birthday quotes funny
flopticalcube
Apr 18, 07:30 PM
As a sinister lefty, I take umbrage in the comparison of persecution of homosexuals and that of left handed people. We are looking at orders of magnitude difference, particularly in the last 2 millennia.
.jpg "funny birthday quotes")
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 08:23 PM
Of course I like help Dejo and I know you have help a lot people, you have even helped me before this thread and I appreciate it a lot. I said that because so many seasoned developers just throw that bomb at newbies so often when they try to find answers in forums (not just this one), it happens not only in Programming but in many other professional environments, people just shoot to kill when some new guy makes a basic mistake, but luckily not all, some people do like to help (or enjoy) and have the patience to explain even the dumbest detail. But hey, it's cool.. We're all here to share and learn after all. I'll be glad to see you contribute to my threads, but you know.. that is up to you.
Zwhaler
Apr 15, 09:55 PM
Agreed.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
Reverend Wally
Nov 16, 01:03 PM
Consider that Apple, Intel, and AMD are IT developers and always expanding and inventing new pathways. AMD is not asleep, and neither is Intel, and frankly, Apple, being the Rolls Royce of computers would not impose limits on their capabilities. Maybe we will not see an AMD Apple real soon, but these people are on the leading edge, and I cannot imagine that the engineers do not think in this direction. IF Apple does go that way it will be for a very good and valid reason.
SO
Meanwhile, let's enjoy our Rolls Royce type computers without trying to turn them into Lamborghinis
:D
SO
Meanwhile, let's enjoy our Rolls Royce type computers without trying to turn them into Lamborghinis
:D
more...
Axemantitan
Apr 5, 03:12 PM
The McRib is back!
(Just kidding, I hate McDonalds.)
(Just kidding, I hate McDonalds.)
h00ligan
Mar 17, 12:53 AM
Good luck with this thread, you better get your flame suit at the ready.
more...
rtheb
Apr 29, 06:54 PM
I'm underwhelmed! :eek:
kresh
Oct 19, 12:49 PM
Check out this to boost Mac OS X market share:
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39284186,00.htm
If Apple does it, Windows (read M$) will be out of business in three years!
What these guys forget, and everyone else who proposes this, is the fact that OS X solely exists to sell Apple's hardware and not the other way around.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/business/0,39020645,39284186,00.htm
If Apple does it, Windows (read M$) will be out of business in three years!
What these guys forget, and everyone else who proposes this, is the fact that OS X solely exists to sell Apple's hardware and not the other way around.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
more...
aristobrat
Oct 6, 06:32 PM
I think the biggest problem is when Apple had the chance to change the game by not doing subizided cost they instead give in and just make it worse by forcing a much larger than average subsudize on there phone ($400 vs $250).
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Unlock phones puts the network and the phone separete.
I'm not sure why you think Apple's original iPhone sales model was changing the game.
The customer paid the full price of the iPhone, the iPhone was still locked to a specific carrier, and the carrier agreed to pay Apple monthly for every iPhone customer they had.
On top of that, AT&T created a special, cheaper data plan to lure customers in, as the full-priced phone was very off-putting to some.
Sounds like the original iPhone ended up costing AT&T more than the subsidy on the iPhone 3G/3GS did.
And why did Apple change its original sales model? Because they weren't selling nearly as fast as Apple had hoped.
I agree with you that being able to buy any phone and have it work on any network would be awesome. Logistically, I just don't ever see it happening.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
more...
Eraserhead
Mar 4, 05:47 PM
It does not.
To expand.
According to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Only 18 teachers have been sacked in the UK for incompetence over the past 40 years. You could increase that figure by 500x or something and even at that level it would be extremely difficult for the unions to get public sympathy for teachers being treated badly. Given there are half a million teachers in the UK, even with 500x more of them being fired for incompetence that would still only be 225 a year or 0.05% of them a year.
There is no way that the unions have that kind of power - I think its far more likely to be down to too much bureaucracy.
Teachers on average make more than private sector employees. The average in Ohio is $50,314, source
But you of course have to take education levels into account, so that isn't even true.
The two economists work out the fraction of American workers� pay that cannot be explained by factors such as differences in education and experience. This �wage premium� reflects the extent to which workers have been able to extract more pay than is merited by their qualifications. Those who believe that America�s state workers are vastly overpaid will be surprised to learn that this premium is in fact higher in the private sector than in the public sector in many American states. But states where the opposite is true are ones like California, Florida and New York
http://www.economist.com/node/18285587?story_id=18285587
To expand.
According to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Only 18 teachers have been sacked in the UK for incompetence over the past 40 years. You could increase that figure by 500x or something and even at that level it would be extremely difficult for the unions to get public sympathy for teachers being treated badly. Given there are half a million teachers in the UK, even with 500x more of them being fired for incompetence that would still only be 225 a year or 0.05% of them a year.
There is no way that the unions have that kind of power - I think its far more likely to be down to too much bureaucracy.
Teachers on average make more than private sector employees. The average in Ohio is $50,314, source
But you of course have to take education levels into account, so that isn't even true.
The two economists work out the fraction of American workers� pay that cannot be explained by factors such as differences in education and experience. This �wage premium� reflects the extent to which workers have been able to extract more pay than is merited by their qualifications. Those who believe that America�s state workers are vastly overpaid will be surprised to learn that this premium is in fact higher in the private sector than in the public sector in many American states. But states where the opposite is true are ones like California, Florida and New York
http://www.economist.com/node/18285587?story_id=18285587
SeaFox
Oct 29, 01:14 AM
What it IS like is me, a record label, spending money on making music, then letting people listen to it for free on the radio. How dumb would that be? :rolleyes:
No, that's not a valid comparison, either. Because...
more...
Funny Birthday Quotes Coffee
Every Year On Your Birthday
more...
happy irthday quotes funny.
Birthday Quotes, Funny
more...
best friends quotes funny
irthday quotes funny. funny
irthday quotes funny.
No, that's not a valid comparison, either. Because...
more...
Macky-Mac
May 4, 03:39 PM
Any law that tells a physician what they can and can't ask a patient, or who they must treat despite their own personal views - is stupid....
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
....The hypocrisy from those of you on the left on this issue is pretty clear. If this was the GLBTA trying to pass a similar law regarding homosexuality, etc. you'd have no problem with it.
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
krestfallen
Oct 17, 10:01 AM
1. VHS had longer tapes, Betamax's tapes were smaller, so had difficulty coming out with larger capacity tapes. Faced with one system that's standard tapes could record 1 hour and one that could do 3 hours, most people chose the latter (VHS).
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
so it's kind of a mixture here.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
2. Sony's tight grip on the Betamax format kept prices high and innovation low. VHS decks were cheaper and made by more manufacturers, and hence consumers had more choice.
3. The porn industry chose VHS.
so it's kind of a mixture here.
1. more capacity -> blu-ray
2. lower price -> hd-dvd
3. porn industry choses the cheapest format -> hd-dvd
the big thing will be the players. blu-ray players had a bad start (frames were dropped, image quality wasn't that good, delays).
it looks like blu-ray will have a hard fight.
more...
bbplayer5
Dec 13, 09:49 AM
Ill be handing out grains of salt.
eastercat
May 4, 02:23 AM
The US telecoms are controlled by a small number of companies. If the corporations weren't buying influence, we could expect some relief from the FCC (federal communications commission). However, congress and the presidents have de-fanged the regulatory teeth due to prompting from companies like verizon and AT&T.
So we can't use our data as we wish, we can't add a block of tethering to an unlimited plan and we have to pay through the nose for what we do have.
Thank the dev team for the JB. :D
Around $50 USD per month, it comes with 3900 minutes voice + unlimited data and free to use on tethering.
So we can't use our data as we wish, we can't add a block of tethering to an unlimited plan and we have to pay through the nose for what we do have.
Thank the dev team for the JB. :D
Around $50 USD per month, it comes with 3900 minutes voice + unlimited data and free to use on tethering.
more...
mdntcallr
Oct 29, 01:40 AM
hey, im all for apple not releasing this software to the public.
Why? it may mean less viruses or hacks.
Why? it may mean less viruses or hacks.
jowie
Apr 25, 12:08 PM
I actually really dislike the borderless look. I hope they don't do this. A larger screen is one thing I really don't need. If I want a big screen, I'll get an iPad.
kudukudu
Jan 15, 03:32 PM
i agree. I think it would have made sense to drop them in price in line with the mac pro update...and they didnt
I agree with you. The specifications of, say, the Dell 3008WFP really blow the 30" ACD out of the water: newer panel, every connection technology you could ever think of, etc.
I agree with you. The specifications of, say, the Dell 3008WFP really blow the 30" ACD out of the water: newer panel, every connection technology you could ever think of, etc.
plinden
Oct 19, 10:31 AM
Although it's not spelled out, Gartner estimate 59 million computers were sold worldwide last quarter. Apple says they sold 1.6 million, so that makes 2.7%. This is up from 2.2% (1.2 million out of 55 million) last quarter.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
Still well behind the fifth placed Toshiba's 4.3% (according to Appleinsider (http://appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2158))
So if they continue growing at this rate, they won't be in the top 5 for 6-9 months.
Preclaro_tipo
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
If I understand some of you on this thread correctly then it is my opinion that you've missed the point, slightly.
I don't think that the merits or demerits of the mac app store are the core point here. The store may be good, excellent, bad, poor, draconian, onerous or whatever but Apple is going to award programming and application awards to only those apps that are distributed through their application store.
Even if you think the store is great, hell even if the store IS GREAT, don't you also feel that it isn't the ONLY way to get quality, well made applications.
Apple is only promoting application which it profits from AND which conform to its Terms of Service.
The offensive part for me is just how unapologetic they seem to be showing bias for what makes them money, not with what may be driving the platform or solving user needs/wants.
I anticipate that some may remind me about Apple's responsibility to shareholders and about being a profitable business and therefore say that it is obvious that they support the apps from which they make a profit. I just think that is an oversimplification of situation and I think this does more to hurt the image of the platform, rather than improve it. It does more to hurt developer interest than it does improve developer interest in the mac platform. Long term, I'd rather see them building an enthusiasm for their products (including the mac app store) for their own merits.
Baumi
Oct 2, 11:31 PM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Well, if you've ever ripped a DVD you bought to watch it on the iPod, a non-DVD laptop, etc., he's the guy who made that possible. Legal grey area? Possibly. Useful, positive and productive? In my mind: Hell, yeah!
Baumi
Well, if you've ever ripped a DVD you bought to watch it on the iPod, a non-DVD laptop, etc., he's the guy who made that possible. Legal grey area? Possibly. Useful, positive and productive? In my mind: Hell, yeah!
Baumi
r.j.s
Jan 13, 04:09 PM
As someone who acts as a media liaison, if a media outlet did something along those lines at one of my functions, and bragged about it, they would be banned for a very, very long time from coming back to any of our events.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 01:59 PM
283485
