deconai
Aug 3, 11:53 AM
But wait! Doesn't Apple's miniscule market-share mean that hackers won't target Macs because there is nothing to be gained? Better off targeting the 95% of Windows-running machines out there? I think this story proves again that the "security through obscurity" argument is just a myth. :)
Well, going on national TV and basically challenging the hacker community doesn't really qualify as obscure, now does it?
Well, going on national TV and basically challenging the hacker community doesn't really qualify as obscure, now does it?
6-0 Prolene
Mar 11, 10:08 PM
"Check and mate?"
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/lmao-new.jpg
http://www.thinkgeek.com/images/products/zoom/lmao-new.jpg
MacRumors
Apr 12, 11:40 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/04/12/foxconn-to-invest-12-billion-in-brazil-with-ipad-production-to-begin-by-november/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/123902-ipad_2_brazil.jpg
Design of Google#39;s offices
These Google office pictures
Funky Google office stuff
Google office design
Google office Zürrich -
Google office design
quot;Google#39;squot; Office Interiors
Google Office
Google Office in San Francisco
Google Office Zurich
Google Office 03
google-office-photos-5
sydney01 Google Offices
Google Buys Its First Office
Google office Zürrich
their offices in Zurich.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/12/123902-ipad_2_brazil.jpg
Shake 'n' Bake
Mar 8, 06:52 PM
Here's my contribution for the day. It's a chair in my basement. Nothing too exciting. Sorry for the enormous size. I don't know how to make it smaller other than using a thumbnail. I feel like I'm "that guy."
http://pwarren.dyndns.org/My_Site/Photos/Pages/The_New_Subject_files/Media/IMG_0467/IMG_0467.jpg
http://pwarren.dyndns.org/My_Site/Photos/Pages/The_New_Subject_files/Media/IMG_0467/IMG_0467.jpg
benixau
Oct 12, 08:36 AM
You know, i dont think apple, motorola, or IBM cares. We will, regardless almost, buy macs next time. A mac is a mac, and a mac user, never goes to a pc. They may use one in preference to a mac, but, they still look at the mac market and hope for a time when they ca move back. I did. 4 years ago i couldnt afford a mac. Now i can, guess which company has an order for two of their professional machines????
Apple doesnt care because of this.
Motorola doesnt care because they make more money elsewhere
IBM doesnt care because they sell pcs and loads of other stuff for computers so they dont need to depend on anyone.
We are 5% of people with computers. If i had to make a hardware marketing decision, which group do you think i want to please?????
Apple doesnt care because of this.
Motorola doesnt care because they make more money elsewhere
IBM doesnt care because they sell pcs and loads of other stuff for computers so they dont need to depend on anyone.
We are 5% of people with computers. If i had to make a hardware marketing decision, which group do you think i want to please?????
techwarrior
Nov 12, 06:14 PM
Eh. He's replaceable. With any one of a massive raft of iPhone devs who would be more than eager to step in to replace him. Facebook doesn't really have much of a choice about developing for iPhone considering it's (iPhone) the rising star in the smartphone market, that people are clamoring for and waiting sometimes 8 weeks to buy one. If there is no Facebook app for iPhone, owners will go pounding on Facebook's door, not Apple's.
Absolutely spot on taster! There are thousands of talented developers willing to put up with the process. The iPhone is too important to FB, and FB is too important to Apple.
There are clearly improvements that users have been clamoring for that Joe has apparently resisted or doesn't know how to implement with Apple's blessings. These are features others have gotten by the App Store approval police, so this is probably a good thing for those of us who have been hoping for more from this app.
Absolutely spot on taster! There are thousands of talented developers willing to put up with the process. The iPhone is too important to FB, and FB is too important to Apple.
There are clearly improvements that users have been clamoring for that Joe has apparently resisted or doesn't know how to implement with Apple's blessings. These are features others have gotten by the App Store approval police, so this is probably a good thing for those of us who have been hoping for more from this app.
spicyapple
Nov 8, 09:47 AM
Haha! Everyone waited for this update and it's so lame. Core 2 Duo is nice, but I'm certainly glad I bought my r1 MB :D
Rev b MacBook hopefully fixed unexpected sleep bug and heat issues. :)
Rev b MacBook hopefully fixed unexpected sleep bug and heat issues. :)
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.
levitynyc
Mar 12, 11:34 AM
What happened to it?
The palm rest (which has already been replaced once) is chipping up from the corner. Its also lifting up from the left side next to the CAPS LOCK button. A few keys (shift and the arrows) are getting mushy. The screen bezel is coming off from the right side. The top of it is chipping off as well.
There are also hairline cracks where the heat is released. Finally the bottom of the thing is heat discolored very dark.
My wife has a new unibody Macbook and the build construction is so much better than my old whitebook.
The palm rest (which has already been replaced once) is chipping up from the corner. Its also lifting up from the left side next to the CAPS LOCK button. A few keys (shift and the arrows) are getting mushy. The screen bezel is coming off from the right side. The top of it is chipping off as well.
There are also hairline cracks where the heat is released. Finally the bottom of the thing is heat discolored very dark.
My wife has a new unibody Macbook and the build construction is so much better than my old whitebook.
chuckiej
Mar 21, 01:30 PM
It's doubtful that that return excuse can ever be used again. Too funny!
My thoughts exactly. A hilarious one-time event most likely but good for Apple. Heck if I was an exec there I'd send the guy one on my own dime (so it's not "Apple" doing it).
My thoughts exactly. A hilarious one-time event most likely but good for Apple. Heck if I was an exec there I'd send the guy one on my own dime (so it's not "Apple" doing it).
MatthewConnelly
Nov 8, 06:07 AM
yeah aussie store is down. but if the US store isn't down, it doesn't mean anything does it?
I think the US store usually goes down last.
I think the US store usually goes down last.
xfiftyfour
Mar 22, 12:43 PM
What the hell kind of relationship do you people have with your spouses?? I mean, seriously??! You need their explicit PERMISSION to buy something you want, with your money, and it gets to their point of people BEGGING their wives to let them buy something, only to be turned down?!
In red is your problem. In marriage you're a unit; there is no "your" money or "my" money.. it's "our" money. If there are things more important to the unit than an iPad (I can think of many, many possibilities), then you're contorting the wife's stance unfairly.
And, just for the record, for the women/wife bashing that's happened in the thread I'd like to point out that it can go both ways. I'm a wife and we were standing in line on launch day for ME.. my husband would never have blessed the purchase if it came from joint funds. This is the beauty of separate "fun" accounts. An allowance per se for each of us, free from the negotiations that happen from joint accounts (and to anyone that argues that it's ridiculous that big purchases from joint money have to be discussed is going to be in for a rude awakening come marriage, IMO). More couples should have 'em.
In red is your problem. In marriage you're a unit; there is no "your" money or "my" money.. it's "our" money. If there are things more important to the unit than an iPad (I can think of many, many possibilities), then you're contorting the wife's stance unfairly.
And, just for the record, for the women/wife bashing that's happened in the thread I'd like to point out that it can go both ways. I'm a wife and we were standing in line on launch day for ME.. my husband would never have blessed the purchase if it came from joint funds. This is the beauty of separate "fun" accounts. An allowance per se for each of us, free from the negotiations that happen from joint accounts (and to anyone that argues that it's ridiculous that big purchases from joint money have to be discussed is going to be in for a rude awakening come marriage, IMO). More couples should have 'em.
OdduWon
Jul 22, 11:45 PM
i think that this is great news. i use my ipod to go over my notes before tests at school and shopping list etc. also in the process of making my notes i thought it would be handy to be able to either use the text to speech command in tiger on the ipod, or to be able to have a free converted to rip text files to an audio format similar to the program that features at&t voices only minus the $29 to get it ( i forget what the app. is called). ebooks are great i know my apt. space is 90% books and i've always thought that paperless books were the way to go. less space and ultra portable. hope to see this in the wide screen ipod. also... if they go touch screen it would be great to be able to edit text and use the dictonary command too. oh man this is going to be soooo cool :D
slinger1968
Sep 4, 06:48 PM
Yes, the point is that Apple is trying to prevent people from running OS X on non-Mac computers. End of story.No, this is incorrect.
Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.
Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.
Apple sold it's OS's for Mac hardware only, long before people started running OS X on PC's.
Mac OS's sold without hardware are sold as upgrades. End of story.
Sesshi
Aug 24, 05:14 PM
I'm pretty surprised by coverage of these stories so far.
It's basically
Exploding DELL & APPLE batteries, manufactured by sony.
It really should be
SONY, who can't even build batteries worth a **** anymore let alone anything else, has screwed the pooch for Dell and Apple.
It's basically
Exploding DELL & APPLE batteries, manufactured by sony.
It really should be
SONY, who can't even build batteries worth a **** anymore let alone anything else, has screwed the pooch for Dell and Apple.
dime21
Mar 23, 09:58 PM
My new iPad was at the local FedEx distribution center, 2 miles from my house, only to be returned to Apple at Apples request. I provided them with my UPS Store PMB (Private Mail Box) number because I was out of town when it arrived. Someone had to sign. I couldn't leave it on my porch. I don't know my neighbors well enough. The folks at the UPS store could sign, right? Wrong. Because UPS has the ability to ship overseas, Apple refused to deliver.
I travel for my job. My wife does, as well. Apple's Shipping Restrictions web page states they will not ship to PO Boxes and APO's. No mention of PMB's.
So 21 days after announcement, my iPad was 2 miles from my hands. It's gone.
Apple said Sorry, you'll have to reorder. It's only another 5 weeks before I can get one. They would not expedite a new order. They would not hold the iPad at the FedEx distribution center. Too bad for me. I'm fuming. I'm pissed.
I reordered from AT&T. Wait time 25 business days. I won't give Apple all the profit they would have enjoyed. I know. Big deal. I'm not a profiteer. Not trying to subvert their ordering system. Too bad. I'm screwed.
I understand why they refused to deliver. But, no phone call, no alternative delivery option, no expedited order, no option.
Bad customer service. I've spent $6,000 with them over the last three years. So what? Who cares.
How bout the new Galaxy Tab 10.1? I don't own a tablet yet, and am leaning strongly in that direction. iPad had the market cornered for a while, but now there are real competitively spec'd and competitively priced Android tablets coming to market...
I travel for my job. My wife does, as well. Apple's Shipping Restrictions web page states they will not ship to PO Boxes and APO's. No mention of PMB's.
So 21 days after announcement, my iPad was 2 miles from my hands. It's gone.
Apple said Sorry, you'll have to reorder. It's only another 5 weeks before I can get one. They would not expedite a new order. They would not hold the iPad at the FedEx distribution center. Too bad for me. I'm fuming. I'm pissed.
I reordered from AT&T. Wait time 25 business days. I won't give Apple all the profit they would have enjoyed. I know. Big deal. I'm not a profiteer. Not trying to subvert their ordering system. Too bad. I'm screwed.
I understand why they refused to deliver. But, no phone call, no alternative delivery option, no expedited order, no option.
Bad customer service. I've spent $6,000 with them over the last three years. So what? Who cares.
How bout the new Galaxy Tab 10.1? I don't own a tablet yet, and am leaning strongly in that direction. iPad had the market cornered for a while, but now there are real competitively spec'd and competitively priced Android tablets coming to market...
kainjow
Oct 26, 05:44 PM
I wouldn't go near these machines if I was in the market for a portable...
Well my MB was bought the day they were announced - my local Apple store didn't have them on display yet :) and mine hasn't had the shutdown issue.
I thought this pic Engadget posted is pretty funny:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/10/macbook-shutdown-fix.jpg
Well my MB was bought the day they were announced - my local Apple store didn't have them on display yet :) and mine hasn't had the shutdown issue.
I thought this pic Engadget posted is pretty funny:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/10/macbook-shutdown-fix.jpg
nsjoker
Oct 26, 06:13 PM
Well my MB was bought the day they were announced - my local Apple store didn't have them on display yet :) and mine hasn't had the shutdown issue.
I thought this pic Engadget posted is pretty funny:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/10/macbook-shutdown-fix.jpg
i am laughing uncontrollably right now, wowowowowow :D :D :D :D :D :D
I thought this pic Engadget posted is pretty funny:
http://www.blogsmithmedia.com/www.engadget.com/media/2006/10/macbook-shutdown-fix.jpg
i am laughing uncontrollably right now, wowowowowow :D :D :D :D :D :D
gnasher729
Apr 12, 03:21 PM
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
Maybe it would lower the suicide rate in the USA, which is about twice as high as in a Foxconn factory in China.
Maybe it would lower the suicide rate in the USA, which is about twice as high as in a Foxconn factory in China.
NT1440
Mar 11, 09:49 PM
Again, the military is inextricable from the economy. Not only are large sectors heavily dependent on military spending (like the town of 150,000 just west of me, that would utterly collapse if its two bases were closed), but a weaker military would risk tremendous losses in international commerce as foreign nations take back control of their own markets and resources absent the pressure of potential American military action.
So we must continue our imperial ways simply because of economic reasons?
So we must continue our imperial ways simply because of economic reasons?
iPhelim
Jan 11, 04:59 PM
After reading this article (http://gizmodo.com/343246/what-to-expect-at-macworld-2008-and-why-we-think-it-will-bigger-than-usual) I think that it's entirely possible that Apple are altering their branding. Also the lack of an Apple logo could be explained by the fact that everyone at the expo would recognise it as them anyway and it adds to the air of secrecy and mystery that they love to use in their marketing.
oh yes, absolutely no sign of an Apple logo here....
oh yes, absolutely no sign of an Apple logo here....
oldwatery
Sep 12, 10:54 PM
I was so wanting an upgraded Mini when Apple introduced the Nano. I disliked the new form and materials. But the new Nano is everything I wished for. Well almost. Why did they give us only black for the 8gig? This is the premium model. I want silver damn it!!! But otherwise full marks from me. Just placed my order for a Shuffle......awesome job Apple. One of the best introduction days I can remember. The new iTV is the icing on the cake. Bravo:D
DrewG5
Nov 2, 04:32 PM
Yeah cuz I just want to see all the advertisements on every page on my iPhone... Flash is a joke at best, every laptop mac or not that I have had it on the simplest flash would get the fans running for lift off...
Northgrove
May 5, 03:15 AM
Time for the headaches.
I feel sorry for you. :( No one I know suffered from headaches from watching 3D movies.
Having said that, I feel hesitant about this... I haven't been impressed especially by the sharpness that fake 3D can offer. Impression of depth is good enough for me, but the sharpness really sucks. 3D so far completely counters everything that we have worked for to get to HD movies in one blow. It's funny how modern 3D TV's have got to 1080p and all, and then backpedals from all that with blurry 3D movies.
I feel sorry for you. :( No one I know suffered from headaches from watching 3D movies.
Having said that, I feel hesitant about this... I haven't been impressed especially by the sharpness that fake 3D can offer. Impression of depth is good enough for me, but the sharpness really sucks. 3D so far completely counters everything that we have worked for to get to HD movies in one blow. It's funny how modern 3D TV's have got to 1080p and all, and then backpedals from all that with blurry 3D movies.
Niciun comentariu:
Trimiteți un comentariu