SuperCachetes
Apr 10, 11:03 AM
Government-mandated vacation??? Why, those socialists! The damn government can keep its filthy hands outta my- hey, wait a minute... Did you say 5 weeks? :p
evilgEEk
Sep 19, 02:26 PM
... but I want all teh artwork as well, so i can FEEL my dvd library growing,
andreas
I'm with you to an extent. I love the look of my DVD collection sitting there in the living room, it's nice to have the case with artwork and have it tangible. But at the same time, I have nothing against having all my movies browseable with iTV. If it's set up like the movie trailers are in Front Row, I'll be one happy camper. If it's just the title of the movie then that would be lame, but I'm sure they'll have "cover art" as well.
andreas
I'm with you to an extent. I love the look of my DVD collection sitting there in the living room, it's nice to have the case with artwork and have it tangible. But at the same time, I have nothing against having all my movies browseable with iTV. If it's set up like the movie trailers are in Front Row, I'll be one happy camper. If it's just the title of the movie then that would be lame, but I'm sure they'll have "cover art" as well.
Mattie Num Nums
Apr 19, 09:01 AM
Android is a huge rip-off of the iPhone, that's obvious. Very early Android was more like a RIM or Symbian-looking thing and when the iPhone appeared it quickly started copying the heck out of that.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
BUT - when the iPhone introduced the world to full touch screen phones, how else could someone make the same sort of device without it being a lot like an iPhone? Menus, icons, applications, grids... none of this is exactly new...
I can't stand Android and the layer of pointless fluff like HTC Sense that gets in your way with useless graphical nonsense and widgets. When I got a Desire after an iPhone 3G I thought I had a killer phone and 'got one over on the Apple tax' and would enjoy 'mulitasking' and 'openess'.
For five minutes.... Then I realised iOS is far more usable - even though the Desire was way faster with its 1gz processor much of the old iPhone 3G felt slicker. It makes sense not to have a layer of crap over the basic OS. It makes sense to ration multitasking so the phone doesn't bog down. Music playing on Android is rubbish. The iPhone dock is cool.
That's not to say everything on Android isn't good - in some cases auto text reflow would be GREAT on Safari.
Apple should just ignore the Android cloners and continue to innovate- and offer stripped down slickness as Android gets more and more overwrought.
You do realize that a bare bones Android OS looks nothing like iOS.
cwt1nospam
Mar 20, 04:45 PM
I've never once even hinted that anti-viral software would be helpful on a Mac. But apparently you wish I had made that 'argument' (even though you just made an absurd claim that I haven't presented as argument...and so why are you even replying with a counter-argument? :rolleyes: That is called a logical absurdity. ;) ) Sophos does, however, make free software that deals with over 100 possible threats to OSX.
I just love the irony! You state that you haven't claimed AV software would be useful and in the same paragraph claim that it can deal with 100 possible threats! :p
You're quite the Snake Oil salesman.
I just love the irony! You state that you haven't claimed AV software would be useful and in the same paragraph claim that it can deal with 100 possible threats! :p
You're quite the Snake Oil salesman.
cube
May 3, 12:46 PM
DP 1.2 has up to 17.28 Gbps.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
TB has two 10 Gbps channels.
Only one channel is for DisplayPort.
ChrisTX
Apr 30, 07:04 PM
Great, now can someone please release a product that actually uses Thunderbolt so I can get it for my MBP?
+1 I know theres, an external hard drive available, but I'm curious myself to see what get's released.
+1 I know theres, an external hard drive available, but I'm curious myself to see what get's released.
dazzer21
Sep 5, 06:47 AM
So what sort of picture and sound quality can we expect from these movie downloads (wireless or otherwise)? Also, as a download, just how big are these files going to be? I wouldn't want to be on the other side of a "your hard disk is now full" prompt 10Mb from the end of a 2Gb download (that's an extreme example - I hope!)
scottgroovez
Apr 25, 02:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
Those who don't want the superdrive have the option of an air. People in the music industry will always have a use for CD's. I just think no superdrive makes it an air varient not a pro.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2012 is a long way off. Buy now, enjoy it now and sell and upgrade when the time comes. I'm terrible for getting caught in the waiting game. You just wait for eternity.
I'm not sure the pros will lose the DVD drive. It'll encroch into MBA territory and pros are meant more for industry use where the drives are useful.
MBA for casual use. MBP where nothing is compromised.
13 needs a better screen though. I've just bought my first 13 MBP and the soft resolution is a bit disappointing.
Would you disagree that, just perhaps, in these industries where the DVD drive is so crucial that they might just have external drives? Apple is trying to sell these MacBooks to everyone, not just pros. It's the internet and App store are capable of doing the exact same thing as DVDs (for most computer purposes). For everything else, buy the external superdrive. 15% of MBP customers might need a DVD drive, but we know Apple isn't going to ignore the 85% who don't.
Those who don't want the superdrive have the option of an air. People in the music industry will always have a use for CD's. I just think no superdrive makes it an air varient not a pro.
unobtainium
Apr 22, 02:25 AM
I have no idea how this would be useful. Buffer times, connection loss, no WiFi around, these are all problems that will prevent this from working.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
What's wrong with storing music on hard drives locally?
Yeah, my sentiments exactly. This seems pretty useless, at least for me. I can't get too excited about it.
bdj21ya
Oct 12, 05:13 PM
100% confirmed.
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice! Still doesn't answer the mystery of the clickwheel color though
via Chicago Tribune:
http://img183.imageshack.us/img183/5016/25865863uz2.jpg
Nice! Still doesn't answer the mystery of the clickwheel color though
seenew
Jul 15, 03:41 PM
Someone should have paid attention to the Buyer's Guide.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.
http://buyersguide.macrumors.com/
I've had the money for an iMac for over a month now. I haven't bought it though.
I did, at the time, it said mid-product cycle. And I had to have the computer for school, so I had to get it then. I'm just sad.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
milo
Mar 30, 12:47 PM
I didn't need to hear it before. It was always generic.
Well, whether it is generic is a matter of opinion, that's what's being debated in this case. I argue that if it truly is such a generic term, there should be prior art demonstrating use of it before Apple came along.
I don't understand why the other companies have to use that term - why not just have the Android Store and the Windows Store? Seems like that would be less confusing anyway.
Well, whether it is generic is a matter of opinion, that's what's being debated in this case. I argue that if it truly is such a generic term, there should be prior art demonstrating use of it before Apple came along.
I don't understand why the other companies have to use that term - why not just have the Android Store and the Windows Store? Seems like that would be less confusing anyway.
daneoni
Sep 12, 03:14 PM
my thoughts exactly... there aren't that much of a difference, right??
anyway, hey, are the search functions gonna be attainable for the last 5gen ipod as well ? with the software update??? i wish that's the case......please
i've been desperately looking for the reasons as to stick to the old 5gen which i bought just yesterday
There are no major differences but if i were you i'd go back and trade for the new one or just return the iPod and order a new one. Your window is soo close not to upgrade.
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
anyway, hey, are the search functions gonna be attainable for the last 5gen ipod as well ? with the software update??? i wish that's the case......please
i've been desperately looking for the reasons as to stick to the old 5gen which i bought just yesterday
There are no major differences but if i were you i'd go back and trade for the new one or just return the iPod and order a new one. Your window is soo close not to upgrade.
It doesnt look like the new software features will be added to current 5G iPods. My iPod software just updated and only game functions were added.
retroactiv
Mar 29, 11:52 AM
Since 1984:
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
Cmd-X = Cut
Cmd-C = Copy
Cmd-V = Past
Grab will snap a picture of a window, the entire screen etc. There is also print to PDF.
CMD-X does NOT cut a file and let you move it. I am in SL right now. DOESN'T work.
tpavur
Apr 4, 11:58 AM
OMG.. I'm with Felt. "Security Guards" shouldn't carry guns, and if they do there should be training and good sense that goes into using it. Shooting the suspects in the head is criminal.
I carry a Glock 19 every day why should a Security Guard be any different?
Where should you shoot them? First thing you learn is shoot to kill, there is no such thing as aiming for a less lethal area... also hollow points are a must to prevent collateral damage.
I am not saying this is a good kill by any means; I was not there. However if it had to be done this is the way it should have been done.
I carry a Glock 19 every day why should a Security Guard be any different?
Where should you shoot them? First thing you learn is shoot to kill, there is no such thing as aiming for a less lethal area... also hollow points are a must to prevent collateral damage.
I am not saying this is a good kill by any means; I was not there. However if it had to be done this is the way it should have been done.
TallManNY
Apr 22, 08:22 AM
If single use ownership is the wave of the future and that results in people buying more stuff, stuff like CDs, DVDs, and Digital Books which are basically infinite unconstrained resources (i.e., no supply issue for any of these), then prices for them will go down. So this is unlikely to be a negative for the consumer.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
I have my iPhone with me at all times and it has enough songs on it that I don't feel constrained. So streaming doesn't seem too exciting. Also, I doubt AT&T's New York cell coverage will be able to handle it to make this a nice experience.
CapturedDarknes
Nov 13, 10:20 PM
99% of these are in a huff self important 'tempest in a teapot' stories;
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
its not required-nay not even helpful to be a fanboy to point this out-just 2 good eyes and a brain;
Alway been complainers, always will be;
If the rules are clearly spelled out and they dont follow them-then they shouldnt be crybabies in public
simple
CAREFULLY read APPLEs developers rules
follow them
dont try to breach them
Amen! You are on the dot! Everyone (including developers) complain about their app not getting approved for one reason or another, and yet it's always because they breached the Developers Guide for the App Store. Just ******** get a printer and print the damn pdf out. Then, step two, READ it. Then, before you go and submit the app, use it yourself and see if it follows the guidelines.
It's like high school, when the teacher gives you a RUBRIC to FOLLOW, when you FAIL, it's because you didn't follow it. So shut up, or nut up. And build a better app. Hopefully one that doesn't say "that's what she says". :mad:
Platform
Sep 14, 08:49 AM
Is that wise? The camera in cellphones is at best a sorry excuse. Introducing a crappy camera at photokina... I don't know
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
Basic iPhoto...not an Aperture camera...anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
Still I would love to see the iPhone.
Basic iPhoto...not an Aperture camera...anyway just trying to find an excuse for the iPhone....hehe :D
MonkeyClaw
Sep 26, 10:39 AM
Cingular has terrible coverage here in Asheville, especially on campus from my experience. With verizon though, I can be anywhere and have guarunteed at least 3 bars. Cingluar works sometimes on campus but for the most part its a bit sketchy. Haven't tried it in the city though.
adamfilip
Sep 10, 08:34 PM
I wondering how many people are now going to put off buying a Mac Pro and wait for a faster Kentsfield :confused:
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
The Mac Pros a fast as it is now, Kentsfield would smash the previous benchmarks but a fair margin.
Ive heard about cloverton coming all along. and have put off buying a Mac pro
id much rather have 8 cores then 4 for the work i do
Gem�tlichkeit
Apr 22, 08:24 PM
Backlit keyboard on it and I am in. Perfect form factor and feature set for what I do all day every day. And less weight in my bag
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
Currently have the 13 mbp and would love to get a MBA to lighten my load.
I've heard this request from a lot of people on this forum. Is this really a deal breaker for you? the screen isn't bright enough at night to illuminate the keys that you need a separate source of light?
0815
Apr 20, 12:46 PM
The fact that apple has a huge location database accessible by anybody with an app scares me. That's too much centralized data for somebody to do bad things with, even if it's not Apple. THAT is why this is a bad thing.
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
:confused::confused::confused: Apple has NOTHING ! and NOTHING is accessible by everybody (except the owner of the device)
The data is stored on YOUR phone and YOUR laptop ... Apple does not have a centralized database with that data - it is all on your devices.
THAT is why it is not a bad thing
The governments have those big databases, but that's a different story.
THAT is the bad thing
zenmac
Jul 15, 02:21 PM
I know that it is a desktop chip but I would expect that a site like anandtech or tomshardware would check againt the core duo just to see how much the difference is between the two "core" CPU.
No comments:
Post a Comment