Moyank24
Apr 27, 12:02 PM
I'm not a birther. But I would love to know why the certificate looks new when the president is nearly 50. Now I'm about five months older than he, my original birth certificate has faded. The certificate he produced clearly isn't the original. Or if it is the original, it's astoundingly well-preserved.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
He hasn't been carrying this around for 50 years. Did you actually read the article?
The White House also released a letter from the president on April 22 requesting two certified copies of his original certificate of live birth. Also released was a letter from Loretta Fuddy, Hawaii's director of health, approving the request.
The president's personal counsel, Judith Corley, traveled to Hawaii to pick up the documents and carried them back to Washington on a plane. The documents arrived at the White House around 5 p.m. Tuesday.
dgree03
Mar 31, 02:36 PM
This wont end androids openness. It will make is so that there is more of a consistent experience amung all android devices.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
Benjamins
Mar 31, 08:12 PM
HA HA. You have got to be kidding me.
LOL specially those who parade around using Microsoft fanboy as a buffer.
LOL specially those who parade around using Microsoft fanboy as a buffer.
Tomaz
Aug 7, 06:07 PM
Innovation isn't creating new ideas, but improving them.
For instance, Spotlight searching wasn't new. BeOS had something similar. But Apple improved it and integrated it into their OS.
See, I have Virtue desktops. I've tried Desktop Manager, You Control: Desktops. But they're all just hacks. Spaces looks mcuh cleaner, simpler and elegant than any of those. That's what I expect from Apple, and they did not let me down.
As for Time Machine, no the idea is not new, even for Microsoft. But Apple is making it simple. Easy enough for mom and dad to use. Personally I think having a wormhole-space interface is kickass.
Ok my last post on this topic before I'm getting on peoples nerves: Copying, improving and whatever you wanna call it is ok, I don't care where an idea came from as long as the outcome is good. But Apple always presents their innovations as their inventions and claims that everyone else copies. In todays keynote they even made a big deal out of how MS copies Apple (banner, on stage), and afterwards they introduced only stuff that they copied (and maybe improved) from MS, Linux... that's just not very sympathetic!
For instance, Spotlight searching wasn't new. BeOS had something similar. But Apple improved it and integrated it into their OS.
See, I have Virtue desktops. I've tried Desktop Manager, You Control: Desktops. But they're all just hacks. Spaces looks mcuh cleaner, simpler and elegant than any of those. That's what I expect from Apple, and they did not let me down.
As for Time Machine, no the idea is not new, even for Microsoft. But Apple is making it simple. Easy enough for mom and dad to use. Personally I think having a wormhole-space interface is kickass.
Ok my last post on this topic before I'm getting on peoples nerves: Copying, improving and whatever you wanna call it is ok, I don't care where an idea came from as long as the outcome is good. But Apple always presents their innovations as their inventions and claims that everyone else copies. In todays keynote they even made a big deal out of how MS copies Apple (banner, on stage), and afterwards they introduced only stuff that they copied (and maybe improved) from MS, Linux... that's just not very sympathetic!
paul4339
Apr 8, 12:10 AM
can't BB HQ send some ghost/mystery shoppers out and audit the store managers?
Highland
Nov 28, 06:49 PM
it's ridiculous for Universal to even be thinking this. NONE of the money would get to artists or anything like that. it would just go to the company.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
Yep. I haven't seen any plans for any of the cash to be distributed to the Universal artists. This is appalling behavior.
Btw, Universal (unfortunately) own a pretty massive music catalogue. So if they did threaten to pull out of iTS, Apple might listen. You'd hope it's way too late for that though. I think iTS has enough of a head start that even Universal etc couldn't threaten Apple.
PCClone
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
I haven't read this lawsuit, so I don't know if they're claiming things that aren't true... but I really do not like the fact that the iPhone has a breadcrumbs database of my travels for the last 3 years!
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
This type of thing should not happen without users' knowledge... and it was. Or else this file would not be news!
If you didn't know this maybe you should get a trac phone.
the vj
Apr 25, 02:55 PM
Jobs.... you better say sorry dude. :rolleyes:
littleman23408
Dec 2, 08:43 AM
I hate to link to IGN, but here goes:
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
GT5 damage explained (http://ps3.ign.com/articles/113/1137446p1.html)
Confusion seems to have stemmed from its differing implementation across the game's extensive garage, a point that Sony further clarified. "Standard models have minor deformation and scratches," said Sony, "Premium cars have greater visible level of damage, and Premium racing models have the highest level of damage."
I can't open the links due to work internet, but they should have done equal damage to all cars. Besides, every real car dents and scratches pretty easily.
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 07:40 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
MacBoobsPro
Jul 20, 09:22 AM
But as some already pointed out, many applications can't use multiple cores, therefore you won't get any performance improvements with multi cores.
Im not talking about performance, more about energy usage. I thought maybe they are using more cores as it is more energy efficient than using less cores or one big one. But as someone has pointed out its more likely a case of not having to squeeze more transistor thingies on a chip, they may as well just add another chip. :)
Im not talking about performance, more about energy usage. I thought maybe they are using more cores as it is more energy efficient than using less cores or one big one. But as someone has pointed out its more likely a case of not having to squeeze more transistor thingies on a chip, they may as well just add another chip. :)
Jon'sLightBulbs
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
You're screwing up, intel. We don't want 300 trillion transistors on a 1 nm die. We want longer battery life. Idiots.
NoNothing
Apr 7, 11:08 PM
As best as I can figure, it works like this. Managers get good grades if they sell certain amounts of products.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
So quotas are done on a daily basis and not a weekly basis? WOW. And I thought the quarterly earning reports made companies make bad decisions.
I'll use low numbers here. Let's say BB corporate wants you to sell at least 5 iPads a day to make your "Quota". One day, 10 iPads come in. You sell all ten, yay, you made quota for the day.
But the next day, none get shipped to the store. So, boo, you didn't make quota, since you didn't have any to sell.
Mr. Manager (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4DMPmoJkJQ)
So quotas are done on a daily basis and not a weekly basis? WOW. And I thought the quarterly earning reports made companies make bad decisions.
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 11:06 AM
Don't compare them either. There is a huge difference between what homosexuals do and what pedophiles do. You're the one getting on people for not comprehending language. I suggest you take your own advice.
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
I goofed. I misinterpreted what Lee said about sodomy. He said that not all homosexuals engage in sodomy. I thought he thought homosexual sex was not sodomy. Unfortunately, too often, when I'm impulsive, I misinterpret what others write.
I don't look down on anyone here. I didn't look down on anyone here. I'm sorry I gave the impression that I did that. I'm sorry I've written insultingly, too. I didn't mean to do that.
Sadly, I sometimes do react emotionally when I should react rationally instead. And I do need to try harder to comprehend what others say.
BWhaler
Aug 26, 07:11 PM
Note: I believe I accidentally merged someone's (possibly a couple of people's) posts into BWhaler's post (3 above this post). Sorry. :o
jsw, thanks for merging my postings.
Didn't mean to spam the thread. (Just wasn't thinking...)
jsw, thanks for merging my postings.
Didn't mean to spam the thread. (Just wasn't thinking...)
Rt&Dzine
Apr 27, 09:17 AM
The tinfoilhatism in the comments on that link is out of hand.
Can you really blame them? They won't have a purpose in life without Birtherism.
Can you really blame them? They won't have a purpose in life without Birtherism.
bmturney
Apr 27, 09:01 AM
It's always entertaining reading the paranoid ramblings of conspiracy theorists.
gnasher729
Aug 26, 04:08 PM
I dont see much change really, the 1.66GHz merom chip will find its way into the mini (they'll scrap the solo model).
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
The 1.83 & 2.00GHz for iMacs (if they use merom) and MacBooks and the 2.16 and 2.33 for the 15 & 17 MBPs respectively. Its that simple.
Only problem with that is that a 2.33 GHz Merom chip will be fifty percent more expensive than a 2.16 GHz Yonah is today. So do you think Apple will increase prices of the MacBook Pro by $150 to $200 or reduce their profit?
Funkymonk
Mar 22, 05:16 PM
man I may pick up the samsung 10.1. similar specs +thinner and lighter than the ipad + honeycomb? sign my ass up!
manu chao
Apr 25, 02:16 PM
To say that it is an invasion of privacy is just false, however, because the information remains private.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
It is not an invasion of privacy, it is an unnecessary (and unpublicised) risk to your privacy.
Any company that stores sensitive data of yours, eg, a CC number, is expected and to some degree legally bound to take any reasonable precautions to keep your data private (eg, by securing their servers). Apple simply failed to take reasonable precautions (by clearing the cache). Not on something extremely serious but an oversight for which they could except some slight scolding.
faroZ06
Apr 27, 08:43 AM
And once again people give Apple a pass for something that is clearly an issue.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Not really. Although location services does not delete the log when you turn it off, it does cease to record to it. I don't see what the problem with that is.
You mean to tell me that Apple, a company that seems to release fairly solid software, "neglected" to test that when disabling an option called LOCATION SERVICES, that it actually disabled location checking properly? Are some of you really so Jobsian?
Call a spade a spade. There's no possible chance this was a mistake. They got caught. They should not be given a pass over it. If a user opts to disable Location Services, they were working under the false impression that their location was no longer being tracked. Seems mighty shifty to me. Doesn't matter how much data might have been user-identifiable. This sounds like something Google would do, not Apple.
Not really. Although location services does not delete the log when you turn it off, it does cease to record to it. I don't see what the problem with that is.
arkmannj
Aug 5, 08:09 PM
I am excited for 10.5, mac pros, displays, core 2 duo, etc...
but for the practicle side of my wallet I feel like I've been waiting FOREVER for an airport upgrade. (as in, an upgrade to the airport extreme, express) I'm not expecting faster speeds, but it would be very nice if they could add features like
* the ability for USB 2.0 / firewire external storage devices to connect, or even like 2GB built in storage for shared files.
* streaming video
* etc :-)
but for the practicle side of my wallet I feel like I've been waiting FOREVER for an airport upgrade. (as in, an upgrade to the airport extreme, express) I'm not expecting faster speeds, but it would be very nice if they could add features like
* the ability for USB 2.0 / firewire external storage devices to connect, or even like 2GB built in storage for shared files.
* streaming video
* etc :-)
Midirose
Nov 28, 10:56 PM
Here is another little tid bit about Universal Music you may not be aware of. The original MP3.com was bought out by Universal Music a few years back. Prior to Universal, MP3.com was privately owned and had music from thousands of indie artist from around the world and no major label artist. You could listen to the artist music for free, but you could also purchase their music for download or actual CD. There was a lot of really awful music there but there was a lot of very good music there also. Some unsigned artist sold thousands of CD around the world like my band. After Universal bought MP3.com they destroyed the catalog even though the original owner offered to purchase it. Economics would lead me to think that Universal believed that the millions of indie songs sold on MP3.com was a direct threat to them not meeting their year over year projections, and it was. Get rid of the competition and get money for nothing.........sounds like big business trying to please their share holders. It is no wonder that our culture is going to hel#, when fair play and morals give way to profits. And yes most labels are pimps and you know who their hoes are.......our favorite artists. I hope Apple does not cave to this type of extortion!!!
Porco
Nov 28, 10:41 PM
The full article is very funny.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
"It would be a nice idea. We have a negotiation coming up not too far. I don't see why we wouldn't do that... but maybe not in the same way," he told the Reuters Media Summit, when asked if Universal would negotiate a royalty fee for the iPod that would be similar to Microsoft's Zune.
"The Zune (deal) was an amazingly interesting exercise, to end up with a piece of technology," he added.
"It would be a nice idea" if I got money for nothing too! And why am I tempted to read "an amazingly interesting exercise" as an amazingly interesting exercise ... he added, dollar signs flashing in his eyes like some real-life Scrooge McDuck' ?
And to end up with "a piece of technology"! Yes! wow! hahahahah, I bet Microsoft were astounded about that too.
As the various parodies of such behaviour online indicates, the whole thing would be hilarious if it wasn't so ... true.
Pirates will pirate unless you give them a compelling reason not to. Legitimate customers will stay that way unless they feel piracy is an action they are ethically comfortable with. This kind of garbage makes that happen.
So for every iPod that would possibly hold a good couple of hundred Universal tracks amongst the thousands on there, I'd guess this kind of thing completely turns us nerds towards piracy rather than CD purchases/legitimate downloads. Is that $1 per iPod really going to make them as much money as the $xx they have lost on CDs and downloads? I'd guess not. Even if only 1% of people buying iPods pirate Universal tracks instead of buying them because of this deal (if it happens), it would be a loser for Universal. And of course the only people not financially at a loss because of it will be people who buy tracks, not the pirates who are back in the black as soon as they soak up the $1 surcharge by illegally downloading a Universal album as soon as they get their iPod.
If Apple did have the misfortune to be made to accept this kind of thing (unlikely right now I'd think, but you never know after a couple of ad-laden Zune-ar years), they should add the $1 to the price of the iPod so people ask "why does it cost $201?" and they should tell people on their web-site exactly why as well, providing details of how to get in touch with Universal to express their thanks.
Sorry if I've repeated any points already made... it's a Universally idiotic idea.
No comments:
Post a Comment