/mcdonalds_jobs_hiring/index.htm
(*gets up and starts clapping...*)
:rolleyes:
DEATH TO MCDONALDS!!!!!!!!!
Because of them most of the US is obese.. The first thing I think that should be dismantled is fast food chains.. Those who believe in making children obese should be put up against a wall and shot in the head...
DrDomVonDoom
Apr 20, 11:08 AM
In my experience, I immediately assume that using any electronic device with some kind of attachment to the internet, that what I am doing is splayed across the airways and collected by various agencies, be them Ad agencies, government agencies etc. I already know that I can be tracked, and called listened to, with no warrent. After those two privacies are gone, this doesn't seem like a real big deal to me.
Its gonna sound douchey, but the odds are, astronomical vegas odds, that no one gives a **** who you are and where your at currently. Unless your a criminal, then who gives a ****? People love to heap worth upon themselves that doesn't exist. Your not a political figure, your a ******* with a iPhone working at McDonalds, calm the **** down and stop worrying about the government tracking you down and concentrate on my Hash Browns.
As far as I can see I don't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being able to see into it, I have nothing to hide.
Maybe if we were on a Android open system this might be a problem. :P
Its gonna sound douchey, but the odds are, astronomical vegas odds, that no one gives a **** who you are and where your at currently. Unless your a criminal, then who gives a ****? People love to heap worth upon themselves that doesn't exist. Your not a political figure, your a ******* with a iPhone working at McDonalds, calm the **** down and stop worrying about the government tracking you down and concentrate on my Hash Browns.
As far as I can see I don't have a problem with law enforcement agencies being able to see into it, I have nothing to hide.
Maybe if we were on a Android open system this might be a problem. :P
Doctor Q
Aug 23, 05:59 PM
That's quite a sum of money! A bit more than my Power Mac cost me, even with that extra RAM.
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
It's seems to me that it's unlikely that the cost of litigation could have exceeded the cost of a settlement, so does that show that Apple expected to be found liable for patent infringement as charged?
toddybody
Mar 22, 02:54 PM
Call me spoiled by all things thin, I think the iMac is looking pretty chunky these days. Not sure why it isn't significantly thinner than it is. The next time they do update the form factor it should essentially look like a giant first gen iPad.
Id totally want a super thin iMac as well...but the thing already has heat issues at its current thickness. They'd need to integrate some pretty revolutionary CPU/GPU (low TDP) and give it some new cooling technologies (IDK if the new nVIDIA/AMD vapor cooling chambers would assist)...this isnt going to happen. It's already a Panini press...making it thinner would just exacerbate things.
Now, I think the 27inch display has few excuses for it's thickness...Samsung/LG are making some damn thin monitors. I just wish Dell would hop on that bandwagon. 1'' thick Ultrasharp 27inch 1440p monitor FTW!
Id totally want a super thin iMac as well...but the thing already has heat issues at its current thickness. They'd need to integrate some pretty revolutionary CPU/GPU (low TDP) and give it some new cooling technologies (IDK if the new nVIDIA/AMD vapor cooling chambers would assist)...this isnt going to happen. It's already a Panini press...making it thinner would just exacerbate things.
Now, I think the 27inch display has few excuses for it's thickness...Samsung/LG are making some damn thin monitors. I just wish Dell would hop on that bandwagon. 1'' thick Ultrasharp 27inch 1440p monitor FTW!
jholzner
Aug 24, 08:20 AM
may be Creative could use this precedence to sue Microsoft and other competitors over their UI and make them pay for licenses too.
There's not real precedence since Apple settled. If it had gone to court and Apple lost, then there would be a precedence.
There's not real precedence since Apple settled. If it had gone to court and Apple lost, then there would be a precedence.
Platform
Sep 14, 08:49 AM
Is that wise? The camera in cellphones is at best a sorry excuse. Introducing a crappy camera at photokina... I don't know
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
Basic iPhoto...not an Aperture camera...anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
Basic iPhoto...not an Aperture camera...anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
AdeFowler
Mar 3, 07:00 AM
In related news:
BBC News - Android hit by rogue app viruses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633923
Ouch
BBC News - Android hit by rogue app viruses
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12633923
Ouch
jiggie2g
Jul 14, 10:06 AM
Why does the high-end Conroe cost more than the high-end Woodcrest?
Because the mulitplier is unlocked , making it very easy to overclock.
Because the mulitplier is unlocked , making it very easy to overclock.
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:33 AM
I think this could very well be true.
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
Very well put.
I develop for all three platforms, and I must say that the Windows Phone 7 OS is already more user friendly than Android. I have owned 3 generations of iPhones, and 2 generations of iPads. While I won't leave Apple now, I can see a time where, once matured, the Windows Phone 7 / Xbox / Windows Tablet ecosystem will be the one to go with.
Until then, I will show nothing but love for my MBP, iPhone, and iPad 2, but let's NOT be short sighted fanboys here... No one thought Apple could make a successful phone or tablet either - and looks where we are at now. It's foolish to think Microsoft won't compete.
Sony didn't think they had a worry about their Playstation either, and now look...
The new Windows OS is surprisingly well thought out and have a lot of the features I miss in my standard iPhone 4 iOS - and only have because of Jailbreak :)
I could very well see myself buying a windows based Nokia - if they get the interior in harmony with the exterior - I still think iPhone 4 is the best looking phone I've ever owned - but still think it lacks some basic features in the iOS - like a Lock screen with calendar and weather info, basic features like changing the mail alert tone and being able to use the outer buttons as dual buttons for a shutter button on the volume button for instance (which a camera app did have, but Apple thought their consumers were too stupid and confused to have dual function buttons, so they excluded this app from appstore until they removed the function)
All the features I miss on my iPhone are very basic features, which could easily be fixed with a tiny small software update - since these features don't seem to come on the iPhone, I could see myself getting a HTC with Windows OS maybe in a HTC Desire DeLuxe chassis :)
What really keeps me true to the iPhone is all the apps :)
Very well put.
I develop for all three platforms, and I must say that the Windows Phone 7 OS is already more user friendly than Android. I have owned 3 generations of iPhones, and 2 generations of iPads. While I won't leave Apple now, I can see a time where, once matured, the Windows Phone 7 / Xbox / Windows Tablet ecosystem will be the one to go with.
Until then, I will show nothing but love for my MBP, iPhone, and iPad 2, but let's NOT be short sighted fanboys here... No one thought Apple could make a successful phone or tablet either - and looks where we are at now. It's foolish to think Microsoft won't compete.
Sony didn't think they had a worry about their Playstation either, and now look...
No comments:
Post a Comment