shawnce
Dec 1, 07:55 PM
i don't understand why everyone is ignoring this guys' post. i'm not a computer engineer, so can someone with the right knowledge explain this a bit more? is it really adware or just a bug? :)
This is the summary from that page...
So, what have we learned:
valentine#39;s day 2011 wallpaper
Cute Love Wallpapers For
love wallpapers 2011.
love wallpapers 2011.
love wallpapers 2011.
i love justin bieber wallpaper
justin bieber wallpaper 2011
fresh wallpapers
Amazing Love Wallpaper 2011
Free Download Love Wallpaper
wallpaper 2011. new york
wallpaper 2011. Love me
This is the summary from that page...
So, what have we learned:
opeter
Oct 28, 07:11 AM
All I want is a real, good friend.
Stella
Jul 24, 09:09 PM
This would be bloody expensive.. too much to incorporate into an iPod.
inaka
May 4, 07:48 PM
And what will you do if Apple releases iPhone in, say, seven colors?
LOL, I'll pick the best color of course! :D
LOL, I'll pick the best color of course! :D
damage00
Oct 1, 11:19 AM
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of cell towers is unworkable. You think it is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no coverage at all.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
That's like saying:
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of freeways is unworkable. You think traffic is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no pavement at all.
There has to be an entirely new form of transportation for this, or the use of maglev or star trek transporters instead of silly roads. C'mon Toyota (maker of the Prius), solve this problem.
I'm not picking on you, carlgo. I'm saying, what you suggest is a little like throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.
Cell works, and has been working since the mid-80's and trillions of calls have been successfully placed. Apple didn't design it so they don't get the credit or the blame -- all they did was bring a new gadget to market. It's not the tech that is bad, it's the implementation that is at fault.
And it's AT&T's implementation that is to blame -- because it is cheap. Take a look at their stock price since the iPhone was introduced. They *want* $100 bucks every month from every customer in the US, but they aren't willing to reinvest enough of that into an infrastructure to support the number of customers they negotiated for.
Corporations tend establish ad campaigns to counter bad press or customer concerns/complaints, not what they do well. For instance, AT&T has the iPhone and no one else does. That's good. You would think they want to tell the world about that. No. It runs television spots for their Samsung/LG/etc. but not the iPhone.
On the other hand, AT&T has lousy coverage. Just look at your bars in SFO or NYC or even most of New Mexico -- doesn't matter where -- that's not a bandwidth issue. It's coverage. That's bad, so they advertise "more bars in more areas". These ads usually play on emotions, like two young lovers being separated, or they borrow on another organizations goodwill, like a company that gives shoes to the poor. They do not use demonstration or facts, because there aren't any. When I see these, I interpret them as the corporation's admission there is a problem.
There has to be an entirely new technology for this, or the use of satellites or aircraft instead of silly towers. C'mon Apple, solve this problem.
That's like saying:
Nice explanation. It seems that the whole idea of freeways is unworkable. You think traffic is bad in the cities? Even semi-rural areas have no pavement at all.
There has to be an entirely new form of transportation for this, or the use of maglev or star trek transporters instead of silly roads. C'mon Toyota (maker of the Prius), solve this problem.
I'm not picking on you, carlgo. I'm saying, what you suggest is a little like throwing the baby out with the dirty bath water.
Cell works, and has been working since the mid-80's and trillions of calls have been successfully placed. Apple didn't design it so they don't get the credit or the blame -- all they did was bring a new gadget to market. It's not the tech that is bad, it's the implementation that is at fault.
And it's AT&T's implementation that is to blame -- because it is cheap. Take a look at their stock price since the iPhone was introduced. They *want* $100 bucks every month from every customer in the US, but they aren't willing to reinvest enough of that into an infrastructure to support the number of customers they negotiated for.
Corporations tend establish ad campaigns to counter bad press or customer concerns/complaints, not what they do well. For instance, AT&T has the iPhone and no one else does. That's good. You would think they want to tell the world about that. No. It runs television spots for their Samsung/LG/etc. but not the iPhone.
On the other hand, AT&T has lousy coverage. Just look at your bars in SFO or NYC or even most of New Mexico -- doesn't matter where -- that's not a bandwidth issue. It's coverage. That's bad, so they advertise "more bars in more areas". These ads usually play on emotions, like two young lovers being separated, or they borrow on another organizations goodwill, like a company that gives shoes to the poor. They do not use demonstration or facts, because there aren't any. When I see these, I interpret them as the corporation's admission there is a problem.
twoodcc
Nov 28, 07:45 AM
PS3's give good ppd, and as far as what WE have done to you... check the water - bwahaha!
Here is a link to Atlas's machine stats, it's freeking awesome (http://atlasfolding.com/fahstats/summary.html)to look at!!!!!
yeah i've got my PS3 folding when i'm not using it. i think it gets about 1,000 ppd (not sure though, but i think i read that somewhere)
thanks for that link!
The water here in Japan IS a bit freaky :p
I KNOW!!! Where's the "drool" emotiocon! Each one of his GPU monsters is making 66K ppd....and he's got FIVE OF THEM!!!
man that's crazy!
Here is a link to Atlas's machine stats, it's freeking awesome (http://atlasfolding.com/fahstats/summary.html)to look at!!!!!
yeah i've got my PS3 folding when i'm not using it. i think it gets about 1,000 ppd (not sure though, but i think i read that somewhere)
thanks for that link!
The water here in Japan IS a bit freaky :p
I KNOW!!! Where's the "drool" emotiocon! Each one of his GPU monsters is making 66K ppd....and he's got FIVE OF THEM!!!
man that's crazy!
Kissaragi
Apr 22, 05:07 PM
Id be sad to see the beautiful iphone 4 design go so soon. I think it has at least another year left in it.
Heavy Fluid
Nov 30, 03:51 PM
http://www.brucesspeed.com/images/products/detail/Go_Pro_Digital_Motorsports_Hero_Wide_Angle.jpg
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
mozmac
Jul 28, 11:05 AM
A.K.A...."If Zune fails, you can't bash us in the media. We told you it wasn't going to be successful." And then when it's still unsuccessful after five years, they'll be like, "Forget about Zune, look at this new operating system we're releasing this year. It's called Vista. It has this new search feature called Floodlight. When you search for something it instantly floods you with results from your hard drive."
7on
Jul 25, 08:24 AM
I'm still wondering about battery life.
And they list the wired as Windows compatible, but not the new bluetooth version. Any reason it wouldn't work on Windows?
Any reason anything works in windows?
And they list the wired as Windows compatible, but not the new bluetooth version. Any reason it wouldn't work on Windows?
Any reason anything works in windows?
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 02:32 PM
I just updated mine and there is a noticeable difference in speed with this update. It is much faster in opening applications and text messages.
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
iDrinkKoolAid
Jul 10, 09:53 AM
As a frequent user of Pages 2, I would like more toolbars and less of the 'inspector' stuff, which to me is not as convenient.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
i love justin bieber wallpaper
Flowers Wallpapers 2011.
wallpaper 2011. i love
Free Download Love Wallpaper 2011 : Love Vector II
Justin Bieber Wallpapers 2011
wallpaper 2011. i love
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
cuestakid
May 1, 11:52 PM
Your 2nd date appears to be incorrect.
http://www.biography.com/articles/Adolf-Hitler-9340144
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267992/Adolf-Hitler
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-commits-suicide
how so?
http://www.biography.com/articles/Adolf-Hitler-9340144
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/267992/Adolf-Hitler
http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/adolf-hitler-commits-suicide
how so?
rednano74
Apr 13, 09:40 PM
I just got back from a weekend trip in Chicago. I saw a guy talking on his white iPhone. For the life of me I can't exactly remember where I was though - shopping on Michigan Ave or maybe at Midway.
All I can remember is saying to myself, "Holy ****, that guy has a white one."
All I can remember is saying to myself, "Holy ****, that guy has a white one."
Mattlike
Sep 14, 08:53 AM
:D
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats!
http://siennaplantationrealtor.com/images/SOLD%20sign.jpg
Congrats!
SuperCachetes
Dec 31, 10:48 PM
...God, not religion...
I'll be honest: I don't know what the heck that even means.
...I read every post and I understood them all...
No. You didn't. I am not judging her, and there are many here who aren't. I merely want all people to be accountable for their impact on society. For example, you are probably more healthy than I am. That's awesome. I truly hope you have the ability to pay lower insurance premiums than me. Why would I begrudge you that - I outweigh you by 50 lbs, and smoked for 25 years. But I'll tell you one thing - I run 15 miles a week now, trying to reclaim every last smidgen of lung capacity I can find. And, I've dropped 15 pounds in the last 6 weeks. And all just because I know I should. Think of how great it would be if there was financial incentive, to boot!
...my argument is not that she isn't a liability. It's that no one here has a right to decide where the line is between what lifestyle is so selfish that it is your personal concern.
Please stop assuming there is a "line." It can be a sliding scale. "Healthiness" can be measured with a variety of metrics (BMI, blood pressure, blood chemistry, etc) and there is no reason that numbers compared to numbers have to be judgmental. It doesn't have to be "healthy" vs. "unhealthy." That said, countless government agencies and private groups have decided what qualifies as "obese." The info is out there. People blow it off because there are no repercussions, no liability one way or the other.
I would argue that accepting a lifestyle that has a much higher likelihood of illness or death doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. What about adventure seekers? Is climbing Everest a sign of mental illness? The likelihood of dying is high, and honestly, some would say that you have to be crazy to do it, but people still praise the behavior, and don't label the person with a mental illness.
Agreed.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
I really LOVE alcohol. I have been known to drink three bottles of wine, a half-bottle of whiskey, or a twelve-pack of beer in an evening. I don't do it to get drunk, I just really like the stuff. Are you cool with chipping in for my liver transplant? :cool:
I'll be honest: I don't know what the heck that even means.
...I read every post and I understood them all...
No. You didn't. I am not judging her, and there are many here who aren't. I merely want all people to be accountable for their impact on society. For example, you are probably more healthy than I am. That's awesome. I truly hope you have the ability to pay lower insurance premiums than me. Why would I begrudge you that - I outweigh you by 50 lbs, and smoked for 25 years. But I'll tell you one thing - I run 15 miles a week now, trying to reclaim every last smidgen of lung capacity I can find. And, I've dropped 15 pounds in the last 6 weeks. And all just because I know I should. Think of how great it would be if there was financial incentive, to boot!
...my argument is not that she isn't a liability. It's that no one here has a right to decide where the line is between what lifestyle is so selfish that it is your personal concern.
Please stop assuming there is a "line." It can be a sliding scale. "Healthiness" can be measured with a variety of metrics (BMI, blood pressure, blood chemistry, etc) and there is no reason that numbers compared to numbers have to be judgmental. It doesn't have to be "healthy" vs. "unhealthy." That said, countless government agencies and private groups have decided what qualifies as "obese." The info is out there. People blow it off because there are no repercussions, no liability one way or the other.
I would argue that accepting a lifestyle that has a much higher likelihood of illness or death doesn't necessarily mean mental illness. What about adventure seekers? Is climbing Everest a sign of mental illness? The likelihood of dying is high, and honestly, some would say that you have to be crazy to do it, but people still praise the behavior, and don't label the person with a mental illness.
Agreed.
Guys, it really is possible that she just LOVES food. I've met people like that. They are great chefs and are very over weight because they love food. Not because they have some kind of mental deficiency.
I really LOVE alcohol. I have been known to drink three bottles of wine, a half-bottle of whiskey, or a twelve-pack of beer in an evening. I don't do it to get drunk, I just really like the stuff. Are you cool with chipping in for my liver transplant? :cool:
Keebler
Dec 30, 09:59 PM
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I used to think that too and I was completely wrong. I used 'being busy with work' as a poor excuse. I absolutely regret it.
He's right - it's a simple formula and one that really takes some discipline...that's all. Just a touch of strength.
I'll also add, some knowledge too. Talking to a trainer with a nutritionist background was critical to my success. Understanding what the body needs based on your activity level, rather than what your MIND believes your body wants, is a small, but massively important factor.
ie. on days I work out, I'll have my protein drink and a massive bowl of oatmeal - topped with a scoop of jam and/or peanut butter and some brown sugar. 1. it's got all the glucose I need after working out and 2. it satiates me until mid-afternoon and then I have a normal lunch. I could go on, but I don't want to drag it.
My point is this: I hear you, I was you, but it's wrong. plain and simple. I normally don't tell people they're wrong so pls don't take offense :)
i'm in my late 30s, 2 kids, the stay at home Dad running his own business and I'm in the best shape of my life. My wife is a financial planner running her own brokerage and she's in fantastic shape. If anything, being in better shape, eating right etc... has made my wife EVEN more successful. She has the energy, her mind is sharp and I believe it's because her 'engine' is running tip top. It's like having an old beat up car vs a new super engine cooled kick butt car - which one is going to go further and more efficiently? :)
That's not to toot my own horn, but to say, it is possible. It has to be a lifestyle change.
And hey, it's 2011 - time to make that change :)
Cheers,
keebler
I used to think that too and I was completely wrong. I used 'being busy with work' as a poor excuse. I absolutely regret it.
He's right - it's a simple formula and one that really takes some discipline...that's all. Just a touch of strength.
I'll also add, some knowledge too. Talking to a trainer with a nutritionist background was critical to my success. Understanding what the body needs based on your activity level, rather than what your MIND believes your body wants, is a small, but massively important factor.
ie. on days I work out, I'll have my protein drink and a massive bowl of oatmeal - topped with a scoop of jam and/or peanut butter and some brown sugar. 1. it's got all the glucose I need after working out and 2. it satiates me until mid-afternoon and then I have a normal lunch. I could go on, but I don't want to drag it.
My point is this: I hear you, I was you, but it's wrong. plain and simple. I normally don't tell people they're wrong so pls don't take offense :)
i'm in my late 30s, 2 kids, the stay at home Dad running his own business and I'm in the best shape of my life. My wife is a financial planner running her own brokerage and she's in fantastic shape. If anything, being in better shape, eating right etc... has made my wife EVEN more successful. She has the energy, her mind is sharp and I believe it's because her 'engine' is running tip top. It's like having an old beat up car vs a new super engine cooled kick butt car - which one is going to go further and more efficiently? :)
That's not to toot my own horn, but to say, it is possible. It has to be a lifestyle change.
And hey, it's 2011 - time to make that change :)
Cheers,
keebler
astewart
Nov 5, 12:31 PM
so i just installed vmware... and ive got to say... its really not up to par with parallels... its sluggish on my MBP 2.0ghz with 2gigs of ram.... and i mean real sluggish... rebooting doesnt seem to want to work.... i do like the interface though but overall, its not that great to work with compare to parallels.... i do realize that this is a private beta but even in the beta stage parallels was much better.....
hope that the next build is more promising
also... i didnt see a way to change the amount of ram dedicated to the virtual machine other then by creating a new vm....
I have to agree, the Video Refresh rate is also noticable compared from Parallels. The Mouse is more sluggish and it just doesn't give you the feel that Parallels does.
I didn't notice any difference from running 2 Cores either :(
It is only a Beta right now so maybe they will have everything up to par soon enough. :)
hope that the next build is more promising
also... i didnt see a way to change the amount of ram dedicated to the virtual machine other then by creating a new vm....
I have to agree, the Video Refresh rate is also noticable compared from Parallels. The Mouse is more sluggish and it just doesn't give you the feel that Parallels does.
I didn't notice any difference from running 2 Cores either :(
It is only a Beta right now so maybe they will have everything up to par soon enough. :)
lPHONE
Jun 19, 12:08 AM
What is this kid doing on the computer alone in the first place? Doesn't his parents know about the dangers lurking on the web?! ;)
I have to agree.
People need face the consequences of their actions on the internets... maybe then they'll learn
I have to agree.
People need face the consequences of their actions on the internets... maybe then they'll learn
NT1440
May 1, 11:41 PM
What, so he wasn't important? What about the president?
Disregarding the missed point...
Was important. The past tense matters. Other than giving those who look at the world with a revenge-at-all-costs is a good thing point of view something to chant loudly for, what has this changed?
If anything this will just escalate our wars, from both sides.
Disregarding the missed point...
Was important. The past tense matters. Other than giving those who look at the world with a revenge-at-all-costs is a good thing point of view something to chant loudly for, what has this changed?
If anything this will just escalate our wars, from both sides.
DTphonehome
Apr 13, 02:58 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
This would be a good quick way for Apple to lose a couple billion dollars, and some face. As has been said, TV is a very mature market with deeply entrenched players fighting over scraps of profit. There is no way Apple could innovate enough in this area that would compel people to ditch their existing sets, and pay an Apple premium. Google is failing miserably with their attempt.
These are the strategies I see Apple taking:
1. License Airplay. Now any iOS device streams to legions of TVs, bluray decks, and receivers.
2. Enhance Apple TV with apps and games.
3. Profit.
This would be a good quick way for Apple to lose a couple billion dollars, and some face. As has been said, TV is a very mature market with deeply entrenched players fighting over scraps of profit. There is no way Apple could innovate enough in this area that would compel people to ditch their existing sets, and pay an Apple premium. Google is failing miserably with their attempt.
These are the strategies I see Apple taking:
1. License Airplay. Now any iOS device streams to legions of TVs, bluray decks, and receivers.
2. Enhance Apple TV with apps and games.
3. Profit.
Full of Win
Apr 21, 10:30 PM
Take the fight to them Sammy! Don't give in to the bully that Apple has become.
innominato5090
Oct 21, 11:06 AM
Its.....October.......:rolleyes:
it's never too early to start saving money for your own xmas's present :D
it's never too early to start saving money for your own xmas's present :D
No comments:
Post a Comment