frozencarbonite
Aug 3, 02:40 PM
They are (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/followup_to_macbook_post.html).
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
simontarr
Sep 4, 09:42 AM
Don't you have to pay a restocking fee, even if you're within the 14-day return period?
More than likely, but that doesn't bother me. I don't mind spending a little extra and causing myself a bit of hassle if it means I can get the supposed 23" iMac.
More than likely, but that doesn't bother me. I don't mind spending a little extra and causing myself a bit of hassle if it means I can get the supposed 23" iMac.
shawnce
Aug 7, 11:41 PM
I know we've overdosed on speculation recently, but the MacRumors live transcript from the keynote today contained the following line (from Steve I believe):
10:24 am lots more announcements during the next week
best to just wait and see...... They may not be public announcements but announcements made to developers at the conference under NDA.
10:24 am lots more announcements during the next week
best to just wait and see...... They may not be public announcements but announcements made to developers at the conference under NDA.
EEcuber17
Sep 12, 05:15 PM
Why can't I make the left side bar smaller?
I'm having trouble making everything fit on my little iBook 12"
When I go to the music store it has scroll bars everywhere.
I dunno about this...
I'm having trouble making everything fit on my little iBook 12"
When I go to the music store it has scroll bars everywhere.
I dunno about this...
mufli
Nov 8, 06:03 AM
Italian Apple store is down too.
TheNerdyNurse
Mar 23, 03:23 PM
Eh, you misunderstood me. The main point I was making is that the wife should not be able to prevent such a purchase IF THEY CAN AFFORD IT. In many cases, money itself is not an issue in such a purchase, as the wife would not blink twice in spending that amount on something SHE wants. My point was that sometimes they refuse things simply because they dont see it benefitting THEM- and that is something selfish, and shows a lack of respect. Of course if the guy is blowing $$ on an iPad when they're having trouble putting food on the table, thats an issue. My post wasnt centered on these cases. It made the assumption that it could comfortably be afforded, but which the wife doesnt see the value in it for herself, which is the sole reason of the refusal or the demand that it be returned. And Ive seen this on many, many occasions. I know this guy that brings in 6 figures a yr, yes his wife (who brings in nothing) controls the bank account. The guy has no balls, his wife dictates the purchases, buys whatever the hell she pleases, and gets upset when he spends on anything without consulting her. She doesnt let him buy **** he wants, the cost of which is a drop in the bucket compared to the income he makes, simply because SHE doesnt see the value in it. But like I said, the guy has no balls and takes it, while she spends thousands on shoes, etc without needing to consult him.But hey, some people love that ****. Sometimes you need to do things that give you individual pleasure in a marriage, not always 'pleasure as a unit'.
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
Just don't forget that the concept of selfishness goes both ways.
Its not always the wife is trying to be controlling and wants things only for herself. Its often that the wife is trying to plan for a furture, as someone else mentioned. I just think that is should be a give and take, and honestly, if my husband came home after spending $500 on anything, without consulting me, I'd be fairly upset. Unless he spent like $500 on a suitcase that had $100k in it... well I think i'd get over it. But now, that ain't never happening.
Its not about asking permission, it is about making decisions together that effect your overall well being. $500 is alot of money to alot of people. And if $500 isn't alot, then no, you wouldn't have to ask. But just because you can still put food on the table, even if you buy that ipad, that is still not a good reason to not discuss the purchase with your significant other. It may not be taking food out of your mouth today, but it could be used for something more productive in the future. Your wife/husband may already be thinking along those lines... which is why you should discuss a $500 purchase with them.
But this is just my humble opinion. Not saying it is appropriate for everyone, but this is the respect I think I deserve in my marriage.
And just for further insight, I am the sole breadwinner in my house, and it still took me 4 months, multiple discussions with my husband (in which he always encouraged me to buy it), and the ability to justify it as a learning tool for my son in order to buy my iPad... and food stayed on my table the whole time.
:)
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
flythe10
Jun 24, 06:47 PM
I'm with Snowcat001 on this one...My daughter has an HP touchscreen and although its kinda cool...after about ten minutes it gets kinda tiring and manipulating the icons..albeit its a WIN 7 box...is frustratingly tough. Now Apples product is in no way comparable to HP (until HP comes out with a WebOS touchpad! ) still think its a long way from disappearing mouse for the desktop. I'm just saying..
wordoflife
Apr 2, 12:22 AM
WOW!!!! 8 megapixe?!!!!!!! i remember like 5 years ago when i bought a 200$ camera and it was 6 megapixels and it was considered amazing and here is the iphone with a 8!!! ITS CRAZZZYYY:confused:
I remember 7 or so years ago we bought a 3.2mp Kodak camera with SD card. It wasn't cheap either.
I remember 7 or so years ago we bought a 3.2mp Kodak camera with SD card. It wasn't cheap either.
DakotaGuy
Mar 28, 09:33 PM
You do go back a few years!!
Wasn't Tandy sort of a big name in computers back in the 80's? It seems like when I was little quite a few people had Tandy computers from RS.
Wasn't Tandy sort of a big name in computers back in the 80's? It seems like when I was little quite a few people had Tandy computers from RS.
thegoldenmackid
Nov 2, 04:03 PM
Whine whine whine. That clearly makes Apple fix the problem.
CubusX
Nov 13, 01:24 PM
Apple has never changed this policy and they never will.
I would have liked to see the promised updates for Facebook. It seems Apple may have fallen down on the job (no pun intended).
I would have liked to see the promised updates for Facebook. It seems Apple may have fallen down on the job (no pun intended).
Multimedia
Nov 7, 05:52 PM
How do you know that you are going to get a new one and not a refurbished one. And what old macbooks are you talking about, they didnt release any new ones yet. Thanks for the help.There is ZERO DIFFERENCE between a new Mac and a refurbished Mac - ZERO. You have nothing to fear buying a refurb any more than you have to fear buying a new one. Same warranty. Same quality. Different box. And sometimes when you buy a refurb, you get more than stock like two 1GB sticks of RAM and/or a bigger than stock HD for example.
Balli
Sep 13, 05:26 AM
I have 3 USB 1 ports and 2 FireWire ports. Does that mean if I buy a new 8Gb Nano, it won't work with my system? :(
gnasher729
Apr 14, 05:42 PM
That $1199 iMac has lots of other wonderful features including a screen, but if you think it is anywhere close to the performance of a i7-2600 based PC (that go for $750 from HP/Dell) then you are delusional. To get something from Apple with an equivalent processor you are looking at a $2199 iMac or a $2499 Mac Pro. Doesn't matter that in the long term the Mac could be a better value, some people can't justify that huge price difference or paying additional for features they don't need or want or cannot afford to.
Again Macs are a premium product and because of that Apple will hit a ceiling of those who can afford or justify buying their products.
I'll not take being called "delusional" to be an insult, I'll take it as involuntary humor on your side. Someone made up a wonderful term "specturbators". That's the people the $750 PC appeals to. Reality is that the iMac will get the job done, with plenty of speed, beautiful, and reliable, much better than the $750 PC. For jobs that it can't get done, sorry mate, there is a reason why each processor in the Mac Pro alone costs a lot more than the whole $750 PC.
So that's how Dell has been staying a float by selling you a 15" model every year. :p
That's why Dell sells three times as many PCs. Because people have to buy three PCs instead of one Mac :-) (But actually, they only sell slightly more than twice as many in the USA anymore. So there are actually more Mac buyers than Dell buyers).
Again Macs are a premium product and because of that Apple will hit a ceiling of those who can afford or justify buying their products.
I'll not take being called "delusional" to be an insult, I'll take it as involuntary humor on your side. Someone made up a wonderful term "specturbators". That's the people the $750 PC appeals to. Reality is that the iMac will get the job done, with plenty of speed, beautiful, and reliable, much better than the $750 PC. For jobs that it can't get done, sorry mate, there is a reason why each processor in the Mac Pro alone costs a lot more than the whole $750 PC.
So that's how Dell has been staying a float by selling you a 15" model every year. :p
That's why Dell sells three times as many PCs. Because people have to buy three PCs instead of one Mac :-) (But actually, they only sell slightly more than twice as many in the USA anymore. So there are actually more Mac buyers than Dell buyers).
rans0m00
Mar 28, 01:04 PM
Man, Apple keeps getting lower and lower. First Walmart, now this?
ROFL Sorry to be the one to let you know since you obviously had not noticed Apple goes for profit. They make good products then hype them up to be excellent products. Selling at Walmart, Bestbuy, and Target just makes sense so why not include Radioshack? I am not saying anything bad about Apple products I have quite a few and enjoy them but Apple is not anything special that is only reserved for a special audience. They are expensive pretty toys so if I can go to my local Radioshack instead of having to drive to a busier store and wait in lines for people to get their groceries rang up then I would do it in a second.
ROFL Sorry to be the one to let you know since you obviously had not noticed Apple goes for profit. They make good products then hype them up to be excellent products. Selling at Walmart, Bestbuy, and Target just makes sense so why not include Radioshack? I am not saying anything bad about Apple products I have quite a few and enjoy them but Apple is not anything special that is only reserved for a special audience. They are expensive pretty toys so if I can go to my local Radioshack instead of having to drive to a busier store and wait in lines for people to get their groceries rang up then I would do it in a second.
kresh
Aug 8, 05:40 AM
I don't mean to sound dumb, well to be honest I can't help it :p
But just how much space is this time machine going to eat up?
If it stores a backup of everything, that's going to get huge in a hurry. For example. What happens if I have a 400 MB video file and I make 20 changes, and save the file after every change.
I could see this growing to be a storage monster if it keeps every iteration of everything that I do. That 400 MB video would take up 8GB in my time machine, with 20 copies of it. Do that 100 times over a couple of years and that just gets nuts
Is it only going to store the actual changes and not the whole file again? This is making my head spin, could someone explain how it's going to store backups physically? I know it's not even out yet, but I figure that one of you really smart people already know how this will work. (You're all smarter than me hehe)
Thanks in advance :)
But just how much space is this time machine going to eat up?
If it stores a backup of everything, that's going to get huge in a hurry. For example. What happens if I have a 400 MB video file and I make 20 changes, and save the file after every change.
I could see this growing to be a storage monster if it keeps every iteration of everything that I do. That 400 MB video would take up 8GB in my time machine, with 20 copies of it. Do that 100 times over a couple of years and that just gets nuts
Is it only going to store the actual changes and not the whole file again? This is making my head spin, could someone explain how it's going to store backups physically? I know it's not even out yet, but I figure that one of you really smart people already know how this will work. (You're all smarter than me hehe)
Thanks in advance :)
Foocha
Jan 11, 04:46 PM
The light cut of the Myriad font is probably used to indicate thin/light weight - as is the reference to air. I suspect that it's about the sub-notebook, which will be thinner than anything else on the market.
Other possibilities:
1. Inflight entertainment system - Dock connectors in every seat. iTunes/iPhone style touch interface in seatback displays - deal with American Airlines/British Airways/One World Alliance.
2. "Cloud" services - something big like making .Mac free and re-branding it to attract PC / iTunes / iPhone users
www.macpredictions.com (http://www.macpredictions.com)
Other possibilities:
1. Inflight entertainment system - Dock connectors in every seat. iTunes/iPhone style touch interface in seatback displays - deal with American Airlines/British Airways/One World Alliance.
2. "Cloud" services - something big like making .Mac free and re-branding it to attract PC / iTunes / iPhone users
www.macpredictions.com (http://www.macpredictions.com)
mi5moav
Jul 23, 06:45 AM
I guess we'll see the second coming of the ibook shortly. This will probably be a small tablet size. Is it possible to use two different kind of screen technology on the same screen. OLED and TFT. The only thing is that when I was in Japan earlier this year I saw and used the Sony ereader with eInk it was really a very nice device and the screen feels like a paperback book, it isn't true white and doesn't strain the eyes. I guess, this new device is going to use text recognition and voice over, I don't know if this is going to work since Agnes is not really that great wih expressions, but we'll see. I really have no clue how this is going to pan out, I really would rather have Apple release a gread digital video camera with HD/HD but they have some sort of deal with sony or panasonic that they won't what gives!!!!
Matrixfan
May 5, 04:13 AM
Just put a retina display into the next revision! The same PPI is not needed hence the greater viewing distance, but 1024x768 is noticeable after using the iPhone 4.
Darth.Titan
Nov 12, 01:56 PM
I predict this will be a hot thread for discussion. I'll admit that the app approval process leaves me a bit cold, and is in dire need of some changes.
Perhaps devs jumping ship will spur Apple to action.
Perhaps devs jumping ship will spur Apple to action.
A is jump
Nov 27, 01:59 PM
Led Zepplin has never appeared on iTunes. However, Radio Head was on for a short time, but everyone who like Radio Head has already bought their one good album, The Bends.
yes, and Vanilla ice cream is the only good flavor.
yes, and Vanilla ice cream is the only good flavor.
yanniboy
Aug 2, 06:00 PM
People make money from the Micrapplesoft when they discover a flaw and sell it to them. So it is in their interest to approach these guys and not the card manufacturer, as well as creating hype around their case.
SgtPepper12
May 5, 05:01 AM
Not only did 3D without glasses suck on the 3DS, it isn't even possible on an iPad. Just think about it: The iPad is always advertised as a very orientation independent device. But turning it from landscape to portrait would immediately kill the 3D effect. Unless Apple found some new "magic" 3D technology, this rumor is just complete bs in every way.
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder