jackeill
Apr 29, 04:03 PM
And now please give me grid-full-screen-view-of-spaces and waste less space in Mission Control
gnasher729
Oct 5, 02:45 PM
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
It seems that you got encryption and decryption mixed up.
It seems that you got encryption and decryption mixed up.
shawnce
Oct 29, 09:35 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple appears to have pulled the publicly accessible Mac OS 10.4.8 Source Code (Darwin, the open-source foundation of OS X, and XNU, Darwin's open-source kernel), leaving only developers with ADC log-ins with access to the code (public link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/), ADC link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/))
10.4.8 sources have never been available via the Darwin Releases (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/) page (just never linked to the web-page). They have been available via macosforge.org (http://kernel.macosforge.org/intel-build-instructions.html) (links to tarballs on Apple's site) which has been mostly offline and under-construction for the last month and they have been available via the tarball link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/) (10.4.8 Intel is xnu-792.13.8 (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/xnu-792.13.8.tar.gz)).
Also the "ADC link" referenced for the tarballs is not an ADC account but the standard free open source account that anyone can create. The only requirement is that you read and agree to the open source license. You do not need any type of ADC account, no select or premier, no seed key, just a free Apple ID (create one if you need it) and click that you understand that the APSL exists. This is the same account that you need to gain access to any of Apple's open source items (been this way for years).
The articles premise is bogus, it is making a false statement about something that did NOT happen.
I strongly urge that this article be corrected since it is not true and will only serve as FUD material....
Apple appears to have pulled the publicly accessible Mac OS 10.4.8 Source Code (Darwin, the open-source foundation of OS X, and XNU, Darwin's open-source kernel), leaving only developers with ADC log-ins with access to the code (public link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/), ADC link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/))
10.4.8 sources have never been available via the Darwin Releases (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/) page (just never linked to the web-page). They have been available via macosforge.org (http://kernel.macosforge.org/intel-build-instructions.html) (links to tarballs on Apple's site) which has been mostly offline and under-construction for the last month and they have been available via the tarball link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/) (10.4.8 Intel is xnu-792.13.8 (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/xnu-792.13.8.tar.gz)).
Also the "ADC link" referenced for the tarballs is not an ADC account but the standard free open source account that anyone can create. The only requirement is that you read and agree to the open source license. You do not need any type of ADC account, no select or premier, no seed key, just a free Apple ID (create one if you need it) and click that you understand that the APSL exists. This is the same account that you need to gain access to any of Apple's open source items (been this way for years).
The articles premise is bogus, it is making a false statement about something that did NOT happen.
I strongly urge that this article be corrected since it is not true and will only serve as FUD material....
pivo6
Apr 22, 12:57 PM
That's why you need meta-moderation. Weighs the balance of votes in favour of those who rate sensibly, stops people from just burying personalities they dislike.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
Harpoon Spoon
Apr 25, 03:20 PM
Hmmmm.... It looks like an iPhone 4 with a paper screen glued / taped to the front of it to simulate a screen...
SevenInchScrew
Nov 14, 05:56 PM
Guessing you guys never played Rust a lot in MW2. Talk about getting killed as soon as you spawn. Rust along with Terminal was a perfect knifing map. :D
Yea, Rust was just as bad, same with Shipment in COD4. Those types of small maps are fun, like once every 50 games or so, just to break the flow a little, and run and gun. And I don't really have a problem with Nuketown itself, per se, but when you have totally abysmal spawns, it just sucks. If the spawns were better, my view of many maps would be much more favorable. I'm looking at you Array and Summit :mad:
Yea, Rust was just as bad, same with Shipment in COD4. Those types of small maps are fun, like once every 50 games or so, just to break the flow a little, and run and gun. And I don't really have a problem with Nuketown itself, per se, but when you have totally abysmal spawns, it just sucks. If the spawns were better, my view of many maps would be much more favorable. I'm looking at you Array and Summit :mad:
Baadshah
Apr 16, 09:29 AM
I think this is original case of the forthcoming iphone, if you guys look at all apple products, they all are aluminum. And i strongly believe that the new iphone will also be aluminum. This one looks sexy.........
zioxide
Jan 12, 12:57 AM
Everyone is making comments that suggest that the Gizmodo guys are professionals and have broken some code of ethics.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
They are BLOGGERS. There are no rules in blogging. There are no codes of ethics.
Sure they were over the top, but that drove traffic to their site. The only thing they are worried about is traffic to the site, that is how they make money.
Should they be banned? Why? It's not like they are journalists.
They were there with a press pass.
Anyways, according to a story that just went to the digg frontpage, the Gizmodo employee who did it has been banned from future CES events and they're still discussing actions against Gizmodo and Gawker media.
I say ban them. That was retarded. Companies pay tons of money for these shows trying to get them to go off without a hitch. Having displays randomly turning off is bad for them. It could cost them millions of dollars and could have even cost the people who set everything up their jobs.
Additionally, there's still a debate about whether bloggers are journalists... personally I'd say they are. But some idiots doing this just gives a bad name to bloggers everywhere.
I hope their whole company is banned from CES and other events so that they go out of business.
SevenInchScrew
Mar 10, 11:01 AM
In case you haven't noticed, they've redefined computing almost overnight.
What was the "old" definition of computing, and what is it now?
What was the "old" definition of computing, and what is it now?
Dhelsdon
Sep 28, 01:46 PM
How much will one of these go for in the Apple Store?:D
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
Rodimus Prime
Jul 30, 11:20 AM
I completely agree.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
wallpaper earth night
Vote Earth wallpaper
earth wallpaper. earth
Theme - Earth Wallpaper and
Earth iPhone wallpaper and
planet earth wallpaper.
enterprise earth Wallpaper
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
While that part is true that we would burn more fuel at power planets one advantage you are forgetting about is the power planets are by far much more efficient at producing power than the internal combustion engine on your car. On top of that it is much easier to capture and clean the pollution the power planet produces over what the cars produce. On top of that we can easily most our power over to other renewable choices.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
darkplanets
Apr 13, 10:43 AM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
grahamtearne
Sep 12, 04:34 AM
A few people have mentioned webcasts and things streamed to London. I live in the UK, can anyone clear things up, am I going to be able to watch the event on the net live (if so, where), or will I just have to make sense of the text scrolling up the screen on this site?
Jamie
the live stream to london is for journalists only
Jamie
the live stream to london is for journalists only
dieselpower44
Jul 21, 10:09 AM
The iPhone 4 works marvelously well. It is the most reliable iPhone I have ever owned, and the previous versions set a high standard to match. I am perfectly able to duplicate the issue (in my office, where the signal is poor) but as far as I can tell it has only resulted in one dropped call (while the 3GS dropped more due to holding a less reliable poor signal).
So if Apple truly had released a horrible product I could agree with you. Instead I'm simply left suspecting that you don't own the thing and are simply content to tell other people how the device works anyway.
Completely incorrect, I have always been an Apple customer. I just recently bought an i7 iMac and own a Macbook pro, an iPod touch and an iPhone 3G. I waited in line for the iPhone 4, and I absolutely love the thing to bits. It's the fastest, most awesome phone I've ever owned. But what annoys me is that you have to agree that this is the most serious problem relating to signal attenuation ever been seen. I mean yes, it has been blown out of proportion by the media but when you get down and actually test it out in different signal strength areas, you definitely notice it pretty severely.
But what annoys me the most, is Apple's "couldn't give a s***, let's point out other people's similar mistakes." Apple has never been like this before. Jobs may have saved the company but he's also going to ruin it with this attitude. Wozniak would have recalled the phones.
So if Apple truly had released a horrible product I could agree with you. Instead I'm simply left suspecting that you don't own the thing and are simply content to tell other people how the device works anyway.
Completely incorrect, I have always been an Apple customer. I just recently bought an i7 iMac and own a Macbook pro, an iPod touch and an iPhone 3G. I waited in line for the iPhone 4, and I absolutely love the thing to bits. It's the fastest, most awesome phone I've ever owned. But what annoys me is that you have to agree that this is the most serious problem relating to signal attenuation ever been seen. I mean yes, it has been blown out of proportion by the media but when you get down and actually test it out in different signal strength areas, you definitely notice it pretty severely.
But what annoys me the most, is Apple's "couldn't give a s***, let's point out other people's similar mistakes." Apple has never been like this before. Jobs may have saved the company but he's also going to ruin it with this attitude. Wozniak would have recalled the phones.
DPazdanISU
Apr 5, 10:12 PM
Wow. The ignorance of the average user of this forum is unbelievable, So much ranting about an app that nobody has to download if they hate ads so much.
In any case, this is no different than the many many websites, blogs , YouTube accounts etc dedicated exclusively to collect tv, radio, and paper advertising from many countries. There's a lot of people who like to see ads and analyze the creativity and technique behind them.
Agreed. Sadly, I was working on an App nearly IDENTICAL to what Apple just came out with. I am about 80% done but am wondering if it is even worth completing: http://computerharmonyinc.com/ibillboard.html
In any case, this is no different than the many many websites, blogs , YouTube accounts etc dedicated exclusively to collect tv, radio, and paper advertising from many countries. There's a lot of people who like to see ads and analyze the creativity and technique behind them.
Agreed. Sadly, I was working on an App nearly IDENTICAL to what Apple just came out with. I am about 80% done but am wondering if it is even worth completing: http://computerharmonyinc.com/ibillboard.html
T-Will
Apr 6, 11:27 AM
This is probably a way for Apple to pad their iAd numbers before WWDC.
koruki
Mar 17, 07:57 PM
Not bashing android by any means... But my work had deployed me a droid x. I had it for about six months. On average I would say I needed to pull the battery for lock ups every couple days. I had Verizon send me a replacement under warranty and the new one did the same thing.
There's def pros and cons to each platform. I enjoyed the notification system a lot more on the droid. Since then I've switched to an iPhone 4 at work. I have a personal 3GS and have fallen in love with the cosmetic design of the iPhone 4 and the retina display.
About the Lock up, I think most of them don't know we can just do a hard reset without pulling out the battery in the iPhone. Just hold the power and home button down.
I get it a lot too but I just say "nah, this phone sucks it's the worst phone in the world" and they usually shut up.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
Actually I think its more the people with a turbo'ed Japanese imports that give an earfull to the European car owners. Or the Casio owners who brag how accurate digital is vs the luxury watches. I know someone who had to ask someone for the time cause her Piaget watched was unreadable due to the amount of flares coming from the diamonds inside LOL.. Obviously a fail watch but what you gonna do, sue them?
Jealously is all I can think of =)
There's def pros and cons to each platform. I enjoyed the notification system a lot more on the droid. Since then I've switched to an iPhone 4 at work. I have a personal 3GS and have fallen in love with the cosmetic design of the iPhone 4 and the retina display.
About the Lock up, I think most of them don't know we can just do a hard reset without pulling out the battery in the iPhone. Just hold the power and home button down.
I get it a lot too but I just say "nah, this phone sucks it's the worst phone in the world" and they usually shut up.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
Actually I think its more the people with a turbo'ed Japanese imports that give an earfull to the European car owners. Or the Casio owners who brag how accurate digital is vs the luxury watches. I know someone who had to ask someone for the time cause her Piaget watched was unreadable due to the amount of flares coming from the diamonds inside LOL.. Obviously a fail watch but what you gonna do, sue them?
Jealously is all I can think of =)
noodlelegs
Jan 8, 10:47 AM
Interesting that the original post in this thread states that it is indeed an LTE Verizon iPhone. That seems to coincide with the video of the parts that were leaked on youtube a couple days ago, showing a sim card slot on the new phone. I think I read somewhere that LTE phones require a sim card, and also, LTE is capable of simultaneous voice/data. The stars seem to be aligning.
samcraig
Apr 5, 05:49 PM
If Google or anyone else had done this - everyone would be laughing there asses off. And so it stands to reason, that this "app" is completely laughable. And pathetic....
Music_Producer
Jan 12, 09:57 PM
I think we should just close this thread. Eventually, everyone who wants to buy an iPhone for what it offers, will go ahead and buy one.. while the others will go ahead with their usual jealous whining :p :D
Desertrat
May 5, 12:05 AM
Aw, Ugg, c'mon. Sounds like the NRA lobbyist merely said something on the order of, "If you're gonna do this sort of thing, don't do the fine." This issue has been a source of turmoil in Florida for quite a while. I've no idea what doofus started wanting pediatricians to snoop into family affairs, but the anti-gun crowd has pushed for it. (An appropriate answer to such an idiotic question would be, "Well, of course! What kind do you want? What do you carry?")
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
milo
Sep 12, 08:16 AM
I can't imagine why Apple would have an event like this if there was going to be only Disney content available.
You need a new imagination. Or at least remember back to when they had an event to release TV videos, and only ABC content was available.
Not to mention that there will be iPod and streaming hardware announced as well.
So who is going to watch Snow White?
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
FYI, "Disney" also includes Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, and Touchstone. That's hundreds of movies for adults.
You need a new imagination. Or at least remember back to when they had an event to release TV videos, and only ABC content was available.
Not to mention that there will be iPod and streaming hardware announced as well.
So who is going to watch Snow White?
No... Bambi?
Or what about Lady and the Tramp?
FYI, "Disney" also includes Miramax, Hollywood Pictures, and Touchstone. That's hundreds of movies for adults.
KnightWRX
Mar 13, 09:59 AM
Tablets don't even redefine computing at all anyway. It's all the same it's always been. A device that takes input, processes it according to a set of instructions, and outputs a result or provides storage.
That's the basic definition of a computer. iPad, iPhone, Macbook, Xserve, Mac Pro, they are all computers. You use them to input data, process it, store it or output it to an output device (printer, screen).
To think there's some kind of paradigm-shift going is simply having your head in the clouds.
For programmers, nothing has changed, we're doing the same thing with the devices people in the 1970s were doing, albeit, with more refined output capabilities and different input devices.
For server admins nothing has changed. These thin/fat clients are still needing server architectures to drive them and still use the very core Client/Server model for most of their servers. Heck, moving things "into the cloud", just means more power on the server backend and less in the client. That means more infrastructure to manage for us server guys. :D "Cloud computer" is just another way of saying "Client/Server" model and the 60s called about that, they want us to quit renaming their concept.
For "desktop support" people, nothing has changed. Devices have to be imaged with the software the customer needs, it needs to be configured and that configuration needs to be managed. It needs to get hardware service when broken. It needs software support for when things don't really work right or for when the user needs a live person "manual" to reference.
Heck, I'd go so far as to argue even for users, what really changed ? iPad is a big e-mail, web, facebook, gaming device. PCs/Laptops have been this for these people for the last 10 or 15 years. They are doing the same thing on tablets that they were on laptops. There's no paradigm shift at all, just a different format. It would be like calling laptops a paradigm shift when they came out.
That's the basic definition of a computer. iPad, iPhone, Macbook, Xserve, Mac Pro, they are all computers. You use them to input data, process it, store it or output it to an output device (printer, screen).
To think there's some kind of paradigm-shift going is simply having your head in the clouds.
For programmers, nothing has changed, we're doing the same thing with the devices people in the 1970s were doing, albeit, with more refined output capabilities and different input devices.
For server admins nothing has changed. These thin/fat clients are still needing server architectures to drive them and still use the very core Client/Server model for most of their servers. Heck, moving things "into the cloud", just means more power on the server backend and less in the client. That means more infrastructure to manage for us server guys. :D "Cloud computer" is just another way of saying "Client/Server" model and the 60s called about that, they want us to quit renaming their concept.
For "desktop support" people, nothing has changed. Devices have to be imaged with the software the customer needs, it needs to be configured and that configuration needs to be managed. It needs to get hardware service when broken. It needs software support for when things don't really work right or for when the user needs a live person "manual" to reference.
Heck, I'd go so far as to argue even for users, what really changed ? iPad is a big e-mail, web, facebook, gaming device. PCs/Laptops have been this for these people for the last 10 or 15 years. They are doing the same thing on tablets that they were on laptops. There's no paradigm shift at all, just a different format. It would be like calling laptops a paradigm shift when they came out.
No comments:
Post a Comment