iphonedev11
Feb 15, 03:07 PM
I can't imagine that apple is too concerned with this. If a developer has problems, they can take their business elsewhere as far as Apple is concerned. They have definitely always been our way or the high way, which can be good and bad.
Pantoffel
Mar 12, 08:33 AM
Relax guys. After all, it's just about a new laptop lol. Maybe next tuesday.
hypermog
Mar 11, 02:58 PM
Very well written post that completely recaps the whole situation!
Apple OC
Mar 10, 08:19 PM
But for some reason, we keep shoving our money into the military... and our country keeps getting poorer... and poorer... and poorer.
cutting back on the Military is everyone's answer but mine ... careful what you wish for
here is the new Security you all hope for
cutting back on the Military is everyone's answer but mine ... careful what you wish for
here is the new Security you all hope for
Queso
Nov 8, 09:10 AM
Ever owned a 12" powerbook? I have two.
There's a reason a lot of 12" powerbook owners rave on about them. The form factor is very neat. It sure isn't about how powerful they are :).
Too right. My Rev. A will have to be completely dead before I replace it with a 13" MacBook. The only way I'll buy another laptop before then is if Apple come out with a 12" MBP.
Not slagging off the MacBooks by saying that. I just love my PB12". Best laptop ever IMO.
There's a reason a lot of 12" powerbook owners rave on about them. The form factor is very neat. It sure isn't about how powerful they are :).
Too right. My Rev. A will have to be completely dead before I replace it with a 13" MacBook. The only way I'll buy another laptop before then is if Apple come out with a 12" MBP.
Not slagging off the MacBooks by saying that. I just love my PB12". Best laptop ever IMO.
iLoveiMacs
Oct 12, 11:10 PM
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3236823454_ddca5900d9.jpg (http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3318/3236823454_ddca5900d9_b.jpg)
(sorry about quoting photo)
Love the white iMac! I personally prefer the design wayy much more than the newer aluminum iMacs, even though the white models are slow as $%!& compared to the offerings of today.
(sorry about quoting photo)
Love the white iMac! I personally prefer the design wayy much more than the newer aluminum iMacs, even though the white models are slow as $%!& compared to the offerings of today.
macfan881
Sep 7, 08:38 PM
Cant wait found my old copy of Halo for Mac gonna play that as soon as i play through this and get 2 eventually I really hope they put 2 on On-Demand, Since 1 and 3 are on there.
skunk
Mar 10, 07:38 PM
I reduced military spending to $90B and increased Vets' aftercare, too. Major gain came from removing the cap on SS contributions completely.
Nipsy
Oct 13, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by TMay
Still, four options await:
complain; then buy a PC
complain; but wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
don't complain; then buy a PC
don't complain; and wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
Option 5:
Buy a $1700 Dualie, and sell it for $1000 when the great leap forward happens.
I can't deny that I think a lot of people who post here want speed for speed's sake, not because they need it.
I run a HEAVY load of services (Apache, TomCat, MySQL, a lot of cron, etc.) on my machine at all times, iTunes at all times, many terminal sessions, several browsers, BBEdit, CodeWarrior, Excel, Mail, and often have DreamWeaver, Photoshop, Thoth, Flash, and several others open, and I seldom have slowdowns. I don't render anything, and I respect the complaints of people doing heavy rendering.
If you're are noticing slowdowns, max your RAM, and get a RAID card. If you're peaking both processors with 2GB of RAM, and an U160 SCSI, or ATA 133 RAID, complain, otherwise, you don't really have a right to!
Still, four options await:
complain; then buy a PC
complain; but wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
don't complain; then buy a PC
don't complain; and wait for what-ever-it-is-that-your-waiting-for
Option 5:
Buy a $1700 Dualie, and sell it for $1000 when the great leap forward happens.
I can't deny that I think a lot of people who post here want speed for speed's sake, not because they need it.
I run a HEAVY load of services (Apache, TomCat, MySQL, a lot of cron, etc.) on my machine at all times, iTunes at all times, many terminal sessions, several browsers, BBEdit, CodeWarrior, Excel, Mail, and often have DreamWeaver, Photoshop, Thoth, Flash, and several others open, and I seldom have slowdowns. I don't render anything, and I respect the complaints of people doing heavy rendering.
If you're are noticing slowdowns, max your RAM, and get a RAID card. If you're peaking both processors with 2GB of RAM, and an U160 SCSI, or ATA 133 RAID, complain, otherwise, you don't really have a right to!
Arquelis
Aug 3, 02:55 PM
Is that a leopard in the reflection of the X of the disk?
Spike Spiegel
Oct 11, 01:40 PM
all of the mac users i know are casual to hardcore gamers. to say that the mac gaming community is a minority worth ignoring is not true. also, ALL of the mac users i know are more tech saavy than any of the PC users i know, who only use the internet, mail, and counter strike. In my experience, mac users are more apt to tinker with their machines(RAM,hard drives, video cards etc.) I think apple needs to re-evaluate its priorities and put performance before style.
ruy
Sep 26, 10:12 AM
Nobody can stop the tide of technology, not even Walmart.
iMeowbot
Nov 27, 10:13 AM
Lets hope they remaster them - the stereo effects on the original versions can be really painful on a pair of headphones.
Apple Corps did say (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aFXMHi1sm_p8&refer=us) that the Beatles tracks would be cleaned up before download releases were made.
The cheesy stereo on some of the early tracks may seem odd to current-day listeners, but on the other hand, mashup hobbyists must love it :)
Apple Corps did say (http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=10000103&sid=aFXMHi1sm_p8&refer=us) that the Beatles tracks would be cleaned up before download releases were made.
The cheesy stereo on some of the early tracks may seem odd to current-day listeners, but on the other hand, mashup hobbyists must love it :)
donlphi
Sep 12, 02:52 PM
Pretty disappointing, although I was the ONLY PERSON on macrumors and apple insider to call the LAME GAME update, which doesn't even work on the current 5G iPOD Video (at least this is what I read somewhere earlier today). I would call that pointless.
Movies... eh... I will still be buying DVDs and pulling them on.
Do current video iPODs support the new movies and TV Show formats?
It was nice of them to show us that they are planning on having an iTV unit.
ugh... I gotta go teach... we'll talk later.
Movies... eh... I will still be buying DVDs and pulling them on.
Do current video iPODs support the new movies and TV Show formats?
It was nice of them to show us that they are planning on having an iTV unit.
ugh... I gotta go teach... we'll talk later.
mward333
Sep 4, 07:46 PM
Would the new iMac 23 inch qualify for the back to school promotion?
What about an 8 GB nano?
Of course, the promotion is very specific about models on Macs and iPods:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/bts/bts_faq.html
Unless Apple makes a special exception, my guess is that neither model would qualify. The promotion rules specifically state 17 or 20 inch iMac, and 1, 2, or 4 GB nano. Check the FAQ about the promotion.
Any tips about this? Maybe I'll check with Apple directly by telephone, if a new iMac and new nano are actually introduced next week.
What about an 8 GB nano?
Of course, the promotion is very specific about models on Macs and iPods:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/bts/bts_faq.html
Unless Apple makes a special exception, my guess is that neither model would qualify. The promotion rules specifically state 17 or 20 inch iMac, and 1, 2, or 4 GB nano. Check the FAQ about the promotion.
Any tips about this? Maybe I'll check with Apple directly by telephone, if a new iMac and new nano are actually introduced next week.
Chundles
Sep 6, 08:23 AM
I assume you mean headless tower since all the iMacs and the MAC Mini are desktops......... Oh wait, isn't the MAC Pro a headless tower?
Mac, not MAC. They're different things.
Mac, not MAC. They're different things.
2IS
Apr 2, 01:58 AM
Android Phone Specs are out pacing the Iphone. An 8 Megapixel camera, bigger screen and more memory will keep me buying. IOS 5 with the rumored adobe flash would be great too.
Except the 8mp on every single Andriod phone I've seen produces significantly worse images than the iPhone. ESPECIALLY in low light.
Except the 8mp on every single Andriod phone I've seen produces significantly worse images than the iPhone. ESPECIALLY in low light.
mscriv
Apr 7, 12:38 PM
Then why bother with the Old Testament? Seems to cause a lot of problems.
It can cause a lot of problems when people misinterpret or don't understand it. And lots of modern believers do avoid reading the old testament, especially books of the law like Leviticus and Deuteronomy (because they can be hard to understand).
For me personally, I enjoy reading the narratives of old testament figures like Abraham, David, Joshua, Moses, Solomon, Isaac, etc. etc. These people were far from perfect and much of what we learn from them is in taking note of the mistakes they made. It gives me comfort knowing that if God can use them then he can possibly use me despite the numerous mistakes I make.
Then there are the accounts of people like Job and Joseph. These stories provide such great encouragment as you see how they navigated and overcame such great hardship. Reading their stories provides hope.
Wisdom and poetry books like Psalms and Proverbs are also encouraging and easy to read with their straight forward style and memorable sayings.
I'd encourage everyone to read the Bible. Even if you don't believe it is divinely inspired you can still learn from the collective wisdom of what it contains. It seems that the atheist book the OP started this thread about would contain a good collection of human wisdom and knowledge. I don't know about it being representative of the beliefs of all atheist, but it most likely contains good information from the experiences of those who have gone before us. I would like to think that non-believers could view the Bible in much the same way regardless of whether they believe in God.
Great question lee, thanks for asking. :)
It can cause a lot of problems when people misinterpret or don't understand it. And lots of modern believers do avoid reading the old testament, especially books of the law like Leviticus and Deuteronomy (because they can be hard to understand).
For me personally, I enjoy reading the narratives of old testament figures like Abraham, David, Joshua, Moses, Solomon, Isaac, etc. etc. These people were far from perfect and much of what we learn from them is in taking note of the mistakes they made. It gives me comfort knowing that if God can use them then he can possibly use me despite the numerous mistakes I make.
Then there are the accounts of people like Job and Joseph. These stories provide such great encouragment as you see how they navigated and overcame such great hardship. Reading their stories provides hope.
Wisdom and poetry books like Psalms and Proverbs are also encouraging and easy to read with their straight forward style and memorable sayings.
I'd encourage everyone to read the Bible. Even if you don't believe it is divinely inspired you can still learn from the collective wisdom of what it contains. It seems that the atheist book the OP started this thread about would contain a good collection of human wisdom and knowledge. I don't know about it being representative of the beliefs of all atheist, but it most likely contains good information from the experiences of those who have gone before us. I would like to think that non-believers could view the Bible in much the same way regardless of whether they believe in God.
Great question lee, thanks for asking. :)
Brandon Sharitt
Sep 4, 07:26 AM
Awww and I haven't even gotten tired of my first generation nano yet...
But if the metal enclosure is as good as those on the minis then I might just have to upgrade. :p
I still like my first generation Nano, but my girlfriends dog got a hold of it and broke the screen. Luckily I can see just enough of the bottom of the screen to put in on shuffle songs, so it's like having and extra wide black shuffle. I'm waiting update before I buy a new one. Besides, my trusty mini still works too.
But if the metal enclosure is as good as those on the minis then I might just have to upgrade. :p
I still like my first generation Nano, but my girlfriends dog got a hold of it and broke the screen. Luckily I can see just enough of the bottom of the screen to put in on shuffle songs, so it's like having and extra wide black shuffle. I'm waiting update before I buy a new one. Besides, my trusty mini still works too.
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
GregAndonian
Apr 17, 12:58 AM
Ahh, Geez... First they make a new Final Cut Pro out of iMovie, and now they're selling the iPad at Toys 'R' Us??? :eek:
:p:apple:
:p:apple:
cooknwitha
Sep 12, 01:30 PM
Ooooo!!
I love this!! Love the new layout. Nice and tidy! Breaking up the library is good too!
I love software updates! It's like a present from Apple. :D
I love this!! Love the new layout. Nice and tidy! Breaking up the library is good too!
I love software updates! It's like a present from Apple. :D
Case-sensitive
Nov 27, 09:45 AM
Lets hope they remaster them - the stereo effects on the original versions can be really painful on a pair of headphones.
bartelby
Jan 11, 02:17 PM
Yikes!:eek: Wireless electricity...I think I'll wait till they've ironed the bugs out of that one before I test it ;)
It's ok, there's no bugs. They all died from the radiation.
It's ok, there's no bugs. They all died from the radiation.
No comments:
Post a Comment