JAT
Apr 6, 04:09 PM
YOU apparently havent used either at any length.
I have said nothing that would relate to usage. Do you know what "apparent" means?
I have said nothing that would relate to usage. Do you know what "apparent" means?
thisisahughes
Apr 8, 02:00 AM
I'm not sure how I feel about this.
Butters
Aug 6, 01:14 PM
i don't care about see-through windows. I want something that works.
see-through windows are SOOOO jaguar
see-through windows are SOOOO jaguar
Sydde
Mar 24, 01:28 PM
And the vast majority of WASPs are racists? Got it.
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
Literally, "WASP" does not mean racist, but the term is very rarely used without that undertone. Similar to the way the suffix -person almost always means "woman" (you would not call a man the "chairperson" out of habit).
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 06:01 AM
iBrad,
What did I miss here?
Going to RS today to turn in my iPhone. I don't know what to
make of the quote you provided but will there be any
restrictions in the upgrade purchase I want to make?
What did I miss here?
Going to RS today to turn in my iPhone. I don't know what to
make of the quote you provided but will there be any
restrictions in the upgrade purchase I want to make?
hobi316
Jun 14, 11:05 AM
[QUOTE=NJRonbo;10129607]Radio Shack is taking preorders starting Thursday.
Essentially, they special order the phone for you.
That pretty much guarantees you a phone on opening day.
All you need to do is leave a $50 deposit when ordering.
QUOTE]
I'm thinking you meant Tuesday there?
But yeah, they're definitely doing the $50 downpayment thing like with the Evo. I was told to call back this afternoon to get the opening time.
Generally seems like it will be easy to get this phone on launch day. Between Apple, RadioShack, Best Buy, and WalMart, I'm hoping everyone who wants one next Thursday will get it!
Essentially, they special order the phone for you.
That pretty much guarantees you a phone on opening day.
All you need to do is leave a $50 deposit when ordering.
QUOTE]
I'm thinking you meant Tuesday there?
But yeah, they're definitely doing the $50 downpayment thing like with the Evo. I was told to call back this afternoon to get the opening time.
Generally seems like it will be easy to get this phone on launch day. Between Apple, RadioShack, Best Buy, and WalMart, I'm hoping everyone who wants one next Thursday will get it!
starnox
Aug 5, 04:58 PM
My bad :p Never trust random world clock websites ;)
indisguise
Apr 8, 03:09 AM
Many Best Buys with Apple Shoppes have Apple representatives who work right at the store, I doubt they would let this happen at their store. I wonder how many Best Buys have done this
noire anqa
Mar 26, 07:25 AM
Oracle's acquisition of Sun was just... bad. I have nothing good to say about that.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
I loved ReiserFS (v3 anyway). I was using it in beta on Slackware about as early as I could.
And for my unnecessary griping about HFS+, I've never had a problem with it the whole time I've used Macs (so, about 6 years now). ZFS would be cool though.
I'm not sure about that .. my hfs+ partitions always seem to get corrupted more often than any linux box i've ever owned. I hate to say it, but probably even more than any windows box i've owned.
iMikeT
Aug 7, 08:10 PM
I don't believe that we have to wait until Spring 2007.:mad:
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
Oh well. Wait or not, Apple will still be way ahead of Microsoft!
I loved the Vista bashing. Better yet, it came from a French guy!:D
e-coli
Mar 26, 01:08 PM
Am I the only person not particularly thrilled with Lion?
Airdrop is nice, other than that it seems a bit awkward.
Airdrop is nice, other than that it seems a bit awkward.
S i
Sep 19, 09:26 AM
AMEN!!!! This whole thread has the tone of a spoiled 13 year old's "I want" tirade. All the benchmarks show little difference between Merom and what you can buy today...and the 64 bit argument is really moot for most users because....(ready for it)....it's a laptop! Very few will have more than 2GB RAM on it anyway, and addressing larger RAM partitions is the #1 64 bit advantage.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
You can get a real speed boost just by compiling to 64-bit (naturally this depends on the source). The 64-bit benefit will increase over time on the Mac platform. On 64-bit Gentoo I had the chance to compare 32-bit & 64-bit binaries on exactly the same PC, & disagree entirely with your statement. Programs that can take advantage of 64-bit architecture, & are subsequently compiled for it, are definitely something to be desired.
Add grudging 32-bit hanger-ons to the spoiled 13 year olds on here.
supafly1703
Jul 27, 09:43 AM
C'mon Steve, wow us...
Stridder44
Aug 7, 04:14 PM
...You can also lock specific applications to specific Spaces, so you�ll always know where, say, Safari or Keynote is at all times.
Do you realize how awesome this would be at work???
Do you realize how awesome this would be at work???
Popeye206
Apr 8, 08:20 AM
It's about time. Best Buy does not deserve the time of day - their employees are low, their service stinks, and their whole philosophy is unethical. Looks like it's starting to come back to haunt them now...
They were caught here on the east coast with a separate web site that hey would use when you came into the store to jack up prices. So you'd see a product on the web site for $X and go into the store and it's 10% higher, then they would show you on the fake site that it's the right price. A bait and switch routine.
I never heard any more about this and have been surprised. I would have thought that would have been their death with consumers. I know I won't buy from them if I can help it. Although I love to look there. :)
They were caught here on the east coast with a separate web site that hey would use when you came into the store to jack up prices. So you'd see a product on the web site for $X and go into the store and it's 10% higher, then they would show you on the fake site that it's the right price. A bait and switch routine.
I never heard any more about this and have been surprised. I would have thought that would have been their death with consumers. I know I won't buy from them if I can help it. Although I love to look there. :)
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:41 AM
I think ALL the gooses should be cooked. No one should get the free pass.. so I don't think it's wrong to call Apple out on this.
Sharing a photo is actively giving out a location. Just like foursquare, tweeting and updating facebook. This issue is about giving out data which is involuntary, non encrypted and not being able to turn it off.
And as for the latter half of your statement - it's a dangerous/slippery slope to start being apathetic about your right to privacy. Once it's all out there - it's that much harder to get it back.
And again - there's a difference between voluntarily and involuntarily releasing of private information.
The iPhone is voluntary. You enabled location services.
Sharing a photo is actively giving out a location. Just like foursquare, tweeting and updating facebook. This issue is about giving out data which is involuntary, non encrypted and not being able to turn it off.
And as for the latter half of your statement - it's a dangerous/slippery slope to start being apathetic about your right to privacy. Once it's all out there - it's that much harder to get it back.
And again - there's a difference between voluntarily and involuntarily releasing of private information.
The iPhone is voluntary. You enabled location services.
dustinsc
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Assuming this gets out of vaporware status, it looks pretty good. The custom interface also looks good. Apple better have some improvements to the UI (ahem, notifications) in iOS 5
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 02:19 PM
Well if I'm wrong about the information, then I don't think anyone will argue about the fact that the Palm OS has been around since 1996, and the Apple iPhone uses a similar interface..
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
I said that in another thread and was laughed at.
Its the same idea though. Its a grid layout with icons that are shortcuts to Applications. Same idea.
All I'm saying is that If there were devices using a similar interface before the iPhone came out I don't see how its fair to sue anyone for it..
http://img192.imageshack.us/img192/9153/palmtranicononpalmos.jpg
I said that in another thread and was laughed at.
Its the same idea though. Its a grid layout with icons that are shortcuts to Applications. Same idea.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
Xian Zhu Xuande
Mar 31, 03:02 PM
This is a smart move. It had to happen sooner or later.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
John Gruber would eat Steve Job's ***** if he could. His opinion is extremely biased.
Except... he's right. This was a bait-and-switch from Google. I don't think it was a bad move for the future of the platform, but it does render a lot of their PR commentary through history as bogus. As for Gruber, you clearly don't like him, but while he is certainly a fan of Apple he is usually correct.
LagunaSol
Mar 22, 01:47 PM
I'm sure sales of this new Samsung device will be very "smooth."
Whatever that means.
Whatever that means.
ctachme
Sep 18, 11:07 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
ImNoSuperMan
Jul 27, 10:33 AM
T minus 11 days...............
Cant wait.
Cant wait.
PBF
Apr 11, 11:05 PM
If they delay iPhone 5 until Fall/Winter, then they'd better release the white iPhone 4 some time in Spring as promised by Phil Schiller. :mad: