japanime
Nov 23, 11:07 PM
I hope AppleCare will be on sale.
Next time you're buying a new Mac at an Apple Store and they try to sell you AppleCare, walk up to one of the floor models that is connected to the Internet, show the salesperson the LA Computer Company website's low, low prices for AppleCare, and ask them to match it.
They did for me, though YMMV.
Next time you're buying a new Mac at an Apple Store and they try to sell you AppleCare, walk up to one of the floor models that is connected to the Internet, show the salesperson the LA Computer Company website's low, low prices for AppleCare, and ask them to match it.
They did for me, though YMMV.
-hh
Oct 19, 10:16 AM
The market share (and Princeton report) are favorable news for the Mac platform and for Apple.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
But it is interesting to read this from Gartner, in the light that this very same Company is also in the news right now for their "Macs should be made by Dell" splash (actual paper was "Apple Should License the Mac to Dell")
In conjunction with this articles observation that Dell's PC marketshare has been sliding (lost worldwide #1 to HP, etc), along with business reports that aren't rosey on Dell's margins (nor their get well plan, which isn't working), the newsfolk who picked up on Gartner really got their headline wrong. It really should have been IMO:
"Dell sliding bad - needs rescue in form of Mac licence from Apple".
In said report (the other one, not this one) Gartner suggested that 'Apple should concentrate on what it does best - create software - and make use of Dell's production and distribution infrastructure.' In this report, there's not a peep of such 'black clouds on the horizon' for Apple ... must be two different guys in the Gartner shop :)
Quite interesting, since the bottom line right now is that the Mac Pro is known to be less expensive than the Dell equivalent, for what does that suggest about expertise in cutting deals with Intel, and efficiently running production & distrubution?
The reality is that Apple generally contracts out much of their manufacturing, true. However, so does Dell. As such, why should Apple bother to pay to go through Dell? That's called using a "Middle Man" and this intermediate step would increase costs, which would then either lower Apple's unit profits, or force them to raise prices ... which hearkens the 'Macs cost more' paradigm.
This is why Gartner's suggestion seems to be more aimed to help Dell through their current fiscal troubles but does not help Apple in any meaningful way at this time.
Perhaps Apple will need Dell for access to Dell's assemblers, but that would only occur when Apple's total market share gets huge - say exceeds 33%. Barring a Vista-catastrophy, at the current rate of market share growth, we're still more than a year or two away from having to cross that bridge, which ironically gives Michael Dell plenty of time to become more retrospective and apologetic about inflammatory comments he has made of Apple in the past.
-hh
PS: if you look more closely at Apple's 3Q numbers, you'll see that desktop sales were relatively flat: the growth was in laptops.
GQB
Apr 15, 11:56 PM
I dislike it when people keep saying that line over and over. Does competition really make products better? Where's the truth in that? If it's truly the case, why do we still see half-baked consumer products for the end user?
.
It, like 'the free market always decides best' is simply and literally religious dogma.
Competition as often as not results in a race to the bottom, just as the 'free market' is useless regarding life necessities (e.g. water or health care.)
.
It, like 'the free market always decides best' is simply and literally religious dogma.
Competition as often as not results in a race to the bottom, just as the 'free market' is useless regarding life necessities (e.g. water or health care.)
LagunaSol
Apr 16, 01:43 AM
Next up, Google gives away songs for free. Inserts targeted ads every 30 seconds of music. Fandroids flood the Web to tell us all how awesome Android and "free" Google music are and what a greedy jerk Steve Jobs is for selling songs.
You know it's coming.
You know it's coming.
liketom
Sep 12, 07:43 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
to what version ???
to what version ???
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 04:42 PM
Replace the urinals in Men's washrooms with stalls, knock out the wall between there and the Woman's loo, and make it one large Unisex facility.
Problem solved.
Then the men can stand in line too. :p
Problem solved.
Then the men can stand in line too. :p
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 01:56 PM
I couldn't disagree with you more.
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
I'm sure you could -- go ahead, try me. :)
With each and every release of a new OS (going back beyond Windows), Microsoft has made hyperbolic claims about how good it was going to be. As anyone who's followed this for a while knows, Microsoft's claims rarely live up to reality. The fact is, a lot of people never even bothered to get onto the XP bandwagon. Do you think they're going to be excited about Vista? Unfortunately for Microsoft, their "good enough" philosophy also works for a lot of their customers. They're used to not being motivated by newer and theoretically better. As you admit, the first version of Vista is going to be a dog, just as the first versions of 95, 98 and XP were. People do learn that the risks can outweigh the benefits. My attitude detector reports that hardly anybody cares about Vista.
All that being said, Microsoft will sell a zillion copies of Vista. Most of those will be through the OEM pipeline. The OEMs will buy it because they don't have a choice. This is how each and every version of Windows has become a "success." It's Microsoft's dirty little secret.
ednamartin36
Mar 25, 01:38 PM
Is there anyway to get free or trial copy of this OS? I have never used this OS. I am using Windows 7. I am happy with the OS but looking for some change. I also heard that it is not compatible with many popular software or applications..hmm...
Vontrump.com
Vontrump.com
marksman
May 3, 04:56 PM
Ok, I'm taking down the names of all the carrier defenders here.
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
It is not a matter of being a carrier defender.
It is a matter of being a carrier customer who does not want to have to pay more for their service because people want to steal tethering service.
Nobody is charging you twice for one thing here.
You are paying to use data on your mobile device. If you want to use it to link up other devices, there is a separate service for that.
This is not exactly brain surgery here.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you.
Sure they can.. For one they can just raise the price. They never sold you the data to be used with tethering in the first place. They sold you data to be used strictly with your registered mobile device. That is clearly outlined in the contract you signed with them. It is crystal clear.
Blank Map of Asia You can
World+map+asia+pacific
File_Second world war europe
World War II: North Africa
world map asia on left.
the world war ii southeast
world-war--map-content not
known during World War II
.jpg "globe World+war+2+map+asia")
globe World+war+2+map+asia
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
It is not a matter of being a carrier defender.
It is a matter of being a carrier customer who does not want to have to pay more for their service because people want to steal tethering service.
Nobody is charging you twice for one thing here.
You are paying to use data on your mobile device. If you want to use it to link up other devices, there is a separate service for that.
This is not exactly brain surgery here.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you.
Sure they can.. For one they can just raise the price. They never sold you the data to be used with tethering in the first place. They sold you data to be used strictly with your registered mobile device. That is clearly outlined in the contract you signed with them. It is crystal clear.
saxamoophone
Apr 29, 04:41 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) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
So will ipad3 or ipad4 will be running MAC OS X??
So will ipad3 or ipad4 will be running MAC OS X??
Chundles
Sep 12, 07:42 AM
yeah, but there is a link in your itunes software (client) which has "Music Store" - u know.. down the left side where your playlists are..
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
They'll release iTunes 7.0 with "iTunes Store" in it's place and it will all come back online after the event.
Wouldn't they need to change that to a generic "Store" or something..
They'll release iTunes 7.0 with "iTunes Store" in it's place and it will all come back online after the event.
maclaptop
Apr 29, 02:50 PM
SUPER iMACHINE - ULTRA TRANSFORMER
Upon closer inspection I noticed my new MBP has a removable display.
Unlocked by Lion it doubles as an Ipad.
Shrink it in the microwave & it's an iPhone!
I just knew there was a reason to marry iOS & OS X.
Apple is so damn brilliant.
Be the envy of every kid on your block !
Upon closer inspection I noticed my new MBP has a removable display.
Unlocked by Lion it doubles as an Ipad.
Shrink it in the microwave & it's an iPhone!
I just knew there was a reason to marry iOS & OS X.
Apple is so damn brilliant.
Be the envy of every kid on your block !
rstansby
Apr 15, 05:31 PM
I doubt this is real, but I think it is beautiful.
starflyer
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
He didn't say everyone who cries foul is a hater.
He didn't say everyone who cries foul is a hater.
eawmp1
May 4, 03:19 PM
Not at all, I despise the NRA and I don't even own guns. To be clear, I feel Dr. Choi should be free to ask such questions without losing his license or going to jail; likewise I should be free to decline to discuss such matters with him.
Do you have precription medications locked up?
Are household cleaners and poisons out of reach?
Is poison control's # on your phone?
Do you have a fire escape plan?
Do you have your child in an age-appropriate safety seat correctly installed?
Do you have a pool, and is there an alarm or safety gate?
Does your child wear a bike helmet?
etc.
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.
Do you have precription medications locked up?
Are household cleaners and poisons out of reach?
Is poison control's # on your phone?
Do you have a fire escape plan?
Do you have your child in an age-appropriate safety seat correctly installed?
Do you have a pool, and is there an alarm or safety gate?
Does your child wear a bike helmet?
etc.
Why does a question about a potentially dangerous object and your provisions for its safe keeping threaten you? The doctor is not playing politics, hes practicing good preventative medicine.
peas
Sep 28, 12:39 PM
what sucks is that academic ve4rsions are not allowed this free update.
what bs. considering i just bought the freakin app not more than 3 weeks ago.
what bs. considering i just bought the freakin app not more than 3 weeks ago.
dmr727
Jan 15, 01:17 PM
I liked it. I was happy with the update to the AppleTV - I think I'll finally get off the fence and buy one. The Capsule seems interesting. The MBA is outside of what I want to spend, but it's pretty awesome nonetheless.
It would have been nice to see updated specs on the Mini and other notebooks, but hey, you can't have everything! :)
It would have been nice to see updated specs on the Mini and other notebooks, but hey, you can't have everything! :)
maclaptop
Apr 29, 07:58 PM
Apple has sprung open a box of snakes.
Mixing elements of iOS & OS X, is a no win proposition. It's the golly gee whiz kids, vs. the professionals.
The kids love the look of iOS, FART Apps, and all that nonsense. Its all fun & games on mommy & daddies money.
The grown ups who use their Macs to get things done, find some of these changes far from amusing. For us its about productivity & efficiency. It's about computing.
Mixing elements of iOS & OS X, is a no win proposition. It's the golly gee whiz kids, vs. the professionals.
The kids love the look of iOS, FART Apps, and all that nonsense. Its all fun & games on mommy & daddies money.
The grown ups who use their Macs to get things done, find some of these changes far from amusing. For us its about productivity & efficiency. It's about computing.
Stella
Mar 28, 06:09 PM
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. In its totality, installing an app is more like:
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Hyperbole.. dear lord - over exaggeration.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Hyperbole.. dear lord - over exaggeration.
* use your favourite mac listing website of your choice - you only need to find a few, and they don't take long to find. Only need to do this once.
* Pretty much all companies allow you to re-download, so no need to worry there.
* a lot of software listing sites allow reviews, for example, mac update, versiontracker
* most software companies use reputable payment processors, larger companies often use their own - and can be trusted.
* UNLIKE, the mac appstore, you can very often download TRIAL versions so you can TRY BEFORE you BUY!
Sure, the mac app store is convenient, but shouldn't be relied upon as the only source of software due to its limitations and limited software listings.
If someone never ventures out side the appstore then they'll miss out on gems such as 1Password, Launchbar, bettertouchtool... and many others.
Sydde
Apr 9, 07:42 PM
Ohio has a lot of blue collars. They will need about a quarter million to file a referendum on government union busting. They are optimistic, the effort is underway (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700125855/Opponents-of-new-union-law-rally-in-Ohios-capital.html?s_cid=rss-5). I wonder if Thomas Veil will sign this one (with his real name)?
Vidder
Dec 4, 06:45 PM
I personally don't even look at the challenges...however, i think they do them to get quick XP and level up quicker. If they threw in penalties for death (maybe some sort of negative XP) i think players would be more careful.
Thats the conclusion i came up with. I'm just wondering why the games haven't turned to that yet. The reckless game play and strategy is an epidemic in the game. I feel like i'm playing with retards.
Thats the conclusion i came up with. I'm just wondering why the games haven't turned to that yet. The reckless game play and strategy is an epidemic in the game. I feel like i'm playing with retards.
AppliedVisual
Oct 19, 06:41 PM
Ah, a fellow HVX user. Hooorah! :D
Bring on the BluRay recordables and holographic storage... Tape archives are killin' me too.
Bring on the BluRay recordables and holographic storage... Tape archives are killin' me too.
JoJoCal19
Dec 14, 07:15 AM
I was acutally going to say this same thing. It makes more sense for Apple to put a Verizon/CDMA/LTE...whatever phone on a different release cycle than the GSM phone, as they typically can't even handle the logistical nightmare of releasing the current phone with adequate supply. How long is the thing backordered now when an iPhone is released? How nightmarish is it for them to produce and keep adequate supply of only a GSM iPhone? Now imagine if those production numbers were divided between a Verizon AND the GSM iPhone....you'd never be able to get one! A 6 month split would be almost perfect for releases...it'd give the production lines ample time to get decent numbers of both phones built up. The dual release (unless Apple can get a single chip LTE/CDMA/GSM solution) would be a potential nightmare for FoxConn's assembly plant.
Geckotek and you are correct. When the iPhone 4 was launched Apple couldn't come close to keeping up with demand. The lead time was 4+ weeks and it only pissed people off. If you add in a Verizon model, which is likely to meet or even exceed the demand for an AT&T model if the device were launched at the same time, the lead time would be much longer and Apple would not be able to meet that demand. 6 month in between is not too long. It also keeps Apple launching an iPhone every 6 mos in the US and keep them in the news and take attention away from the Android devices being launched every couple of months.
Geckotek and you are correct. When the iPhone 4 was launched Apple couldn't come close to keeping up with demand. The lead time was 4+ weeks and it only pissed people off. If you add in a Verizon model, which is likely to meet or even exceed the demand for an AT&T model if the device were launched at the same time, the lead time would be much longer and Apple would not be able to meet that demand. 6 month in between is not too long. It also keeps Apple launching an iPhone every 6 mos in the US and keep them in the news and take attention away from the Android devices being launched every couple of months.
0 komentar:
Posting Komentar