Surely
Nov 25, 12:33 AM
No clue but could you please tell me where to purchase it? Its exactly what Im looking for!
Check the image URL..........
Check the image URL..........
Lukeit
Mar 31, 08:39 AM
Set desktop picture doesn't work any longer... anyone with the same issue has a way to fix it?
BTW: iCal is horrible... what on earth is going on in Apple's mind?
BTW: iCal is horrible... what on earth is going on in Apple's mind?
appleguy123
Jun 22, 09:11 PM
Ah yes. A porn free, tightly censored, code controlled desktop machine. That's what everyone wants right? :rolleyes:
Actually maybe.
Actually maybe.
kresh
Jul 19, 07:38 PM
Wow. I still can't get used to the positive press coming from dedicated PC sources.
Lance Ulanoff is predicting Apple to sell more notebooks than Gateway by the end of 2006 and give Dell a run for the money.
link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1990674,00.asp
Wowee. I love it!
edit: spelling
Lance Ulanoff is predicting Apple to sell more notebooks than Gateway by the end of 2006 and give Dell a run for the money.
link: http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,1895,1990674,00.asp
Wowee. I love it!
edit: spelling
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
tatonka
Apr 21, 03:15 PM
Despite the freaked brigade and people wanting to turn this into a huge political argument I think this guy at Reddit had the best thing to say about this:
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I do think that guy is right and it is only about caching the cell tower locations. I baffles me however which idiot engineer at Apple thought it would be good idea to store those locations along with detailed timestamps unencrypt and even move it to the next phone if you happen to switch phones. If you work on such a high profile system, you need to make smarter decisions than that.
The second thing that baffles me is Apples blatant incompetence handling these kind of situations. Haven't they learnd anything from antenna gate? Sitting on your ass for several days having the internet raging and the evening news reporting on this stuff without a word, is horrible press. It is more than day since the story broke and no official word from Apple yet .. good job people, let the field to the raging internet mob and the incompetent news crews.
T.
Yes they probably need to encrypt this to keep thieves and insane people from taking it from your phone but it's nothing that other cellular providers aren't doing with their phones, you just can't see it necessarily.
I do think that guy is right and it is only about caching the cell tower locations. I baffles me however which idiot engineer at Apple thought it would be good idea to store those locations along with detailed timestamps unencrypt and even move it to the next phone if you happen to switch phones. If you work on such a high profile system, you need to make smarter decisions than that.
The second thing that baffles me is Apples blatant incompetence handling these kind of situations. Haven't they learnd anything from antenna gate? Sitting on your ass for several days having the internet raging and the evening news reporting on this stuff without a word, is horrible press. It is more than day since the story broke and no official word from Apple yet .. good job people, let the field to the raging internet mob and the incompetent news crews.
T.
steviem
Apr 10, 10:10 AM
LOL, that's the thing, Automatic licenses are just Drivers licenses out there. Yes we have Automatic and Manual tests in the UK, but they can learn and take a test in an Automatic and then drive whatever transmission car they like, regardless of whether they know how to work a clutch or not.
Jealous much?
Jealous much?
Lord Blackadder
Mar 11, 04:57 PM
Not really, they stole and are still considered bad cars. Look at the Kia's etc, throughout the brand you can instantly see other (mainly German) cars they've stolen the design from.
They might not be known for their originality, but their engineering is solid, and continues to improve.
They might not be known for their originality, but their engineering is solid, and continues to improve.
w00master
Dec 30, 10:11 AM
I think a lot of you are expecting way too much on the "iTV" and will be very disappointed when it gets released.
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
1. DVR Functionality?
Nope, I don't see it. Don't see it happening EVER. This places iTV in direct competition with Cable and Satellite providers, which (imho) is a losing battle. A good example is Tivo. While, Tivo is still lauded in the industry and consumers as having the "best DVR interface/UI," it's still not selling well to consumers. Why? Cable and Satellite providers are providing DVRs and a MUCH lower cost, and even though their UI/interface sucks terribly, because of the LOW COST, the Cable/Satellite boxes are outselling Tivos.
On Demand. This category amongst cable companies are expanding very rapidly and offering free content left and right. Good example is HBO, nearly *ALL* of their shows are On Demand now which is instant access to all of their shows. Generally speaking (for people who use HBO On Demand), this has been extremely popular, maybe this is why HBO is still not being sold on iTunes? Why download when you have access to nearly all of the HBO content for free and instantaneous?
2. Remote Desktop viewer?
Nope, don't see this at all either. If this were a Mac world only, MAYBE I could see this happening, but the harsh reality is that we live in a primarily Windows world. I really don't see Apple moving into utilizing Remote Desktop on Windows machines THROUGH iTV.
You have to remember that unlike iMac, Mac Pro, Macbooks, etc, the iTV will have to satisfy Windows users as well.
What do I see the iTV for? Streaming media, a glorified IP TV box, an easier way to bring the iPod to the living room. I really don't see it doing anything else. I'm hoping that I'm wrong.
w00master
Kedrik
Jan 11, 09:04 PM
I had, or rather still have in a closet, a powerbook 100. It had an external floppy drive and I did carry it around with me, kind of defeating the purpose of the smaller form factor in the first place, so I bought my wife the powerbook 145 which had the floppy onboard. I guess we're now beyond wondering how to get things on the computer without the drive, but it would make sense for a driveless mac to have some super wireless connectivity options? Perhaps connectivity with the home mac in a "go to my pc" kind of way. Apple does own the "go to my mac" domain name. Just a thought.
CFreymarc
Apr 2, 08:25 PM
I much prefer this approach to advertising, the "If you don't have an iPhone" ad was just horrible.
Not really. Different products. The smartphone market is one ups manship show off the functions of your phone trying to impress someone or get laid. Yes, the latter has happened! It is easy to carry a smartphone and "whip it out" as you try to get into a position to whip out other things.
The tablet market is more about function and utility. Due to its size, you have to make a conscience effort to carry it with you as you have a task in mind. Those who don't well, look like geeks.
Not really. Different products. The smartphone market is one ups manship show off the functions of your phone trying to impress someone or get laid. Yes, the latter has happened! It is easy to carry a smartphone and "whip it out" as you try to get into a position to whip out other things.
The tablet market is more about function and utility. Due to its size, you have to make a conscience effort to carry it with you as you have a task in mind. Those who don't well, look like geeks.
roadbloc
Mar 31, 08:33 AM
iCal looks awful. I hope this is temporary or an April fools joke.
Benguitar
Nov 24, 02:02 PM
I do believe that's a gun case.
Hm, Didn't think of that. I got it at a camera store. :rolleyes::D
This will make airline travel more interesting.
Hm, Didn't think of that. I got it at a camera store. :rolleyes::D
This will make airline travel more interesting.
SoraLimit
Sep 18, 11:29 PM
He got it from Hong Kong.
kobyh15
Apr 2, 09:39 PM
Just saw it on tv. Fantastic.
MauiMac
Jul 18, 03:06 AM
WOW! "Think Secret" is really putting its reputation on the line by making this ("WWDC surprise: Apple to announce iTunes movie rentals" and Second-gen iPod nano on tap for August") two statements! What are the chances of Jobs announcing movie rentals and second-gen ipod nanos at WWDC (of all places) (in addition to 10.5 and MacPros)? But with Jobs, who knows what will be announced. "One more thing"... oh and wait just "One more thing"... :confused: :confused: :confused:
Fubar1977
Apr 10, 09:46 AM
In europe there`s nothing "rare" about a manual `box at all.
In fact, I don`t actually know anyone who can`t drive "stick".
I like both equally but in different circumstances.
Manual gives you better control/economy if you know how to drive it but for stop/start or city driving I`ll take an auto any day.
Just gone back to manual from auto in fact.
If I like the car then I`m not really bothered what `box it has.
That said, VW/Audi`s DSG semi auto`s are excellent.
In fact, I don`t actually know anyone who can`t drive "stick".
I like both equally but in different circumstances.
Manual gives you better control/economy if you know how to drive it but for stop/start or city driving I`ll take an auto any day.
Just gone back to manual from auto in fact.
If I like the car then I`m not really bothered what `box it has.
That said, VW/Audi`s DSG semi auto`s are excellent.
fashi0nless
Sep 17, 11:51 PM
I got the griffin reveal case at bestbuy today. real nice. fits really good and looks good, I like the little stand that comes w/ it as well.
Josias
Oct 23, 07:45 AM
yes baby. give me my mormom MBP!:D
I stopped wondering whether they'll come at all...;)
I stopped wondering whether they'll come at all...;)
Lord Blackadder
Mar 22, 12:41 AM
Well, personally I would consider "loyalists" part of military assets. And I'm sure most generals do as well because that's the way they talk about killing soldiers. Thus inflicting "material" damage should include the people who operate the weapons via command.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
And one would figure that since there are a huge number of "defectors", some of these loyalists must be pretty hard-core and you'll have to kill them to prevent them from picking up a simple AK and IED later on and blow up things from the shadows. This might seem harsh, but the reality of it is that if they pick a side, they accept their fate as a loser.
The UN mandate calls for a no-fly zone. Under current military doctrine that requires that the opponent's air defense network be degraded. Some military personnel will inevitably die when their air defense installations come under attack. Other than that, we don't have the authority to attack loyalists unless they are threatening the safety of civilians by bombarding rebel cities or some such, and then only if they can be clearly identified and attacked without risking civilian lives. Loyalist units that are simply surrounding a rebel strongholds are not legitimate targets at this stage.
However, in light of the situation, I would understand the need to leave some "real warriors" alive and hope they join the new administration because looking at these rebels, they are mostly a bunch of city slickers or something that found a gun, see smoke, run toward the front lines all exited...to come right back carrying their dead in a bedsheet. It's a real joke how they handle this rebelion. If this is how it is, we're going to need troops on the ground to get these guys in shape...if not during...then after the supplanting of Quadafi.
This is pretty much how any irregular force has behaved at any time in history (see the beginnings of the American and French revolutions for example) It's not something we can control. Some rebel units are made up of defected regular army units, they will undoubtedly form the core of any rebel advance and show better cohesion. By merely existing as a force in being the, the irregular units (or more correctly, loose bands) legitimize the opposition, and they've proven somewhat effective in defense.
As for troops on the ground - this is a Libyan civil war. The UN's mission is to prevent Gaddafi from murdering his own people in his attempt to maintain power. The Libyans must do the rest.
I honestly wouldn't be surprised if the end result of all this is not at all dissimilar to the goings-on in Iraq.
As long as we don't invade, this is unlikely to be as bad as Iraq. We are aiding a popular uprising against hated autocrat, not invading a foreign country with plans of occupation and prolonged rooting out of insurgents. There are still many potential pitfalls and I am not arguing that the situation is necessarily a good one, but it is certainly less risky than the 2003 Iraq invasion.
Gasu E.
Sep 14, 11:42 AM
I guess you don't read my posts carefully. I said what you said, that Toyota issues a recall, but the onus is on the owner to bring in the vehicle for servicing. Exactly as Apple has now done: if you experience a problem, let them know and you can get a free bumper.
To Consumer Reports this is an unacceptable way to deal with a design flaw. If it's Apple. For Toyota, it's fine and considered the normal way to handle a design flaw.
I think you are a minority of one on this interpretation. Apple is saying you now won't get the case unless you are exhibiting the problem. Toyota's recall applies to ALL cars in the affected series, and they will repair/replace the questionable part whether you are exhibiting problems or not. Moreover, Toyota's sends a recall notice to all the impacted owners; with the new Apple policy, you have to read the news or contact Apple to learn of the program.
To Consumer Reports this is an unacceptable way to deal with a design flaw. If it's Apple. For Toyota, it's fine and considered the normal way to handle a design flaw.
I think you are a minority of one on this interpretation. Apple is saying you now won't get the case unless you are exhibiting the problem. Toyota's recall applies to ALL cars in the affected series, and they will repair/replace the questionable part whether you are exhibiting problems or not. Moreover, Toyota's sends a recall notice to all the impacted owners; with the new Apple policy, you have to read the news or contact Apple to learn of the program.
firestarter
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
But like homeopathy religion can achieve positive things too.
Please quantify that. Homeopathy might make you feel better about your cold, but if you're persuaded to rely on it rather than chemotherapy to cure your cancer, you'll be in for a shock.
Lots of little good placebo outcomes outweighed by pretty serious consequences I'd bet.
Please quantify that. Homeopathy might make you feel better about your cold, but if you're persuaded to rely on it rather than chemotherapy to cure your cancer, you'll be in for a shock.
Lots of little good placebo outcomes outweighed by pretty serious consequences I'd bet.
Hastings101
Apr 2, 11:07 PM
Always have to use the word magical
NebulaClash
Sep 14, 10:10 AM
...my iPhone 4 still gets the best reception of any phone I've ever owned, regardless of how I hold it or whether or not it has a case on it...
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).
Yes, of course that's the case for most people. But you'd never know that if you listened to the drumbeat of the media saying that this iPhone version too has reception issues (I say "too" because this is not the first model of iPhone where reception issues were blown out of proportion (http://www.macrumors.com/2008/08/18/iphone-3g-connectivity-affecting-2-of-customers-software-fix-soon/) to the percentage of users actually affected).