KnightWRX
Mar 10, 04:34 AM
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
dante@sisna.com
Aug 8, 03:51 PM
Yes, obviously a 23 inch and a 24 inch cannot be the same panel. You are such a genius. But I wonder.. can a 30 inch apple and a 30 inch dell be the same panel?.. how about a 20 inch apple and a 20 inch dell?.
But forget all about that.. Are you saying the manufacturer gives apple the superior panels and leave the rejects for Dell?.. So cause Dell panel is 24 inch, they suck compared to apple 23 inch cause logically, since they are not the same size, it implies the Dell panel sucks!!!...
We must all get together and donate a nobel prize to you. You are such a genius, you make Einstein pale in comparison.
I don't want to leave you hanging but here's what happens.. The manufacter makes the panels. They cut a panel to apple specs and then the make the exact same panel (or one like it, hopefully, this manufacturer has quality control like every other company and can reproduce panels to exact specifications) and cuts the same panel to 24 inch to dell specifications.
Simple enough for you Einstein?.
Hello "Einstein," -- while the panels may be the same, and they are, you should do a bit more research before tagging others with hostility.
The color management of Apple Cinema HD is superior to that of the Dell due to firmware differences and interaction with Colorsync in the actual OS. We do high-end color management on both 23 and 30" Cinema HD's -- we have a Dell 24 inch as well. Without custom profiles the Dell pales in comparision to the Mac Cinema HD's -- Even with a Custom Profile the Dell is less useful to us as most of our nationwide clients have Mac OS systems with Cinema HD's -- we can send a digital proof and insure that our client sees what we see thanks to the firmware/OS Sync.
In this respects Dells are very expensive monitors for us to use as they force us to burn physical color prints and FEDEX to clients. We cannot afford this in our job costs. So for our business we'll take the Cheaper, Superior Apple Cinema HD's over the less predictable, more expensive Dell's.
You really should consider all angles before bashing.
DJO
But forget all about that.. Are you saying the manufacturer gives apple the superior panels and leave the rejects for Dell?.. So cause Dell panel is 24 inch, they suck compared to apple 23 inch cause logically, since they are not the same size, it implies the Dell panel sucks!!!...
We must all get together and donate a nobel prize to you. You are such a genius, you make Einstein pale in comparison.
I don't want to leave you hanging but here's what happens.. The manufacter makes the panels. They cut a panel to apple specs and then the make the exact same panel (or one like it, hopefully, this manufacturer has quality control like every other company and can reproduce panels to exact specifications) and cuts the same panel to 24 inch to dell specifications.
Simple enough for you Einstein?.
Hello "Einstein," -- while the panels may be the same, and they are, you should do a bit more research before tagging others with hostility.
The color management of Apple Cinema HD is superior to that of the Dell due to firmware differences and interaction with Colorsync in the actual OS. We do high-end color management on both 23 and 30" Cinema HD's -- we have a Dell 24 inch as well. Without custom profiles the Dell pales in comparision to the Mac Cinema HD's -- Even with a Custom Profile the Dell is less useful to us as most of our nationwide clients have Mac OS systems with Cinema HD's -- we can send a digital proof and insure that our client sees what we see thanks to the firmware/OS Sync.
In this respects Dells are very expensive monitors for us to use as they force us to burn physical color prints and FEDEX to clients. We cannot afford this in our job costs. So for our business we'll take the Cheaper, Superior Apple Cinema HD's over the less predictable, more expensive Dell's.
You really should consider all angles before bashing.
DJO
kernkraft
Sep 30, 06:52 PM
For philosophical context, consider:
Apple does not have a "museum" of past products. Jobs considers any product which is no longer sold a failure (if it wasn't, they'd still be selling it) and not worthy of nostalgia.
If nobody is going to buy the Jackling House and live in it, then 'tis time to discard it and move on to something which someone will buy/build and live in.
That's just not human nature. I adore modern architecture and one of the main things I truly hate about the UK is the lack of quality architecture with sleek lines, simple structure, concrete, glass, quality materials, light spaces, decent ceiling heights and windows. The US is much better but still, there are so many backward-looking buildings. So in many respects, I should dislike a house that was built less than a hundred years ago to look like one built two hundred years ago.
Still... Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it.
But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. My neighbours' house has an effect on mine and it's not just for myself why I keep our home well maintained and decent.
If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes. But until the house got to a state of deep neglect, authorities maintained that they preferred if it was renovated and kept standing.
In a way, it's like locking the door on your date and telling her "You don't have to sleep with me but you haven't got much of a choice". So yes, I actually see Jobs as a house-rapist.
Apple does not have a "museum" of past products. Jobs considers any product which is no longer sold a failure (if it wasn't, they'd still be selling it) and not worthy of nostalgia.
If nobody is going to buy the Jackling House and live in it, then 'tis time to discard it and move on to something which someone will buy/build and live in.
That's just not human nature. I adore modern architecture and one of the main things I truly hate about the UK is the lack of quality architecture with sleek lines, simple structure, concrete, glass, quality materials, light spaces, decent ceiling heights and windows. The US is much better but still, there are so many backward-looking buildings. So in many respects, I should dislike a house that was built less than a hundred years ago to look like one built two hundred years ago.
Still... Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it.
But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. My neighbours' house has an effect on mine and it's not just for myself why I keep our home well maintained and decent.
If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes. But until the house got to a state of deep neglect, authorities maintained that they preferred if it was renovated and kept standing.
In a way, it's like locking the door on your date and telling her "You don't have to sleep with me but you haven't got much of a choice". So yes, I actually see Jobs as a house-rapist.
Slix
Apr 16, 06:38 PM
So you're saying that iTunes is hard to beat?
No way?
No way?
iBunny
Jan 8, 10:29 PM
I want a 15'' MacBook Pro.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
rhett7660
Apr 21, 11:29 AM
Ha!
So someone voted my post -1 and I managed to bump it back to 0�
Of course I am quite sure it'll be back to -10 soon. :D
That is funny. I am getting negatives too! Grrr at you people.
So someone voted my post -1 and I managed to bump it back to 0�
Of course I am quite sure it'll be back to -10 soon. :D
That is funny. I am getting negatives too! Grrr at you people.
quagmire
Aug 3, 07:35 PM
Well, the Prius carries about a $5000 price premium compared with a comprable Toyota or Honda. But it sells for $24k without as big a tax credit (if any). So I'd have to say that the Prius Premium isn't close to that of the Volt. Plus, you can fit three car seats in a Prius. The Volt is a four-seater.
His point was what was the price of the Prius when it first came to the market? It wasn't at $24K, it was most likely higher. The Volt carries a lot of new technology like the Prius did when it came out. Also like the Prius, it will have a high price tag initially. The battery pack is said to cost $10,000 alone( and GM is still taking a loss on the vehicle).
Yes the Prius is now more affordable to the mainstream buyers, but when it came out it wasn't and it did carry tax credits( the Prius no longer qualifies).
His point was what was the price of the Prius when it first came to the market? It wasn't at $24K, it was most likely higher. The Volt carries a lot of new technology like the Prius did when it came out. Also like the Prius, it will have a high price tag initially. The battery pack is said to cost $10,000 alone( and GM is still taking a loss on the vehicle).
Yes the Prius is now more affordable to the mainstream buyers, but when it came out it wasn't and it did carry tax credits( the Prius no longer qualifies).
Tomorrow
May 4, 03:04 PM
Not sure what's medically relevant about owning or not owning a gun, but still, why penalize a doctor for asking and not, say, a teacher, clergyman, mechanic, dry cleaner, etc.? It doesn't make any sense.
Gugulino
Mar 28, 04:02 PM
Yeah, the more popular apps get even more popular and the little apps get lost on the Mac App Store. Apple should improve this. For example Apple could list all new updates in a separate category. For now you can update your app, but no one will notice it. I am not so satisfied with the MAS, but I hope it will get better in the future.
iGary
Sep 25, 06:40 PM
In a perfect world it would figure out your specs and use what it can. However I'm betting that using a graphics card to do a lot of the heavy lifting enables it to run on far more computers than going proc only. Many of us don't have duel or quad cores, and our procs are also doing other things. Heaven forbid I use other apps at the same time as Apature to. However my graphics card is decent, and sits idle even when other apps are open.
Like I said, perfect world you'd have your cake and eat it too, however for the time being, I'm not so sure the path they chose was all that bad. I'm quite open for discussion on this though, as I'm no expert :)
Well I guess what I am saying is that the graphics card really doesn't have the muscle that, say, four processor cores do. You should see what my activity monitor does when I crush some havy stuff - it might use two cores if I am lucky.
Like I said, perfect world you'd have your cake and eat it too, however for the time being, I'm not so sure the path they chose was all that bad. I'm quite open for discussion on this though, as I'm no expert :)
Well I guess what I am saying is that the graphics card really doesn't have the muscle that, say, four processor cores do. You should see what my activity monitor does when I crush some havy stuff - it might use two cores if I am lucky.
ratzzo
Apr 29, 03:44 PM
I like it as it is in Snow Leopard.
bedifferent
Apr 29, 05:58 PM
For the love of god get rid of the faux leather.
I generally agree with the overall consesus. The attempt to bridge OS X and iOS GUI's are disappointing. It's not so much one thing in particular but the culmination of terribly implemented GUI nuances.
The grey Finder and Mail sidebar icons are more confusing, as was the grey iTunes X icons that were quickly remedied with an iTunes.rsrc file to add the previous color icons. ICal would benefit from a black/grey leather with more grain/definition, as would Address Book. Finder windows have about the same UI as L/SL, and I'm not into the latest iOS scroll bars (too thick, I preferred the thinner scroll bars). The depressed/non-depressed buttons seem misplaced. The blue standard system folders seem even more inconsistent comparatively (and they have been around since 10.5) and I loathe the icons for iTunes/App Store/Safari (which is really outdated).
Overall, instead of Apple [finally] producing an OS X with a unified GUI, nothing seems consistent. Either add flare and color or don't.
OS X Lion needs Lithium, it's becoming schizophrenic!
I generally agree with the overall consesus. The attempt to bridge OS X and iOS GUI's are disappointing. It's not so much one thing in particular but the culmination of terribly implemented GUI nuances.
The grey Finder and Mail sidebar icons are more confusing, as was the grey iTunes X icons that were quickly remedied with an iTunes.rsrc file to add the previous color icons. ICal would benefit from a black/grey leather with more grain/definition, as would Address Book. Finder windows have about the same UI as L/SL, and I'm not into the latest iOS scroll bars (too thick, I preferred the thinner scroll bars). The depressed/non-depressed buttons seem misplaced. The blue standard system folders seem even more inconsistent comparatively (and they have been around since 10.5) and I loathe the icons for iTunes/App Store/Safari (which is really outdated).
Overall, instead of Apple [finally] producing an OS X with a unified GUI, nothing seems consistent. Either add flare and color or don't.
OS X Lion needs Lithium, it's becoming schizophrenic!
SPEEDwithJJ
Apr 12, 03:13 PM
Wait......do you guys have a little obsession with cupcakes, or an obsession with little cupcakes?
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
Haha. :D That's a good one. I LOL at that! :p
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
Haha. :D That's a good one. I LOL at that! :p
OceanView
Apr 15, 05:42 PM
Can't tell if it's real or fake but the meta data showing CS4 is a bit of an issue.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
nagromme
Aug 7, 03:57 PM
There were updates. (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Cinema_Displays) Better brightness and contrast ratio on the 20" and 23".
Someone said those brightness updates happened weeks ago. True?
Nice either way!
I too am holding out for a true next generation... maybe with new larger sizes, iSight, or new connectivity. But if I needed a display now, it's not as easy to choose a Dell anymore :)
Someone said those brightness updates happened weeks ago. True?
Nice either way!
I too am holding out for a true next generation... maybe with new larger sizes, iSight, or new connectivity. But if I needed a display now, it's not as easy to choose a Dell anymore :)
Malcster
Sep 12, 04:26 AM
isnt the event being streamed live over to london for the us?
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
Yup, i dont reckon he'd stream it live to us just to blow us a raspberry, or any other fruit for that matter.
if so i am quietly optimistic about us uk'ers getting a new movie store along with the us. i see no reason to stream it to the uk if the annouced products wont be released here, thats just teasing!
Yup, i dont reckon he'd stream it live to us just to blow us a raspberry, or any other fruit for that matter.
TwinCities Dan
Apr 9, 12:05 PM
Beats
I hope you enjoy your purchase. :)
@SchneiderMan, please don't, we get it... :rolleyes:
I hope you enjoy your purchase. :)
@SchneiderMan, please don't, we get it... :rolleyes:
DoFoT9
May 13, 04:31 PM
well i'm not totally sure yet, but it looks like one of my systems is down already! i'll have a better idea later tonight though. i might look into having a remote login system, so i'd know sooner if something is wrong.
i'm gonna have to cut it back to 3.5 ghz just to be safe i think
oh really? thats frustrating!! what soft of temps do they sit at? are you sure you have cranked enough voltage into them?
i'm gonna have to cut it back to 3.5 ghz just to be safe i think
oh really? thats frustrating!! what soft of temps do they sit at? are you sure you have cranked enough voltage into them?
VideoFreek
May 4, 03:43 PM
I tend to agree with you regarding a physician's readiness to provide gun safety lessons, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. Do you think that the government should be OUTLAWING physicians from asking their patients questions? It doesn't matter what the question is... is that the role of government?No, I've already said I think the bill is complete nonsense. I'm only addressing Dr. Choi's assertion (in the OP) that he has a duty to pry into non-medical aspects of the lives of his patients.
gocardsfan1
May 3, 09:31 PM
So is this meant to be an ad for the iPad 2 or the future generations? All it does is make me more excited for upcoming models, not the iPad 2 itself. I don't doubt that it will be effective though.
chrmjenkins
Apr 25, 11:52 AM
I don't know if I'd even want them to bother if it's only going from 3.5 to 3.7. Doesn't seem like the difference would be noticeable.
I just hope they don't call it the 4s. Just use sequential numbers so we don't have model confusion again like the 3g/3gs caused with people expecting 4g to be next.
I just hope they don't call it the 4s. Just use sequential numbers so we don't have model confusion again like the 3g/3gs caused with people expecting 4g to be next.
Aeolius
Oct 19, 06:07 PM
I am the first person to coin this term: iHome
Ummmm.....
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/11/13/ihome_ih26_1.jpg
Ummmm.....
http://regmedia.co.uk/2006/11/13/ihome_ih26_1.jpg
ritmomundo
Mar 17, 12:16 PM
I think its the kid's responsibility here. The OP had every intention of paying for his purchase, but the cashier dropped the ball big time. When you take on a job, you assume the responsibilities that come with it. Making a mistake that big will have consequences. I would hate to have someone that makes mistakes like that working for me.
No comments:
Post a Comment