Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:05 AM
I like this thread. I like it a lot.
ChrisBrightwell
Sep 28, 02:00 PM
Is the update available now?Don't think so, but I'm not near a Mac w/ 'net access.
iHateWindows
Nov 16, 02:04 PM
maybe some misunderstood what they read and assumed it was going to be in laptops. Maybe the real deal with AMD is for the use of the Alchemy processor for maybe the next ipod?
I could DEFINITELY see them doing this. It could also be for an iPhone or iTablet.
I could DEFINITELY see them doing this. It could also be for an iPhone or iTablet.
Xyl
Jan 12, 07:46 PM
If not the business market, then who? It can't be kids, as it has no games, and allegedly no support for custom ringtones. It can't be business users, since they'll want Outlook or Lotus Notes sync, and possibly a navigator, and they'll most definitely not want to use frickin' iTunes to sync up. Which leaves, I dunno... Mac enthusiasts and 30-somethings who are hoping for 15 minutes of fame by the watercooler? He did say his goal was 10 million units.
Just because it was labeled as a "smart phone" it doesn't necessarily imply "business users". According to the charts given by Apple, 1 billion handsets are sold annually. I'm assuming that this 1 billion includes all phones, and not only smart phones...someone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, if I'm correct about this, getting 1% of the total phone market from just business users or the current smart phone market would be very difficult, and would be a very, very optimistic estimate. So one might assume that Apple is not only targeting the iPhone to current smart phone users, but to all users, INCLUDING the consumer market.
Personally, I find the iPhone to be quite appealing, and I'm not a business user (I would belong to the consumer market). And just for the record, I don't pray to Steve Jobs and I'm definitely not a "buy everything Apple" person...I own zero Apple products. Moreover, I'm not a crazed phone geek either, previous to seeing this phone, I strongly believe that paying over 100 dollars for a phone is absurd, yet I am still appealed to this 500-600 dollar phone. I'm sure there's others out there that have never spent over 100 on a phone and don't pray to Steve Jobs either, but still find this phone appealing.
Just because it was labeled as a "smart phone" it doesn't necessarily imply "business users". According to the charts given by Apple, 1 billion handsets are sold annually. I'm assuming that this 1 billion includes all phones, and not only smart phones...someone correct me if I'm wrong. Anyways, if I'm correct about this, getting 1% of the total phone market from just business users or the current smart phone market would be very difficult, and would be a very, very optimistic estimate. So one might assume that Apple is not only targeting the iPhone to current smart phone users, but to all users, INCLUDING the consumer market.
Personally, I find the iPhone to be quite appealing, and I'm not a business user (I would belong to the consumer market). And just for the record, I don't pray to Steve Jobs and I'm definitely not a "buy everything Apple" person...I own zero Apple products. Moreover, I'm not a crazed phone geek either, previous to seeing this phone, I strongly believe that paying over 100 dollars for a phone is absurd, yet I am still appealed to this 500-600 dollar phone. I'm sure there's others out there that have never spent over 100 on a phone and don't pray to Steve Jobs either, but still find this phone appealing.
twoodcc
May 12, 09:04 PM
if the machines resboot then there is no problem with remote login. setup some sort of VNC server that opens once the machine starts up and away you go! i can do that to any of my machines from external sites - works a treat :D
true, but if it crashes then there's nothing i can do. and usually if it crashes or restarts, to fix the problem i have to get into the BIOS. but remote login would be good if the power flickers (like today)
thats a hell of alot of power!!!!! atm i only have my i7 iMac - 4 cores, and crappy E4600 @2.4ghz lol. the PC has a 8500GT - can that be used in any way? it worked with BOINC when i used to do SETI. it was about 2x faster then my CPU haha.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
true, but if it crashes then there's nothing i can do. and usually if it crashes or restarts, to fix the problem i have to get into the BIOS. but remote login would be good if the power flickers (like today)
thats a hell of alot of power!!!!! atm i only have my i7 iMac - 4 cores, and crappy E4600 @2.4ghz lol. the PC has a 8500GT - can that be used in any way? it worked with BOINC when i used to do SETI. it was about 2x faster then my CPU haha.
thanks. all of those have 4 real cores, 8 logical. same as your iMac. the difference is mine are all overclocked.
hey it wouldn't hurt to download the gpu client and see if it works with that card. it might
JKK photography
Apr 8, 05:09 PM
You can say that about any consumer product.
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
thisisahughes
Mar 29, 12:58 AM
Could they... award themselves?
FaceTime or Xcode?
FaceTime or Xcode?
bwiissofly
Apr 11, 12:58 AM
16GB WIFI only iPad 2.
I went back and forth with the idea of "needing" 3G but I have an iPhone, hardly ever travel, everywhere I go has WIFI and I have a MacBook and an iMac. I figure with the money I save, I can use on accessories...or just save :-).
Plus, my friend works at Best Buy and gives me half off accessories.
Any recommendations on apps that are must haves?
I went back and forth with the idea of "needing" 3G but I have an iPhone, hardly ever travel, everywhere I go has WIFI and I have a MacBook and an iMac. I figure with the money I save, I can use on accessories...or just save :-).
Plus, my friend works at Best Buy and gives me half off accessories.
Any recommendations on apps that are must haves?
CaoCao
Apr 17, 04:35 AM
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
Macaddicttt
Mar 4, 03:35 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
I honestly cannot believe you hold these views.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
I honestly cannot believe you hold these views.
toothpaste
Apr 7, 10:48 PM
Just collected this...
Applaud the choice! Type or specs?
Applaud the choice! Type or specs?
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
CharBroiled20s
Oct 11, 04:22 PM
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
RichP
Aug 9, 12:59 PM
Im waiting to see what the revision brings, and if the panel actually changed. I had the pink cast issue on the 23s I owned, and, even worse, it takes time to develop, which makes a quick return and replace impossible, as apple then considers them "repairable" and not eligible for a return.
For all we know, they could have had the new specs for some time, and now they are advertising it.
Anyone with a "new" 23?
For all we know, they could have had the new specs for some time, and now they are advertising it.
Anyone with a "new" 23?
aristobrat
Jan 12, 05:30 PM
it is my personal opinion that there also exists a 'Church of Apple' with 'members' who are smug, patronizing, holier-than-thou, basking in the glory of some perceived exclusivity and enlightenment, borderline brainwashed lodge brothers with a special handshake. It sickens me to no end. Again, this is merely one man's opinion, I know you wouldn't agree so let's just leave it there.
IMO, I think the general religion is "smug, matronizing, hollier-than-thou, etc", and it breaks down into sub-regions called Apple, Microsoft, Coke, Pepsi, etc, each with their own church. I'm not a fan of the Apple people that are like that, nor am I a fan of the Microsoft people who act that way either.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
I was glad to hear Steve say "over the course of the next several months, we're going to roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac." :)
IMO, I think the general religion is "smug, matronizing, hollier-than-thou, etc", and it breaks down into sub-regions called Apple, Microsoft, Coke, Pepsi, etc, each with their own church. I'm not a fan of the Apple people that are like that, nor am I a fan of the Microsoft people who act that way either.
Well, I'm sure the iPhone was meant as a mere appetizer for the 30th anniversary... not "Well, it took us 30 years but dagnammit, we finally managed to make a thingamabob that rings!"
I was glad to hear Steve say "over the course of the next several months, we're going to roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac." :)
Mord
Apr 27, 01:45 PM
Ok, I'll agree with you on all counts. Still not sure where the argument is?
Never did I say that no one should "count" as you have mysteriously attributed to me...
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
It's not "wholly" inaccurate, the scientific community disagrees, I find the opinion distasteful.
That's pretty much it summed up.
Never did I say that no one should "count" as you have mysteriously attributed to me...
I think it is wholly inaccurate to scientifically label them as the opposite gender, despite all of the above.
It's not "wholly" inaccurate, the scientific community disagrees, I find the opinion distasteful.
That's pretty much it summed up.
.jpg "Dragon Tattoo Designs For Men. dragon tattoo designs for men; dragon tattoo designs for men. floyde. Dec 10, 03:19 PM")
craiglud
Nov 23, 10:58 PM
so guys,
does anyone think that the discounts will be able to be used in conjunction with educational discounts? if so that'd be great...if not...then i guess you still save an additional 50 bucks? that'd be ok!
tell me what you think about hte question?
I am able to purchase through their Corporate Employee Purchase program which is usually about the same discount as the student discount. Apple sent an email to announce the sale and it says "Additional EPP savings on select sales items". I believe you will be able to use the two together. Anyway we will see.
does anyone think that the discounts will be able to be used in conjunction with educational discounts? if so that'd be great...if not...then i guess you still save an additional 50 bucks? that'd be ok!
tell me what you think about hte question?
I am able to purchase through their Corporate Employee Purchase program which is usually about the same discount as the student discount. Apple sent an email to announce the sale and it says "Additional EPP savings on select sales items". I believe you will be able to use the two together. Anyway we will see.
Eric5h5
Mar 25, 03:56 AM
And when we will get to OS XI?
Never. OS X is a brand, it's not really an OS version number. If/when Apple eventually ditches OS X or changes it significantly enough, it will have a new name and identity. (Or maybe it will become iOS X. ;) )
--Eric
Never. OS X is a brand, it's not really an OS version number. If/when Apple eventually ditches OS X or changes it significantly enough, it will have a new name and identity. (Or maybe it will become iOS X. ;) )
--Eric
pianojoe
Mar 24, 08:07 PM
Is there an emulator, so I can run the Original Public Beta on my 11" MBA?
flir67
Nov 24, 03:53 PM
just got the macbook with nextday shipping, not bad. 101.00 off
can't beat it if you want it quick.
wish they did the discount to the refurbished units, but you can't win them all.
I can't believe they charge tax on shipping, thats just wrong... shipping should be flat fee after tax........
can't beat it if you want it quick.
wish they did the discount to the refurbished units, but you can't win them all.
I can't believe they charge tax on shipping, thats just wrong... shipping should be flat fee after tax........
joegomolski
Jan 10, 06:48 PM
Sometimes I think, have a thought that is way out there, and I chuckle because it would be really bad to do it. Funny, HA HA, at someone's else's expensive.
But I don't do it.
But I don't do it.
smacsteve
Jan 15, 10:49 PM
I only have one thing to say
iPod touch + new apps = $20.
Heh. No.
R-Fly
If you have a touch, which I doubt, you'd be more than willing to get those updates for $20! It's a steal!
iPod touch + new apps = $20.
Heh. No.
R-Fly
If you have a touch, which I doubt, you'd be more than willing to get those updates for $20! It's a steal!
NAG
Jan 12, 09:07 PM
So gizmodo is responsible for this how? Questioning what makes an online a journalist a journalist and not just a fan site has been going on for some time (aka: before gizmodo turned off a bunch of TVs). You're just scapegoating an easy target. If you have a problem with the conferences and expos limiting press to only a few big names go after that. Not after guys who like to prank people. You'll change nothing by attacking gizmodo.
JTR7
Oct 9, 04:15 PM
Most Americans do not have what you do. And to the person who said I've never experienced "4 screaming kids," I have.
I think you both are just use to having more, and space, and more space. My grandmother raised her six children in a three bedroom, one bath home � that she shared with my grandfather � and never had any issues. My grandparents, mother or my aunts never complained, and looking back, I think the experience enriched them tenfold. My grandparents were successful and could have afforded a home with "enough space" (by your standards) for all their kids, but they made out just fine in the first floor of an apartment building with "just" 2,200sq. feet.
Used to having more? No. I am one of eight kids and my wife is one of ten. We both grew up in modest houses. Mine was 4 bedrooms 2 baths, same as hers. It did not enrich my life. My sister and I never got along because of tight quarters, and after we moved out our relationship remained tense. We finally started getting along just before she died. My house now is 4 bedrooms 2 baths, one of which is converted to an office. My sons and daughters share their rooms. But, given another chance (we bought the house before our first, who would have thought there'd be 3 more) we would have made a home elsewhere. Now that this is home, it's hard to leave.
Don't presume to know my "standards". We have enough space, but doing it all over I'd choose more. I work hard. I make money accordingly. What's money for if not improving the lives of my family? I don't want a big house for no purpose, I'd just like enough to give my children some personal space so they don't have to collide every day.
I think you both are just use to having more, and space, and more space. My grandmother raised her six children in a three bedroom, one bath home � that she shared with my grandfather � and never had any issues. My grandparents, mother or my aunts never complained, and looking back, I think the experience enriched them tenfold. My grandparents were successful and could have afforded a home with "enough space" (by your standards) for all their kids, but they made out just fine in the first floor of an apartment building with "just" 2,200sq. feet.
Used to having more? No. I am one of eight kids and my wife is one of ten. We both grew up in modest houses. Mine was 4 bedrooms 2 baths, same as hers. It did not enrich my life. My sister and I never got along because of tight quarters, and after we moved out our relationship remained tense. We finally started getting along just before she died. My house now is 4 bedrooms 2 baths, one of which is converted to an office. My sons and daughters share their rooms. But, given another chance (we bought the house before our first, who would have thought there'd be 3 more) we would have made a home elsewhere. Now that this is home, it's hard to leave.
Don't presume to know my "standards". We have enough space, but doing it all over I'd choose more. I work hard. I make money accordingly. What's money for if not improving the lives of my family? I don't want a big house for no purpose, I'd just like enough to give my children some personal space so they don't have to collide every day.
No comments:
Post a Comment