Reach9
May 2, 11:29 PM
..in favour of spending more on the military (buying new jets in the coming years) and more willing to spend huge amounts on security and the like (~$1 billion spent for security during the Toronto G20 summit)..
.
The G20 summit was absolutely pointless, it'll be a year in a few months. Here's hoping for a better next 4 years.. and hopefully the Liberals get their act together and come back.
.
The G20 summit was absolutely pointless, it'll be a year in a few months. Here's hoping for a better next 4 years.. and hopefully the Liberals get their act together and come back.
EvanLugh
Apr 19, 09:56 AM
looks good, but as mentioned the voice notes & calculator have the old icons. probably just an internal 4.0
KnightWRX
May 6, 06:47 AM
Even under Linux, it's easier than in Windows.
Networking is only hard if you have no clue what you are doing. Let's face it, most of it has been hidden away under layers and layers of auto-configuration that every OS under the sun has supported for decades now.
You barely even have to worry about cabling anymore, with MDI-X.
And personally, I find the Network and Sharing center confusing in Windows. It's like everything is buried way too deep. Windows 2000 was just perfect as far as the Windows implementation of a networking GUI configuration tool goes. It's been downhill ever since. Just give me flat text files any day of the week though.
Networking is only hard if you have no clue what you are doing. Let's face it, most of it has been hidden away under layers and layers of auto-configuration that every OS under the sun has supported for decades now.
You barely even have to worry about cabling anymore, with MDI-X.
And personally, I find the Network and Sharing center confusing in Windows. It's like everything is buried way too deep. Windows 2000 was just perfect as far as the Windows implementation of a networking GUI configuration tool goes. It's been downhill ever since. Just give me flat text files any day of the week though.
P-Worm
Sep 22, 10:07 AM
Isn't it amazing that no matter what the topic of a thread is about it always seems to degrade into people getting mad at how expensive a Macintosh is? Not to change the subjedt or anything...Carry on.
P-Worm
P-Worm
hans-martijn
Mar 18, 07:39 AM
Whats this feature for? I don't know if it was in SL Server but its part of the mail settings and don't know if its for certification or for using apple's mobile me mail service for pushing mail to iOS devices.
This looks like Push notifications for email will finally work :-)
-Hans-Martijn
This looks like Push notifications for email will finally work :-)
-Hans-Martijn
sebastianlewis
May 16, 03:16 AM
Because most Apple products have hardware AND software so you might not know where to look for your specific issue/for the information you want.
For example if I was looking up information on the iPod Touch, there will be information on the hardware and information on the software, but they will be in different places.
It is possible to guide the user to the correct information that they're looking for just with decently written Guides and smart use of redirects.
Example:
Problem: The iPod touch is a subset of the iPhone and does not entirely warrant its own article.
Solution: Automatically redirect users from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch
Problem: User wants to look up information on the iPod touch's hardware.
Solution: Redirect user from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch
Problem: User wants to look up information on the iPod touch's software.
Solution: Redirect user from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch and place an iPod Touch Software link at the start of the section which redirects to /iPhone_OS.
Err, well I'm not making suggestions that that's the exact place they should redirect or anything, but I'm making a point that it's possible to guide the user to the place that they are looking for.
Sebastian
For example if I was looking up information on the iPod Touch, there will be information on the hardware and information on the software, but they will be in different places.
It is possible to guide the user to the correct information that they're looking for just with decently written Guides and smart use of redirects.
Example:
Problem: The iPod touch is a subset of the iPhone and does not entirely warrant its own article.
Solution: Automatically redirect users from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch
Problem: User wants to look up information on the iPod touch's hardware.
Solution: Redirect user from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch
Problem: User wants to look up information on the iPod touch's software.
Solution: Redirect user from /iPod_Touch to /iPhone#iPod_Touch and place an iPod Touch Software link at the start of the section which redirects to /iPhone_OS.
Err, well I'm not making suggestions that that's the exact place they should redirect or anything, but I'm making a point that it's possible to guide the user to the place that they are looking for.
Sebastian
Popeye206
Apr 13, 05:00 AM
Well, I can get 22% off a Verizon plan, that sort of thing might matter. Although, I don't want a 3G iPad, so....no matter to me.
* Also, crap DNS speed really throws many people for surfing, anyway. The internet's dirty little secret. I wonder how many millions don't realize they could be faster by typing a couple digits into setup.
Jat.... didn't know this. Made the change and not sure about speed, but it fixed another issue I had where one of my business partner web sites was getting blocked. Thanks for the tip!
* Also, crap DNS speed really throws many people for surfing, anyway. The internet's dirty little secret. I wonder how many millions don't realize they could be faster by typing a couple digits into setup.
Jat.... didn't know this. Made the change and not sure about speed, but it fixed another issue I had where one of my business partner web sites was getting blocked. Thanks for the tip!
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
yorkshire
Dec 16, 03:53 PM
This is absolutely pointless and I'm sick of hearing about it. I wouldn't be surprised if it was Sony who started the campaign. Think about it. If you didn't like the X Factor song, you wouldn't buy it. But now there is this silly campaign to buy the RATM song for all the people who hate the X Factor song. Sony wins in either case.
And the reason the X Factor song is usually number one is because, well, the X Factor is popular.
These campaigns are stupid and pointless.
[/thread]
It's not about making Sony lose out. Most of the people buying the single realise that either way, Sony benefits. Yes, Cowell will benefit slightly as he has shares in Sony, but he won't benefit nearly as much as he would if X Factor was number 1. I think it's just that people are fed up of X Factor dominating the charts year after year, and they want to see something new. Myself, I don't mind the RATM song, yes if it was my choice I'd have picked another, but anything is better than the cheesy manufactured pop that comes from Reality TV singing competitions.
And the reason the X Factor song is usually number one is because, well, the X Factor is popular.
These campaigns are stupid and pointless.
[/thread]
It's not about making Sony lose out. Most of the people buying the single realise that either way, Sony benefits. Yes, Cowell will benefit slightly as he has shares in Sony, but he won't benefit nearly as much as he would if X Factor was number 1. I think it's just that people are fed up of X Factor dominating the charts year after year, and they want to see something new. Myself, I don't mind the RATM song, yes if it was my choice I'd have picked another, but anything is better than the cheesy manufactured pop that comes from Reality TV singing competitions.
nagromme
Oct 6, 10:18 AM
Yes, because SO many iPhone 4 users are crying out that it�s just a little too small or a little too big! :p That�s a problem worth throwing vast sums of money and development resources at, not to mention customer confusion and loss of simplicity. Be more like Dell :)
BenRoethig
Sep 26, 07:12 AM
Podcast is a generic term now. This is complete B.S.
PinkyMacGodess
Oct 11, 10:57 AM
IMHO, adding a physical keyboard will most likely add thickness to the iPhone device & that goes against what Apple are doing. I could be wrong but it seems that one of Apple's main design focus has been to get thinner & thinner with each new revision of the product line. Therefore, I think that Apple will "unfortunately" not be adding a physical keyboard to the iPhone design anytime in the near future. :o
Then they need to add the ability to use a bluetooth external keyboard. It might be cludgy but it could open a whole new type of accessory. Clip-on keyboards. How about a case with a flip top that has a keyboard in it...
Then they need to add the ability to use a bluetooth external keyboard. It might be cludgy but it could open a whole new type of accessory. Clip-on keyboards. How about a case with a flip top that has a keyboard in it...
Hattig
Apr 6, 06:45 AM
Headset jack was removed, so had to buy a USB headset for example.
He just needed to buy a 3.5mm combo-jack to dual-jack adaptor. Probably under a dollar.
He just needed to buy a 3.5mm combo-jack to dual-jack adaptor. Probably under a dollar.
Rodimus Prime
Jun 14, 06:56 PM
about time they put in built in wifi on it.
shadowfax0
Sep 23, 09:06 PM
You sure it was 5H and 52M? My friend's single 867 get like 6-7 hours...but any details on how you ran it would be nice too :) But still, I'm liking that time, about ( about people, about, I swear if I hear about this someone's gonna die...) 5 workunits a day, not bad, not bad at all...
wsteineker
May 8, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by LimeLite
1/15 PC Users X 95% Market Share = 6.3% of total market.
1/2 Mac Users X 5% Market Share = 2.5% of total market.
If your assumption of this is right, then...
Conclusion: There are more bigotted PC Users than there are bigotted Mac Users. :D
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Hell yeah! Use math to combat the troll! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :D:D:D
1/15 PC Users X 95% Market Share = 6.3% of total market.
1/2 Mac Users X 5% Market Share = 2.5% of total market.
If your assumption of this is right, then...
Conclusion: There are more bigotted PC Users than there are bigotted Mac Users. :D
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! Hell yeah! Use math to combat the troll! Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha!!!!! :D:D:D
mac-er
Feb 19, 06:56 AM
What, do you think Microsoft has been snubbed?
The meeting was between the President and the heads of Silicon Valley tech companies.
All of the companies represented at the meeting are based in California.
Microsoft is based in Redmond, Washington.
So Microsoft weren't invited (http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/02/18/why-ballmer-wasnt-at-the-obama-tech-dinner/). ;)
I prefer to think that it is just another example of how Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant in the consumer market. They will be the IBM of the '10s.
The meeting was between the President and the heads of Silicon Valley tech companies.
All of the companies represented at the meeting are based in California.
Microsoft is based in Redmond, Washington.
So Microsoft weren't invited (http://thenextweb.com/microsoft/2011/02/18/why-ballmer-wasnt-at-the-obama-tech-dinner/). ;)
I prefer to think that it is just another example of how Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant in the consumer market. They will be the IBM of the '10s.
sartinsauce
Oct 17, 09:39 AM
You know, I would love an Apple phone as much (or even more) than the next guy, but something occured to me this morning...
All this talk, all this hype. If/When the iPhone comes out, most of you are gonna flame Apple for releasing such a POS. I'm already vommiting at the thought of how many posts will use the overused phrase "underwhelmed."
You will be underwhelmed my friends, I promise.
Also, to stay competitive in the mobile phone hardware market, you've got to release new hardware, with new features, at least every year, if not twice a year. Apple seems to be so slow getting out of the gate on this one that I wonder if they could do that. I mean, look at quickly they updated their notebooks to Core 2 Duo. Oh, that's right, they haven't.
Can Apple produce and continue to innovate a product every 9 months?
All this talk, all this hype. If/When the iPhone comes out, most of you are gonna flame Apple for releasing such a POS. I'm already vommiting at the thought of how many posts will use the overused phrase "underwhelmed."
You will be underwhelmed my friends, I promise.
Also, to stay competitive in the mobile phone hardware market, you've got to release new hardware, with new features, at least every year, if not twice a year. Apple seems to be so slow getting out of the gate on this one that I wonder if they could do that. I mean, look at quickly they updated their notebooks to Core 2 Duo. Oh, that's right, they haven't.
Can Apple produce and continue to innovate a product every 9 months?
Cander
Mar 23, 03:35 PM
While I wish the AppleTV supported DLNA, that's not really directly comparable to AirPlay, is it? DLNA seems to be a "pull" protocol and it seems to be more closely comparable to iTunes Home Sharing.
AirPlay is more of a "push" protocol.
AFAIK DLNA 'pushes'. AirPlay is more of a redirect of the stream.
AirPlay is more of a "push" protocol.
AFAIK DLNA 'pushes'. AirPlay is more of a redirect of the stream.
SuperCachetes
Mar 12, 05:38 PM
Anyway, environmentalist or not, what do you think about the Fit's overall city and highway gas mileage? And does it really beat the Prius in overall gas mileage? Toyota also has a very similar small type of car that is totally sexy. To me, small is sexy (but not Smart Car), and I could parallel park easier than my huge SW, and get great gas mileage.
I have also considered Mazda 3 and Pontiac Vibe.
Where the Fit excels is its interior volume. It is seriously like the Tardis in its ability to betray its small appearance on the outside with its actual capacity inside. For example, I have filled it with a family of four's luggage and knick-knacks for a week-long trip, with room to spare.
Mileage is as advertised, mostly high-20's squirting around town, nearer to high-30's with the cruise set for hours at highway speeds. I don't have the knowledge to compare it to the Prius, but I will say that the Fit's interior fit-and-finish, while well-detailed and more than adequate, is "cheaper" than the Prius, and maybe even my old Civic's.
While it won't win many drag races, it is a fun runabout, as it's probably the shortest wheelbase car I've ever owned. Meaning, it "hops" over bumps and sneezes will put you in the adjacent lane. I haven't driven a Mini Cooper, but I suspect the sensations are similar.
I'd buy one again in a heartbeat.
I have also considered Mazda 3 and Pontiac Vibe.
Where the Fit excels is its interior volume. It is seriously like the Tardis in its ability to betray its small appearance on the outside with its actual capacity inside. For example, I have filled it with a family of four's luggage and knick-knacks for a week-long trip, with room to spare.
Mileage is as advertised, mostly high-20's squirting around town, nearer to high-30's with the cruise set for hours at highway speeds. I don't have the knowledge to compare it to the Prius, but I will say that the Fit's interior fit-and-finish, while well-detailed and more than adequate, is "cheaper" than the Prius, and maybe even my old Civic's.
While it won't win many drag races, it is a fun runabout, as it's probably the shortest wheelbase car I've ever owned. Meaning, it "hops" over bumps and sneezes will put you in the adjacent lane. I haven't driven a Mini Cooper, but I suspect the sensations are similar.
I'd buy one again in a heartbeat.
MacBoobsPro
Nov 11, 05:59 AM
Wow they are actually painful to watch!
zengod
Jan 6, 11:32 AM
In the UK where customers of the like of O2 (me) have more chance of getting a w##k off the Pope than a decent data signal without resorting to standing up a ladder and waving their phone in the air, this is a definate no win app.
Flying Llama
Jun 12, 12:50 PM
Hi Redeye,
I have come accross another bug, or it's my dual G5... or Atszyman is spoking me out! :mad: Like he's ever gonna catch up with me!
This is the case: I have three folding widgets running for over a week now, no problem in that week. I have three because I want to monitor someone behind me (Atszyman) and my next overtake in front of me. But when I just looked all three widgets where on Atszyman.
It's not just the folding tracker widget: I believe there is one preference file for a specific widget, so when dashboard was restarted, it loaded the preference file, and applied it to all folding tracker widgets. Apple should fix this...
I have come accross another bug, or it's my dual G5... or Atszyman is spoking me out! :mad: Like he's ever gonna catch up with me!
This is the case: I have three folding widgets running for over a week now, no problem in that week. I have three because I want to monitor someone behind me (Atszyman) and my next overtake in front of me. But when I just looked all three widgets where on Atszyman.
It's not just the folding tracker widget: I believe there is one preference file for a specific widget, so when dashboard was restarted, it loaded the preference file, and applied it to all folding tracker widgets. Apple should fix this...
Terrabit
Sep 20, 01:23 AM
(accidental bad post, read below)
