The Beatles
Apr 3, 12:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Keep up that attitude and continue wondering why no one talks with you as you type on your laptop in the middle of the coffee shop across from De Anza college. Sure, you may have helped get DB2 started and you still work in a DOS window but don't blame your wife for leaving you as you worked late at night too long. How much of the money from the IPO went to family attorney and court fees?
What in the world are you talking about? He just said he thought the iPad was nice but not magical. And that he doesn't like marketing. Chill out.
Hmmm... not really. I hate marketing. Nothing they say will change that. They also need to stop calling the iPad "magical". It really isn't. It's very nice, but not magical.
Keep up that attitude and continue wondering why no one talks with you as you type on your laptop in the middle of the coffee shop across from De Anza college. Sure, you may have helped get DB2 started and you still work in a DOS window but don't blame your wife for leaving you as you worked late at night too long. How much of the money from the IPO went to family attorney and court fees?
What in the world are you talking about? He just said he thought the iPad was nice but not magical. And that he doesn't like marketing. Chill out.
Zwhaler
Aug 21, 12:35 PM
Yeah, if the Zune can't even play videos, what makes anyone think it will be even nearly competable with the next iPod? I think that either the Zune is gonna suck, or they are gonna surprise with an honestly good music player.
PCMacUser
Aug 7, 05:13 AM
Last time we played we beat you 3-0 in England im pretty sure.
We should have won the bloody world cup.
We dominated against Italy until Grosso dived and got the most dodgy penalty in history, then we would have smashed ukraine in the quarters, then we would have been in the semi's against Germany, then anythign could have happened. Lets just say FIFA didnt want us to win, because its the one sport we 'aren't meant to dominate'. So the ref played it that way.
People should have learned not to count out an Aussie. Our spirit means we have the best in every field from sport to soldiers.
We would kick ur ass
Hahah bloody arrogant Australian.
YOU'RE STILL A COLONY OF SHEEP SHAGGERS! :D
We should have won the bloody world cup.
We dominated against Italy until Grosso dived and got the most dodgy penalty in history, then we would have smashed ukraine in the quarters, then we would have been in the semi's against Germany, then anythign could have happened. Lets just say FIFA didnt want us to win, because its the one sport we 'aren't meant to dominate'. So the ref played it that way.
People should have learned not to count out an Aussie. Our spirit means we have the best in every field from sport to soldiers.
We would kick ur ass
Hahah bloody arrogant Australian.
YOU'RE STILL A COLONY OF SHEEP SHAGGERS! :D
.png "NATO and The Warsaw Pact")
wolfboy
Oct 1, 12:17 AM
I saw a youtube video of someone having that same problem. His tip was to use a very small pinch of baby powder and put it on your finger. Then rub it thoroughly all over the back of the iPod. Once you put on the case the watermarks should disappear.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
Actually I just wiped the inside of the case a bit with sandpaper and the watermarks are mostly eliminated. It basically looks like I brush metaled the iPod without actually doing so. It'll probably scratch the hell out of my iPod if I leave in for too long but I figure I'm never rocking this thing naked anyway so might as well.
http://img101.imageshack.us/img101/8225/crw3095.jpg
http://img706.imageshack.us/img706/2222/crw3097.jpg
Those clear cases are pretty bad. They don't fit my iPod Touches at all. Shame I wasted $6 on them ($3 x 2). Any recommendation guys?
Yeah they're not that great, but it does keep it pretty safe for a cheap temporary case. Its very hard to squeeze into when you first get it, but once you do, the case loosens. A little too loose actually.
Stella
Mar 19, 04:31 PM
All about the oil... "protect the citizens" is a perfect excuse. Sadly, because this is what it should be about.
MacSA
Oct 24, 04:01 AM
No the E207WFP 20 is 1650x1050.
I advocate the 2007FP 20 1600x1200 for only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). That extra 150 verticle pixels is very helpful.
Dell really are fleecing their none US customers:
20" 2007FP: �311
24" 2407WFP: �566
20" 2007WFP: �401
30" 3007WFP: �1,365
People here are always raving about Dells low prices here, but I really dont think they're that cheap at all (in the UK) - unless you buy something with very old hardware that is.
I advocate the 2007FP 20 1600x1200 for only $359.20 (http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&sku=320-4687). That extra 150 verticle pixels is very helpful.
Dell really are fleecing their none US customers:
20" 2007FP: �311
24" 2407WFP: �566
20" 2007WFP: �401
30" 3007WFP: �1,365
People here are always raving about Dells low prices here, but I really dont think they're that cheap at all (in the UK) - unless you buy something with very old hardware that is.
jettredmont
Aug 16, 02:00 PM
We need flat data rates on mobiles in the UK. It will happen (esp. if they want people to embrace 3g that they spent all the money on), it's just when.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
While it's nice to dream, when you are talking about a service (downloading music from your server to your device) that the vast majority of people are going to be using many hours in a day, I doubt you'll see that being "cheap" on the current setups any time soon. For one, there isn't that kind of capacity in the networks. For another, while it may be different in the UK, there are still many pockets of poor or nonexistent coverage. Finally, the cost of portable storage is decreasing significantly (by which I mean, several orders of magnitude) faster than the cost of network bandwidth.
Network capacity is where it all starts off. Why are ringtones so expensive? Well, for one, because people still buy them. But, offering $1 or $0.25 ringtones would yield a killing for both the record companies (getting $0.25 for 1/6th of a song? Seems about right relative to $1/song) and greatly expand the service in terms of total market size (ie, 1/3rd revenue per download, but much more than 3x increase in number of downloads). Why don't they do this? Because their networks, to a one, could not stand for this traffic to increase enough that the market would expand enough to make the change profitable. When you pay $3 for a ringtone download you are paying primarily to keep other people from doing the same. Sounds perverse, but that's the reality when you have a limited-availability resource, it is the foundation of supply vs demand.
Expanding on the second: I'd never, ever, buy something that I would want to use when driving, for instance, across the "boring states" of Nevada and south-eastern Oregon, that requires a constant connection to any type of service. Why? Because even cell phones are useless for about a three hour stretch of Highway 95 going up from Winnemucca. If cell phones aren't working now, how long will it be before some next-generation service comes in and "wires" the place up?
I might shoot myself without my iPod to listen to during that three hours of scrubgrass, migrating crickets, and mountains.
But, seriously, you guys are talking about a concept that would have garnered a lot of conversation fifteen years ago. The fact of the day is, though, that networking is not getting cheaper at a rate of doubling bandwidth per year, and small, portable hard drive storage (or non-hard drive Flash storage, even moreso) is. Wireless networking isn't winning on power consumption either (Flash storage wins there by a longshot as well).
Until people start having libraries that are infeasible to transport with them (which means, hard drive space can't keep up with library space, which certainly isn't the case today as library space isn't doubling per year either)and which can be trickle-downloaded to a low-profile wireless device in realtime, the idea here is dead. Sorry, that's just the facts.
dguisinger
Nov 28, 02:24 PM
It may not be true that they broke even, it's just something I thought I heard on a tv interview...
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
Sony is selling the PS3 at a loss as well, Nintendo I'm sure is making money on the Wii...
There was also a lot of buzz for the 360 a launch & after, MS has sold over 15 million XBOX 360's in the last year, so I think they have done pretty well....
I don't think Sony has the best plan, if they did they would have launched earlier, had more units at launch & not be so overpriced...
Actually, I'll make some corrections for you:
Sony is losing $241 (source: iSuppli) on each PS3 at RETAIL pricing. We all know that Sony sells to distributors who sell to retailers, all of whom profit, so if you accept a 30% combined margin you are talking well over $300 loss per console. Their games are also in the $70 range to make up for it.
iSupply also states that the xbox 360 costs $323 for the premium unit to build; at $76 less than the retail price. After the channel margins are taken out, Microsoft is breaking even. Microsoft is already a year into things, and is about to release a cheaper xbox 360 using 65nm parts, which will save them even more. All in all, Microsoft is looking fairly good this time around for turning a profit. Infact, in an interview this past week I read that the Entertainment division would have turned a profit this year if it wasn't for the Zune.
As far as # of units sold:
XBox sold 27 million units
Xbox 360 has sold 7 million so far, and Microsoft expects to sell a total of 10 million by year end.
Sony has sold 200,000 units in the US, and won't hit 400,000 at year end.
Wii has sold 400,000 units, and will hit an estimated 4 million by year end.
The Xbox 360 and Wii also both have very high software attach rates (I've bought 5 titles already for my Wii); and Microsoft i'm sure is making a killing on Live.
pjgoel
Nov 29, 05:58 PM
With a hard disk in it. iTV will not require a computer - will give you internet access on your TV. Dock the iPod, and allow you to buy directly movies, songs & content. I.e. without streaming. Direct download through a Wifi intenet connection. Could even have the ability to stream from the internet - I.e. cable, etc.. coupled with a DVR for recording. Would be amazing if it could do all of the above.
MacFanJeff
Mar 24, 06:31 PM
I REALLY hope Apple will support not only those cards but also the new crop of nVidia too. The reason I do not use Apple for my development is due to them never supporting the most current cards or nVidia. I am a professional 3D artist and some of my software take advantage of the "Cuda" cores on the nVidia ones. Therefore, I simply can not do without them.
NATO on 23rd May 1955. Map
NATO Charter
Nato+countries+1955
NATIVE AMERICAN INHABITANT MAP
by two Nato helicopters on
Nato+countries+in+1955
A secret of nato, in take-home
album Nato+countries+1955
expansion Nato+countries+
thefourthpope
May 2, 07:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
TO ALL FANBOYS:
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
You're right, that is a post fanboys would appreciate.
TO ALL FANBOYS:
This is better than what we have now.
Life goes on. Live moves forward. Apple is a forward-thinking company.
Deal with it!
You're right, that is a post fanboys would appreciate.
barkmonster
Apr 27, 11:59 AM
You can't be more wrong. I was writing Web Apps in the 90s using mod_perl, Apache and PostgreSQL.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
Other OSes have also had Applications associated as a word to describe the software that runs on them by the media and internally, see this 1989 reference to OS/2 :
http://books.google.com/books?id=JzoEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PT40#v=onepage&q&f=false
I was simply suggesting that Apple used the term "App" as a familiar leaning to the way they call software "Applications" in Mac OS. Also, Apple have being refering to software that runs on their operating systems as "Applications" since 1980: -
The Apple Lisa (precursor to the original 1984 Macintosh) had an Applications folder in 1980.
http://www.guidebookgallery.org/articles/inventingthelisauserinterface/pics/fig6
The Macintosh has obviously had an Applications folder from 1984 to present
In terms of GUI history and it's conventions, there was the Xerox Alto as far back as 1973 but from all the screen shot hunting I've done, it seems to have no Applications or Programs folder because it has a "starting point" (indicated by the Start box) and then a list of files to open, some of which end in .run which presumably are executable programs/applications: -
http://www.computerhistory.org/revolution/input-output/14/347/1857
So yeah, "The Macintosh" wasn't the first GUI that had APPlicationS but Apple appear to have a LOT of prior use of the term with the Lisa OS before it in 1980 and GUI consistency between Mac OS X and iOS being a cut down version OS X, they logically refer to Applications on iOS devices in a cut down form too.
clj7
Jan 7, 03:43 AM
Here's my first and only car I've ever "owned". It's a 1.2 litre Corsa SXI 2001. It was initially bought as a learner car for me and my sisters to start learning in. I passed 2 years ago, and since then it's only me who's been driving the car. My big sister has her own car now, and my little sister won't be starting for another year.
So at the moment it's just me who's using the car, so I get to use it in University - which makes me very lucky I believe.
And I also took this picture this morning. A fresh wave of snow has just arrived in Wales, just when I thought I had seen the last of the snow last week.:(
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/706/corsab.jpg
So at the moment it's just me who's using the car, so I get to use it in University - which makes me very lucky I believe.
And I also took this picture this morning. A fresh wave of snow has just arrived in Wales, just when I thought I had seen the last of the snow last week.:(
http://img713.imageshack.us/img713/706/corsab.jpg
mogwia
Oct 24, 06:21 AM
holland down to :) JEEPIE!!! (dreaming of a 17 inch MBP) :) ;) :o :cool:
Mac'nCheese
Apr 10, 09:55 AM
I had to learn how to drive a stick about a decade ago when we planned a trip to Ireland and found out that most, if not all, of the rental cars would be stick shifts. So, my first big stick shift experience was also on the other side of the road.
SheriffParker
Jan 10, 09:24 PM
can some body put as link to like a pic of a zoone
http://images.google.com/
http://images.google.com/
jettredmont
Aug 16, 01:31 PM
The post says apple is going to compete with Zune because everyone knows almost everything about zune, with the exception of having a physical zune apple can at least stay on top by brining in inovative features before zune has them.
Back in the day, the fact that we already know everything about an unreleased product was called marketing vaporware, and it was considered a bad thing ...
Until Zune is out, Apple is already "caught up" with it, and is in fact ahead (no technology available is always technologically inferior to any technology available, to paraphrase McNealy). Don't buy into Microsoft's hype machine. They always use it to buy themselves a year in the marketplace, at the cost of us consumers.
Back in the day, the fact that we already know everything about an unreleased product was called marketing vaporware, and it was considered a bad thing ...
Until Zune is out, Apple is already "caught up" with it, and is in fact ahead (no technology available is always technologically inferior to any technology available, to paraphrase McNealy). Don't buy into Microsoft's hype machine. They always use it to buy themselves a year in the marketplace, at the cost of us consumers.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 20, 10:33 PM
sorry, but wherever you got your information, it is not correct. fwiw, my last car, a vw passat, i sold with 312k miles on it. i bought it new at the dealer. still had the original clutch. your 100k replacement claim is bogus.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Umm porsche not exactly a valid argument of a car and that falls in the sports car catigory. Complete different field.
As for the clutchs 300k on a original clutch is pretty far unless you do heavy high way miles there.
Going heavy city lets see I had to replace the clutch in my old car at around 95k. My dad replaced the clutch in is Honda at 110k. Numbers I have been reading off the net about my current car clutches are going at 90-120k range. Now it does depend on driving. You are not going to find mean 300k on a original clutch. 100k is more the norm. Big time with city miles on it.
Also my car manual cost me more about 1000 bucks more but at it is a higher model as the model right below it is auto only. Manuals are being mostly reduced to sporter car lines/models now days leaving autos for everything else.
Yes they have different gear ratios comparing the 2 but for MPG sorry Manuals are losing out. They can not compete with CVS, computer controlled shifting and now adding in extra gears. Those factors are just adding up against Manuals and they can not keep up. Manuals are limited to human timing which losses to computer timing. And the shifting timing is not the speed the shift is done but at what RPM are at the given load. Computers can adjust to getting best MPG at a given load demand far better than a human which means they have better MPG.
highway mileage is different due to gear ratios, not "physically locked". automatics use different ratios than manuals, even with same engine. shift speed is irrelevant for mileage.
and lastly, manuals do not cost more. every car i've ever owned, new or old, including my 2007 porsche 911, have come standard with a manual transmission. if you want automatic, that's an option you pay extra for, several $thousand in some cases. i've never owned an American car, so maybe the domestics are different, but your blanket statement is still wrong.
on my wife's mercedes, it needs automatic fluid change every 30k miles. dealer charges ~$300 for this. That's $1000 in service in 90k miles assuming nothing breaks. My manual transmission requires no service or fluid changes for 100k miles. $1000 in maintenance vs $0 in maintenance. automatic is far more expensive from a maintenance standpoint.
Umm porsche not exactly a valid argument of a car and that falls in the sports car catigory. Complete different field.
As for the clutchs 300k on a original clutch is pretty far unless you do heavy high way miles there.
Going heavy city lets see I had to replace the clutch in my old car at around 95k. My dad replaced the clutch in is Honda at 110k. Numbers I have been reading off the net about my current car clutches are going at 90-120k range. Now it does depend on driving. You are not going to find mean 300k on a original clutch. 100k is more the norm. Big time with city miles on it.
Also my car manual cost me more about 1000 bucks more but at it is a higher model as the model right below it is auto only. Manuals are being mostly reduced to sporter car lines/models now days leaving autos for everything else.
Yes they have different gear ratios comparing the 2 but for MPG sorry Manuals are losing out. They can not compete with CVS, computer controlled shifting and now adding in extra gears. Those factors are just adding up against Manuals and they can not keep up. Manuals are limited to human timing which losses to computer timing. And the shifting timing is not the speed the shift is done but at what RPM are at the given load. Computers can adjust to getting best MPG at a given load demand far better than a human which means they have better MPG.
iJimmy
Jan 30, 08:49 AM
My contribution
https://www.me.com/ro/jimmy.nguyen/Galleries/100033/IMG_0706/web.jpg?ver=12955761350001
https://www.me.com/ro/jimmy.nguyen/Galleries/100033/IMG_0706/web.jpg?ver=12955761350001
tatonka
Apr 21, 03:15 PM
Despite the freaked brigade and people wanting to turn this into a huge political argument I think this guy at Reddit had the best thing to say about this:
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I do think that guy is right and it is only about caching the cell tower locations. I baffles me however which idiot engineer at Apple thought it would be good idea to store those locations along with detailed timestamps unencrypt and even move it to the next phone if you happen to switch phones. If you work on such a high profile system, you need to make smarter decisions than that.
The second thing that baffles me is Apples blatant incompetence handling these kind of situations. Haven't they learnd anything from antenna gate? Sitting on your ass for several days having the internet raging and the evening news reporting on this stuff without a word, is horrible press. It is more than day since the story broke and no official word from Apple yet .. good job people, let the field to the raging internet mob and the incompetent news crews.
T.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I do think that guy is right and it is only about caching the cell tower locations. I baffles me however which idiot engineer at Apple thought it would be good idea to store those locations along with detailed timestamps unencrypt and even move it to the next phone if you happen to switch phones. If you work on such a high profile system, you need to make smarter decisions than that.
The second thing that baffles me is Apples blatant incompetence handling these kind of situations. Haven't they learnd anything from antenna gate? Sitting on your ass for several days having the internet raging and the evening news reporting on this stuff without a word, is horrible press. It is more than day since the story broke and no official word from Apple yet .. good job people, let the field to the raging internet mob and the incompetent news crews.
T.
bigjohn
Jul 18, 08:48 AM
Only way this works is if Apple makes the movie available for download/rental a week or two before DVD release (or earlier, like hotel PPV). Otherwise, I'll just *obtain* it elsewhere.
zync
Aug 6, 10:41 PM
100,00 users!
Yikes! I wonder how many this year....
I bet it's 500,000+
Arn has a LOT of bandwidth.
I bet he could walk thorough his internet connection without bumping his head.
March a whole army thorough there. Three abreast.
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
I don't know if anyone has said it yet, but it's because he has a team of messengers on horses that are able to run through the tubes :D
Yikes! I wonder how many this year....
I bet it's 500,000+
Arn has a LOT of bandwidth.
I bet he could walk thorough his internet connection without bumping his head.
March a whole army thorough there. Three abreast.
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
*goose step*
I don't know if anyone has said it yet, but it's because he has a team of messengers on horses that are able to run through the tubes :D
chinesechikn
Mar 26, 06:18 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
The Future of video games?
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
The Future of video games?
In the future, your controller will cost �400, require a 10ft HDMI cable, a �25 adapter, and have the graphics of a PS2.
Yeah, and you can unplug it, put it in your bag, play it on the train, surf the web, check your email, edit your movie ...bit more than a $400 controller
~Shard~
Sep 7, 11:47 PM
Most of the time when people refer to the 5th Generation of a model here on MacRumors they refer to their Machine as 5G or Gen5. The main reason for this shortcut is to avoid the confusion with the PPC chip G4, G5, etc.
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
For Example, as Shard points out above, referring to the new iMac as G5 is just wrong and confusing because of the obsolete PPC G5 chip. However it is much clearer if you refer to the new iMac as 5thGen or 5G.
Thanks for the additional insight digitalbiker, you're right on the money. :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment