Raid
Apr 29, 12:46 PM
So what? Who said liberals never partake in name calling? You claimed that liberals do more name calling. You want me to go dig out examples of name-calling done by conservative voices such as Limbaugh, Beck, etc.?
I should add Trump to that list to keep this somewhat on track with the subject of this thread.
Hey now don't go and try to get this thread back on track! ;)
You could, cite name-calling examples on both sides but it really shouldn't be about who started it, or who does it more; really it should be more about ending it and talking about the issues... but then we'd be in danger of actually progressing.
I should add Trump to that list to keep this somewhat on track with the subject of this thread.
Hey now don't go and try to get this thread back on track! ;)
You could, cite name-calling examples on both sides but it really shouldn't be about who started it, or who does it more; really it should be more about ending it and talking about the issues... but then we'd be in danger of actually progressing.
deputy_doofy
Aug 6, 05:23 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Cool. Seems like ANTI-advertising to me. Not that I knew of the existence of mac-pro.com before, but now that I do, I'll stay away... and suggest my friends do the same.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Cool. Seems like ANTI-advertising to me. Not that I knew of the existence of mac-pro.com before, but now that I do, I'll stay away... and suggest my friends do the same.
kenypowa
Apr 27, 08:19 AM
Wow. That's surprising. This whole time people downplayed it because there was no evidence that apple was actually transmitting this data. It wasn't a big deal because the db file was local only. Now when Apple addresses it they had to not only admit that the file exists but that they actually were transmitting data.
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
Ah well, still not a big deal. :p
It was never a big deal. Either you are holding it wrong or there is a misunderstanding. Apple never makes mistakes, didn't you get the memo? ;)
moooosedude
Jul 20, 08:27 AM
The Mactopus??
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
So I was just in the office workin on my new Mactopus...
or
Hey honey! I just dropped 3K on our new Mactopus!
...It could be very fun.
~moooosedude
*LTD*
Mar 31, 07:34 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
So stop whoring out your lame beta OS, Google, and finally have some respect for your product.
Steve Jobs was right all along. All this open baloney falls apart pretty quick when you spread your crap around to anyone and everyone who can slam together a box.
Next on the list: tighter Android Marketplace controls and a fresh round of app rejections.
Then we'll here everyone say "of course, it had to happen, no big deal." Yeah, we ****ing told you like two years ago when it was announced Android would be licensed out to everyone. But for some reason the perennially clueless thought that it would work forever.
In the post-PC era, User Experience reigns supreme. But Apple already taught us that years ago.
cmaier
Apr 19, 04:27 PM
Samsung, circa 2006:
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
cr2sh
Jul 14, 06:11 PM
The thing I like least about this rumor is that it specifies only a 320GB harddrive.
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
The current configs (quad g5) were released in October of last year, in that time harddrive capacities have increased well beyond that (320) small number.
The new machines will get 500GB drives I have to believe.
:confused:
DEE9299
Jun 15, 08:39 PM
i got 2 pins from radio shack today.....one 22000...... and the other 25000......
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
NJRonbo
Jun 15, 09:02 AM
Those of you still looking to order from the Shack...
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
The latest I am hearing this morning from at least
one store is that preorders start at 1pm.
...however they are not calling it preorders. They
take down your name, phone and email and check
the system. No deposit.
I am being told that you ARE guaranteed a phone
with this reservation.
z4n3
Apr 25, 03:55 PM
My PERSONAL view!
I think this is all just media hype, if people were to think about this a little bit and put the Apple aside maybe there would not be so many rants on this thread.
We are all tracked every day! by the Telcos, credit card companies, ATM`s, immigration and customs, Airlines, etc. etc.
The only real people that this should bother are criminals, and you know that no criminal has a mobile phone in his real name or on his person, not even satellite phones.. as mobile phones have always been able to be tracked via the telcos cell towers! so this is nothing new, just because it has the magic letter "i" before it iTrackU is kicking up a storm, but as the saying goes all publicity is good publicity, and nobody can trump Apple on this front. I for one could not give a rats A*** what they do with my GPS coordinates, as the Tax office, My telco companies, and Bank have more details on me that what this file has.
I think this is all just media hype, if people were to think about this a little bit and put the Apple aside maybe there would not be so many rants on this thread.
We are all tracked every day! by the Telcos, credit card companies, ATM`s, immigration and customs, Airlines, etc. etc.
The only real people that this should bother are criminals, and you know that no criminal has a mobile phone in his real name or on his person, not even satellite phones.. as mobile phones have always been able to be tracked via the telcos cell towers! so this is nothing new, just because it has the magic letter "i" before it iTrackU is kicking up a storm, but as the saying goes all publicity is good publicity, and nobody can trump Apple on this front. I for one could not give a rats A*** what they do with my GPS coordinates, as the Tax office, My telco companies, and Bank have more details on me that what this file has.
WildCowboy
Aug 15, 01:04 PM
has adobe dropped any hints as to when CS3 will be available
In March they were saying (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/adobe-chizen-earnings_cz_dal_0324adobe.html?partner=links) the second quarter of next year.
In March they were saying (http://www.forbes.com/2006/03/23/adobe-chizen-earnings_cz_dal_0324adobe.html?partner=links) the second quarter of next year.
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
applefan289
Apr 8, 08:12 AM
It's about time. Best Buy does not deserve the time of day - their employees are low, their service stinks, and their whole philosophy is unethical. Looks like it's starting to come back to haunt them now...
aafuss1
Aug 6, 06:19 PM
and the "One More Thing..." will be -
Leopard print iPod Socks!
Some new iPod sock colors-black, leopard print.
Nano tubes-update with new colors, add full-size version for 5th gen iPod
Nike-introduce 5th gen kit.
Leopard print iPod Socks!
Some new iPod sock colors-black, leopard print.
Nano tubes-update with new colors, add full-size version for 5th gen iPod
Nike-introduce 5th gen kit.
mikeapple
Apr 7, 10:58 PM
Best Buy as ALWAYS been really ****** to the customer...
Always had run-ins with workers there and the management always takes the side of the rude sales person... SCREW YOU BEST BUY.. I hope Apple pulls out
Always had run-ins with workers there and the management always takes the side of the rude sales person... SCREW YOU BEST BUY.. I hope Apple pulls out
al2o3cr
Mar 22, 01:10 PM
I'm a little confused by introducing *both* 8.9" and 10.1" Tabs - exactly what's the point of splitting the market like that for a $30 price difference? Are they seriously expecting retailers to stock two nigh-identical devices?
FoxHoundADAM
Apr 11, 12:06 PM
There are a number of factors that would make a later release make sense. They probably want to converge the Verizon and AT&T hardware, plus wait for iOS 5 to be ready. The release of Lion could also play a small part.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
You are right, we should wait to see iOS 5 before any major conclusions are drawn about the market future but I tell you what, after playing with an Inspire and and Evo all weekend you realize how old and dated iOS4 looks.
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
I think everyone making the (pretty much insane) comments that this spells the end of the iPhone's dominance should wait and see what iOS 5 looks like and how the iPhone 5 takes advantage of it.
You are right, we should wait to see iOS 5 before any major conclusions are drawn about the market future but I tell you what, after playing with an Inspire and and Evo all weekend you realize how old and dated iOS4 looks.
Apple really needs to make some significant changes to iOS5 to bring me back this time.
Dagless
Aug 18, 05:36 AM
Sweet Mary and the orphans if that thing gets near to my entertainment centre I'll kill it.
netdog
Aug 12, 02:40 AM
I'll be happy as long as it resurrects the Wild Eep.
aswitcher
Aug 11, 09:45 PM
Apple won't put GPS in unless they can create a whole new 'Apple' interface for it.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
We have rumours of something like Google Earth called Maps.
GPS can be put in soemthing the size of a watch.
I think its a strong possibility in the next few years.
I'm no GPS expert, but I'm not sure how they could do that with a simple candybar phone. It would need to be some sort of smartphone / pocketPC thing.
We have rumours of something like Google Earth called Maps.
GPS can be put in soemthing the size of a watch.
I think its a strong possibility in the next few years.
samcraig
Apr 27, 09:55 AM
And once again the Apple fans will turn out to have been correct.
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
Really? The posters on here that say there was no issue are correct?
I guess Apple fixing certain bugs related to this is whimtime.
I guess it's all a matter of what part of the issue you deem important. The tracking, the retention or the ability to opt out
takao
Dec 4, 09:01 PM
I started the Italian Tour thing earlier today. Half of it is fun but half is just annoying. Theres a race with a murcielago at night, which is awesome but the damn car spins out if you dont hold the wheel perfectly straight while you break or accelerate, making it very difficult to keep any reasonable speed. The Alfa Romeo in the first leg of the tour is almost as bad. But the Ferrari race at Monza? Easy as pie, i got gold on my first attempt without much fight from the AI.
hahe same here.. though i was close on the first alfa and rally challenge but the ferrari one: 1st corner you are first place and then you can just finish the race 'safe' but the lambo one... what a PITA .. it even spined out on me in a fast corner just because i went off the throttle slightly
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
hahe same here.. though i was close on the first alfa and rally challenge but the ferrari one: 1st corner you are first place and then you can just finish the race 'safe' but the lambo one... what a PITA .. it even spined out on me in a fast corner just because i went off the throttle slightly
i already took a mental note to avoid _that_ lambo for the challenge
THX1139
Aug 20, 03:45 AM
Anyway I'm glad you guys aren't too angry with me cause this time forward is really going to be a power explosion on all personal computers and we all know here that OS X is the only way to fly with the new hardware. Once we get Leopard on board and the remainder of all the pro aplications go UB and MultiCore Optimized, 2007 forward are going to be amazing times for creativity with little to no waiting for any processes to get done. :) Whoopie!
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be. Probably way more coin than I have! How is it going to be possible for Apple or any other vendor to utilize those mega multi-core processers and keep the systems affordable for the common man? They are going to need a middle ground machine more than ever! Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.
Yeah, now all we have to do is be able to afford it. Wonder what the price point on tigerton or clovertown is going to be. Probably way more coin than I have! How is it going to be possible for Apple or any other vendor to utilize those mega multi-core processers and keep the systems affordable for the common man? They are going to need a middle ground machine more than ever! Not every professional is going to need more than 4 cores let alone be willing to pay for it. I think the more processors, the more specialized the computer is going to become.