thworple
Oct 27, 10:25 AM
I'm sorry, what part of 'private property' don't you people understand?
They weren't trespassing or anything like that!!! Its not like they wandered onto someone's back yard and started selling lemonade from a small stand without permission.
They had purchased a small stall there and went about their business handing out leaflets highlighting their concerns at Apple's environmental policy, as well as giving people some tasty Organic Apples (which many, myself included, lapped up ;) ).
Sure, they wandered away from their stall to the entrance to hand out leaflets, but so did half or dozen or so other stallholders. The fact remains that I haven't heard of anyone else being ejected because of this. And it makes you concerned that they were singled out because of the message they were trying to convey.
I was personally more bothered by the people trying to sell you something you didn't want as soon as you entered the Expo (that and the fact that every time I went to the Google stand they'd run out of sweets! :rolleyes: )
They weren't trespassing or anything like that!!! Its not like they wandered onto someone's back yard and started selling lemonade from a small stand without permission.
They had purchased a small stall there and went about their business handing out leaflets highlighting their concerns at Apple's environmental policy, as well as giving people some tasty Organic Apples (which many, myself included, lapped up ;) ).
Sure, they wandered away from their stall to the entrance to hand out leaflets, but so did half or dozen or so other stallholders. The fact remains that I haven't heard of anyone else being ejected because of this. And it makes you concerned that they were singled out because of the message they were trying to convey.
I was personally more bothered by the people trying to sell you something you didn't want as soon as you entered the Expo (that and the fact that every time I went to the Google stand they'd run out of sweets! :rolleyes: )
berkleeboy210
Sep 13, 11:16 PM
I'm calling for another invite to go out w/ in the next 2 weeks saying "One More Thing" and we'll get the phone and the true vPod
chasemac
Aug 24, 02:59 AM
What about their audio cards?
I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
What about their audio cards?
OMO. They are still the best sound cards for PC today.:) Non Pro audio that is.
I still wish they made them for Apple. Looks like they might! Awesome!!!
New rumor!
What about their audio cards?
OMO. They are still the best sound cards for PC today.:) Non Pro audio that is.
philstubbington
Apr 20, 11:37 AM
If you tie this story to the recent news from Michigan that cops there are able to suck the data off of your phone at a traffic stop, then this is really frightening.
You can get sucked off at a traffic stop by a cop in Michigan? Must make sure I never go to Michigan!:D
You can get sucked off at a traffic stop by a cop in Michigan? Must make sure I never go to Michigan!:D
Hayzie
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
What if the new form took after the iphone4 and ipad2 with an aluminium body sandwiched between black/ white plastic/glass ala two 2 ipads on top of each other (touch screens together)
that sounded better in my head...
that sounded better in my head...
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
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...
vouder17
Sep 15, 05:31 PM
I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.
twoodcc
Oct 12, 01:35 PM
well i must say i'd be very suprized if it happened tomorrow. but in any case, i hope it does!
TC400
Apr 30, 02:11 PM
Isn't this iMac design from fall of 2009? That's less than two years.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
I seen it as more of a mid model refresh.
TECHNICALLY been the same since 2008.
gnasher729
Mar 30, 01:12 PM
If Apple wins this argument, obviously that would prevent MS from calling theirs the "App Store" - but can they still use the phrase descriptively? I.e. "Welcome to App Market, Microsoft's app store."
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
Application store. Software store. If you want to use the word store. But there is no need to. App Market is clear enough, isn't it? A market is a friendly, open place where you buy a variety of things at good prices, not walled in and regulated like a store. I'd say "Welcome to App Market, the place where you find all the software you need".
If they can't (and Microsoft, Google, Blackberry etc. all trademark the others, App Shop, App Market etc.), then how do you describe what the App Store/App Shop is? I can't think of a more generic variant which could be used to describe it. "Windows" is an OS. "Internet Explorer" is a browser. "Office" is an application suite. "App Store" is...errr... an app store.
Application store. Software store. If you want to use the word store. But there is no need to. App Market is clear enough, isn't it? A market is a friendly, open place where you buy a variety of things at good prices, not walled in and regulated like a store. I'd say "Welcome to App Market, the place where you find all the software you need".
cube
Mar 30, 12:04 PM
I'm not sure why there is so much argument about the term "app". The trademark is for "App Store" not for "app". It would be like arguing that "Burger King" is not a valid trademark because "burger" is a generic term.
What about "Burger Store" ?
What about "Burger Store" ?
Aldyn
Apr 25, 02:44 PM
When my mom was a cool, happening chick in the early '70s and added avocado green appliances to replace those big, white 50's-era appliances she looked around her new kitchen and thought to herself "Wow. Gorgeous! How much better can it get?"
And I'm sure in 15 years my kids will tell their friends "Ugh, my parents have that 2010-era stainless and granite kitchen. So hideous".
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm hungry.
Hahahaha this.
And I'm sure in 15 years my kids will tell their friends "Ugh, my parents have that 2010-era stainless and granite kitchen. So hideous".
I guess what I'm trying to say is I'm hungry.
Hahahaha this.
bpaluzzi
Apr 11, 06:10 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
They already do. Use homesharing and you're all set. Or use Air Foil and get it to work exactly as you describe. Not big on research, eh? ;-)
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
They already do. Use homesharing and you're all set. Or use Air Foil and get it to work exactly as you describe. Not big on research, eh? ;-)
flyakite
Oct 12, 07:00 PM
Who cares what color an iPod is. Shouldn't really matter. Color does not affect funtionality. What matters is what is on the inside.
Yeah, where are all the camo colored MacBook Pro's and magenta Mac Pro towers huh? Come on Apple! :p
Yeah, where are all the camo colored MacBook Pro's and magenta Mac Pro towers huh? Come on Apple! :p
SBacklin
Apr 22, 09:18 AM
Problems:
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
--Dependence on an internet connection. Deal breaker right there. Subways? Forget it.
--Buffer times
--Connection instability/loss
--Already way overstrained data networks contributing to the above
--Battery life will suffer if it's wifi
--And if it's 3G, well there's another bill in the mail every month. A recurring bill in the form of data charges to listen to my music I already paid for? No thank you. No, no, no thank you.
Since when did every device in the house need a monthly bill to go with it? AT&T provides a pretty crappy service as it is to begin with, why shuffle any more money right into their pockets?
Dependence on an internet connection and a bill in the mail are enormous deal breakers.
To the people saying "Oh, well Apple isn't taking your hard drive away", no, they aren't, but this is the first step. In 20 years hard drives will be obsolete, as everything will be cloud based, and you'll be forced into the cloud whether you want to be or not.
This service is a completely stupid idea for anyone who has an iPod with a big enough hard drive to store their stuff. I can see the appeal for those with more than 160 GB of music, but other than those people, I see literally zero benefits to be had by this, and a slew of problems/frustrations to be gained.
That is the problem I'm seeing too....the bandwidth. Everyone is screaming about HDDs. Hello, storage is cheap. I just see the carriers salivating at the idea of Apple wanting people to stream. I do see and understand that some people can find this new setup useful. However, a LOT of us see a major problem in terms of data charges. If Apple still gives the storage capacity in its devices as it does now, then I personally will NOT have a problem with this. I would prefer to have it stored locally. Cellular data connectivity is no where where it needs to be for me to happy with it as a replacement for local storage. Nah uh...no way. With my music, video and pictures, I have 3 running copies at any given time and this has worked out for me for many years. Why fix something that isn't broke?
Avalontor
Apr 28, 07:27 PM
<snip>
Ronaldo wallpaper barcelona
real madrid vs barcelona 2011
whatever
Aug 23, 10:34 PM
Not really. Creative was going broke. This was the best possible outcome for them.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
To Apple it could have made all the sense of a business deal.
Imagine the lawyers:
"Ride it out and you may win or you may lose and it'll cost you $200-250 million.
Pay up now, get Creative on board, don't appear to be the bad guy and close any issues with patents - now and in the future - for $100 million."
Actually there are two other reasons why Apple settled.
What if Creative was bought by Microsoft, then without a settlement they could have continued the suit.
Now that Creative has money they can sue others (Microsoft) who also planning on infridging on their patents.
hexor
May 3, 10:58 AM
What about 1080p support when the iMac is used as a monitor? I use a Kanex XD to watch Blu-ray movies on my 2009 iMac but it is limited to 720p. "This is due to limitation of the iMac 27" as a display which accepts only 1280x720(720p) or 2560x960 resolution base on the display EDID," the product's official site explains. "If and when the iMac 27" accepts a 1920x1080(1080p) resolution the Kanex XD will be able to output at 1080p."
HecubusPro
Aug 31, 06:31 PM
but itunes selling movie?! silly idea...
Why is it silly? iTunes has proven that millions will pay to download music, videos, and TV shows. I don't see why people won't download movies as well, especially considering millions of others download movies, at questionable quality, illegally all the time.
Why is it silly? iTunes has proven that millions will pay to download music, videos, and TV shows. I don't see why people won't download movies as well, especially considering millions of others download movies, at questionable quality, illegally all the time.
Steve121178
Apr 15, 07:07 AM
There is absolutely no advantage whatsoever in having USB survive past 2.0 at this point. With 3.0 barely entering the market, there is no value in letting it get a foothold. It is pathetically obsolete compared to TB.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
What are you talking about? Practically all SB motherboards for PC's support USB 3.0. I'm enjoying USB 3.0 speeds on my new PC, plus the ports are backwards compatible with USB 2.0.
Don't get me wrong, I can see what TB offers & I like what I see, but USB 3.0 is here to stay. Intel's support just emphasises how important a standard USB 3.0 is.
What is with the comments about wanting USB 3.0 on Macs? What a huge waste of time and money - you should be wanting TB on more peripherals. Even if Intel is going to be dumb enough to keep USB 3.0 around, hopefully Apple will hold the line and refuse to put it in Macs. With Apple's resurgent strength in the computer market while everyone else is tanking, that would be enough incentive to get the peripheral makers to adopt TB.
What are you talking about? Practically all SB motherboards for PC's support USB 3.0. I'm enjoying USB 3.0 speeds on my new PC, plus the ports are backwards compatible with USB 2.0.
Don't get me wrong, I can see what TB offers & I like what I see, but USB 3.0 is here to stay. Intel's support just emphasises how important a standard USB 3.0 is.
LagunaSol
Apr 4, 12:40 PM
Who votes this positive?
Anyone who believes in the rule of law.
Anyone who believes in the rule of law.
donbadman
Sep 26, 06:58 AM
who the hell are cingular? what about orange t-mobile, vodaphone or o2? I guess it's US only again...
Lone Deranger
Mar 30, 12:54 PM
The real question is why MS is so bothered about Apple using 'App Store'. Historically MS (almost) never used the word App, instead using the word Programs. Surely MS can come up with many alternatives that describe their own store equally well, if not better. Why fight with Apple over this? I can only conclude that it is to spite Apple, or to ride Apple's coat tails yet again.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.
Even if MS is right, logically, linguistically, I find their attitude over this rather puerile. PR-wise it says to me "Apple, if we can't imitate you, we'll sue you"
MS sinks lower in my opinion by the day.