paeza
Oct 26, 01:33 AM
Hey guys we should hold out for 128 cores. Apple will make it soon. I guess
bf2008
May 2, 09:05 AM
As I understand it, Safari will open the zip file since it's a "safe" download. But that doesn't mean it'll execute the code within that zip file, so how is this malware executing without user permission?
bobsentell
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
I see nothing wrong with AT&T cracking down. You signed a contract that specifically said you had no interest in tethering. But if you use it, then you lied when you signed your contract which means AT&T has the right to modify it.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
Hey, it's better then them blackballing you and making you pay the remainder of your phone's cost.
kdawg
Apr 6, 11:39 PM
Finder - It works different from explorer. Not better, Not worse. Different. Both have features that the other is lacking
The lack of embedded shortcut keys in system menus. Especially to activate them File Open Etc Etc. I used them all the time... Especially with a dialog box for Open or Cancel or Save an Cancel on Pop-up dialog boxes. You cannot tab or arrow through the choices.
No right click without an external mouse. Apple's solution on the multitouch pad is buggy - Still drives me nuts after all these years.
The lack of embedded shortcut keys in system menus. Especially to activate them File Open Etc Etc. I used them all the time... Especially with a dialog box for Open or Cancel or Save an Cancel on Pop-up dialog boxes. You cannot tab or arrow through the choices.
No right click without an external mouse. Apple's solution on the multitouch pad is buggy - Still drives me nuts after all these years.
EricNau
May 8, 05:08 PM
I can honestly and without exaggeration say that over half of the calls placed with my iPhone drop, and it's been getting progressively worse in both cities where I use my phone. It's practically unusable.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
My phone so consistently cycles between full bars and no service that Apple replaced my phone under warranty, to no avail.
I love my iPhone, but AT&T needs to go.
spazzcat
May 5, 01:28 PM
Does this data have number of calls vs number of dropped calls? It looks like they just asked people if they have had a dropped call? I had maybe one dropped call this whole year. But I don't talk on my phone as much as someone else may.
ariza910
Sep 12, 04:39 PM
Wasnt Steve Jobs demo of the Incredibles movie through iTV in HD?
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
Since the iTV has HDMI and Component it leads me to belive that it will handle HD as well as SD content.
KingYaba
Mar 25, 12:12 AM
The problem is demonizing people who are living living their lives in ways that cause no harm to the person condemning them, nor to any other identifiable person.
Well said and I agree.
Well said and I agree.
tigress666
Apr 9, 12:10 PM
When Apple Buys Nintendo eventually, it will be a good merge.
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
Here is a question. Why (if you want to see good games on the iphone) would you want Nintendo (and Sony's gaming department) to go away?
As some one pointed out in some other forum, all the really good, non-angry-birds/cut-the-rope, traditional style (racing, jrpgs, simulators, shooters) games seem to be ports from the other handhelds. In general companies like Squaresoft tend to port over games they've made on other handhelds to make more money on the iphone (usually after they've made their money on the handhelds).
If the other handhelds go away, do you think we'll see more of that style game for handhelds? Or do you think gaming will go more the way of the social (Freemium) gaming (farmville, ick. I admittedly got into these games when I first was on facebook but after a while realized there was absolutely no substance at all and it was just a game of accumulate stuff with no real "game") and puzzle games (cut the rope/Angry birds. fine for a little time wasting but not something you really immerse yourself in, though I will say some are much better than others).
I have nothing against puzzle games (But I would be pissed if social/freemium gaming became the pretty much norm) but I still love my jrpgs and my racing games and my flight simulators. And I'm really getting into third person rpgs (Prince of Persian, Assassin's Creed... oddly, these I didn't have as much interest until I got an iphone which I admit is not the best format for them but they're still fun on it). I'd hate to see them go away.
(and somewhere on the net is a really good rant on why freemium games really isn't a great style of gaming, how just paying some money to get that extra incentive takes away from the actual fun of playing the game vs. actually working in the game to get that stuff).
sblasl
Nov 2, 08:25 PM
Sorry, still trying to get up to speed on all of this intel stuff...:o
Naimfan
Apr 24, 11:25 AM
Well in that case anything could be classed as Christianity. Frankly I find that absurd. What's the point of identifying as a Christian if any interpretation of Christianity is considered OK? You may as well just call yourself a spiritualist as it would be closer to the truth.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
I mean that kind of logic just annoys me no end. Either God exists or he does not. If he does exist one must assume that he intends the Bible to be read literally. If he didn't then why did he go through the whole bother of having it written by the disciples in the first place if people were just going to change and reinterpret it willy nilly based on whatever the current political or social ideals of the time are?
Based on what you've written, you have a very narrow view of what you consider to be "Christianity." You should perhaps spell that out--what I would infer from what you've written is that to "Christian" one must interpret the Bible (by which I assume you mean the Old and New Testaments) fairly literally and that any denomination which does not do so cannot be "Christian." Which would be news to many of the major Christian denominations.
Perhaps you should substitute "fundamental Christian" for Christian, since that term seems to be more in line with what you've written.
Pipian
Mar 18, 10:09 AM
I wonder how long it'll be until Apple comes up with a fix for this?
scottlinux
Oct 25, 11:11 PM
I think price will be the key. These are pricey chips. Apple will have to work their magic.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
I wonder how many current Mac Pro owners will just buy the new chips off pricewatch.com and pop them in.
brianus
Aug 29, 11:53 AM
You can't always win :rolleyes: :cool: :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
CRT monitors also consume more power than LCDs.
Great avatar, CompUser. I thought my system had just slowed to a crawl! :D
rdowns
Apr 15, 10:49 AM
Snip a bunch of made up crap from a made up book supposedly written by a made up guy.
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
More hate from the god squad. :rolleyes:
Tymmz
Aug 29, 11:02 AM
That's weird.
A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "�ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.
They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.
A couple years ago the number one german ECO-magazine "�ko Test" put the iBook at the pole position of (non-) toxic laptops.
They compared the materials and the exhaust fumes.
I'm not 100% sure, but I think I remember that fact correctly.
nagromme
May 5, 02:35 PM
I get maybe 1 dropped call a year in a medium-to-large US city (top 50, not top 10!). For all I know it was the other party who dropped. But there are still dead zones that bug me—mostly in rural areas but also in random suburban spots.
Unfortunately, the other carriers seem to be dead in the same spots!
And AT&T customer service is miserable. (I’ve never needed customer service for phone stuff, but I have their DSL as well) At the same time, my friends with Sprint and Verizon have horror stories and are itching to switch carriers! Asking which one has worse customer service seems silly when they ALL seem so bad. Not bad every time, but bad often enough that I’d want to change carriers.
There are no good US carriers in my view :( At least AT&T lets me use voice and data at the same time.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
My guess is regional variation—even from neighborhood to neighborhood in the same city. That, and having contacts that use different networks. The drops aren’t necessarily caused from your own end. (One person might talk to a lot of land lines and another might talk to a lot of T-Moble people. If T-Mobile drops calls in that neighborhood, the person might think his iPhone was to blame.) So it’s hard to compare two peoples’ experiences. But it’s easy to know the whole situation isn’t acceptable!
Unfortunately, the other carriers seem to be dead in the same spots!
And AT&T customer service is miserable. (I’ve never needed customer service for phone stuff, but I have their DSL as well) At the same time, my friends with Sprint and Verizon have horror stories and are itching to switch carriers! Asking which one has worse customer service seems silly when they ALL seem so bad. Not bad every time, but bad often enough that I’d want to change carriers.
There are no good US carriers in my view :( At least AT&T lets me use voice and data at the same time.
There seems to be a real split in this thread: people who get lots of dropped calls with the iPhone and people who get none. I haven't had any dropped calls in the two years I've had my iPhone. But there have been many calls that never rang and instead went straight to voicemail.
I'm wondering if Apple might have produced a slew of defective iPhones, and those are the ones that are dropping calls. It's so strange that people are having such vastly different experiences, regardless of the call area. It sounds more like a hardware/software problem.
My guess is regional variation—even from neighborhood to neighborhood in the same city. That, and having contacts that use different networks. The drops aren’t necessarily caused from your own end. (One person might talk to a lot of land lines and another might talk to a lot of T-Moble people. If T-Mobile drops calls in that neighborhood, the person might think his iPhone was to blame.) So it’s hard to compare two peoples’ experiences. But it’s easy to know the whole situation isn’t acceptable!
NathanMuir
Mar 13, 01:19 PM
Japan doesn't really have a choice BUT to build plants on the Pacific Rim, since that's where the country is located.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
That, the lack of domestic oil and gas (90% of oil used in electric power is from the Middle East), plus a small highly populated country (rules out big hydropower) and they haven't got many options left. Linky (http://eneken.ieej.or.jp/data/en/data/pdf/433.pdf).
I didn't say that they didn't have the need (though I'm betting that they'll turn to green energy, in larger part, when they begin the rebuilding process; solar, wind, etc...).
I just questioned how well thought out the idea was to build these plants in an area that is highly susceptible to volcanic activity.
awmazz
Mar 11, 07:51 AM
Japanese police are reporting several hundred bodies on a beach near Sendai so it looks like as per the Indonesian tsunami the official toll will skyrocket once the water recedes.
flopticalcube
Apr 25, 11:47 AM
When someone uses the word "belief" they are really saying "to the best of my knowledge, experience and understanding, I conclude this to be true". The same would go for disbelief. Since humans are not perfect, not even remotely, we can never be 100% sure. Even that tree you see in front of you has a small probability of being an illusion or a figment of your imagination.
Gelfin
Mar 25, 01:26 PM
Unfortunately, none of that is relevant to the original point of the thread. Looking back through the thread, Catholics and Catholicism were/ are the discussion. Not all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream'.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
It is entirely relevant. The leadership of the Catholic Church, as one very significant representative of a multitude of peer sects that engage in similar behavior, uses its political and rhetorical power to promote the attitudes that spread their own prejudice and enable prejudiced people, including a subset of extremists, to excuse themselves from the obligation to treat those people with fundamental dignity and respect.
Had a more conservative member of this board attempted to 'stretch' the original point of the thread to included all 'Christians' and the 'mainstream', I would bet my life that ones attempting to 'stretch' the original point of this thread would jump down his or her throat in a second.
First, I explicitly did not stretch the topic of the thread. I stretched an analogy about the topic of the thread. You are attacking as illegitimate something that didn't happen, and ignoring the legitimacy of what did.
Second, it was a conservative, and now that I look you in fact, who introduced the word "mainstream" as a "no true Scotsman" weasel word to disclaim the association between "strongly held beliefs" that certain other people are not to be tolerated and extremists who take strong actions consistent with those beliefs. When you are as influential as a major religion, you cannot just go around saying such-and-such group is intentionally undermining and destroying everything decent in the world and not expect some impressionable half-wit with poor impulse control to take you seriously and act accordingly.
Let me boil it down:
(1a) Catholics (or anyone else) may believe what they like about gay people, so long as (1b) they don't try to force gay people to live consistent with those beliefs.
In a like spirit of mutual respect, (2a) I'll think what I like about Catholics, particularly in regard to their attitudes about gay people, but (2b) I will not attempt to force them to believe otherwise or to behave inconsistently with their beliefs.
Stipulating (1b) does not constitute denying (1a). However, Tomasi's whine in the first post asserts exactly the opposite, that to demand (1b) is itself a violation of (2b). If this is the case, if (1b) is held to be an unreasonable expectation, then mutual respect is likewise off the table, and Catholics are welcome to roll up (2b) and cram it in a spirit of defense of essential human rights against an aggressive assault.
Take your pick. You get the respect you give.
Bill McEnaney
Apr 27, 04:35 PM
No gods exist. There is not a shred of evidence, ontological or otherwise.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
Tulse
Mar 20, 06:33 PM
If I burn a track for my wedding video, yes, I'm technically breakeing the law, but there is nothing immoral about doing that. No one is losing out on any money. No one is being hurt. He isn't stealing anything. He's breaking a copyright law that makes no sense in that case.The artist who recorded the piece, and the writer of the piece, are being denied the monetary compensation they are legally entitled to, so yes, someone is losing out on money.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Radio stations can't play music without paying for it, and movies and TV shows can't include music without paying for it (these licensing fees are why, for example, you will never see WKRP in Cincinnati on DVD, since licensing the music would cost too much). A wedding videographer who uses someone else's music is themselves profiting from its use without compensating the creator. And that's wrong.
There are plenty of sources for royalty-free music, and there is software that will even let you create your own original pieces, that you can use however you wish. But if someone wants to use "Wind Beneath My Wings" on their wedding video, and distribute it to 250 people, then yes, they should get the permission of the song's owner, and pay them appropriately.
Tarzanman
Mar 18, 08:45 AM
Some of the responses on this thread are really amusing.
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
The people who are defending AT&T's actions are either astroturfing shills, or dolts.
Here's a newsflash: Just because you put something into a contract doesn't make it legal or make it fair. What if AT&T stipulated that they were allowed to come by your house and give you a wedgie every time you checked your voicemail...? Would you still be screaming about how its "justified" because its written on some lop-sided, legalese-ridden piece of paper?
The way that the current data plans are priced and more importantly *marketed* to customers, charging for tethering is double charging for data.
The correct thing to do would be to have multiple (at least 3) tiers of data and stop differentiating between tethered service. If the tetherers are using too much data then charge them appropriately. What AT&T is currently doing is telling you that you can use up to 2GB of data, and then trying to charge you extra when they see that you might actually use that much (due to tethering).
No comments:
Post a Comment