three
Dec 25, 12:57 PM
I didn't ask for anything but got lots of food and this neat bonsai tree from my neighbour.
http://i.imgur.com/FJdHS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/FJdHS.jpg
JediZenMaster
Sep 6, 03:16 PM
Here is mine
http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/Jedizenmaster/Screenshot2010-09-06at40528PM.png
http://i992.photobucket.com/albums/af45/Jedizenmaster/Screenshot2010-09-06at40528PM.png
actripxl
Jul 6, 07:01 PM
Well I was going to get a PB but I just can't see a justification for the price on the 15" 1ghz even if I would prefer portability so I've decided to get a G4 PM. My question is if panther will take advantage of a second cpu, otherwise I'll just get a SP.
apfhex
Oct 5, 05:21 PM
This is news? I heard about these things (and saw screenshots, and videos) back in August when people got ahold of the Leopard WWDC preview and broke their NDAs (or pirated it).
more...
MacGurl111
Dec 26, 02:36 AM
My presents were all spread out, received them on different days, none were wrapped.
Macbook Pro 13
Ipad wifi and 3g
These are from my husband.
500.00 from my dad.
Nothing from my mom.:D
Macbook Pro 13
Ipad wifi and 3g
These are from my husband.
500.00 from my dad.
Nothing from my mom.:D
Thunderhawks
Apr 25, 07:17 AM
I know the reason, or the supposed reason (who knows, Apple has been as tight lipped as ever on the issue) . If true, its a disgrace it made it to the keynote presentation, without the issue being identified or a reasonable fix found. I don't care how you square it - being 10 months late for a device who has an average life of 12 months is utter incompetence and hence disgraceful.
Hats off for Apple sticking to it, but that does not take away from the fact that they should never have made the promise w/o a better understanding of production issues. The iPhone 4 design has been around since at least January per spy shots of the iPad before release. So, its not as if the design was so new that they could claim there was no time to identify the issue until after the June 2010 keynote by Steve Jobs.
Once again you are proving that you know nothing about production issues.
There is a big difference between making a few samples to show and circulate and real en masse production.
There are also issues with white products that only show up after a certain amount of time.
White tends to have aluminum oxide pigments and in many cases light inhibitors. Depending on the material used there may have been a delayed photo mechanical reaction.
That especially, when several layers of white are used.
But I am only guessing, the real issues are only know to Apple.
You also know absolutely NOTHING about the real issues other than what people speculated.
For Apple to recognize it and NOT ship it, just because they showed it proves what a good company they are.
Whatever time it then took to fix it is unimportant.
If you would be for once logical you could see that in Apple's eyes there was a significant problem that took time to figure out.
If there wasn't it would have shipped already long time ago!
Hats off for Apple sticking to it, but that does not take away from the fact that they should never have made the promise w/o a better understanding of production issues. The iPhone 4 design has been around since at least January per spy shots of the iPad before release. So, its not as if the design was so new that they could claim there was no time to identify the issue until after the June 2010 keynote by Steve Jobs.
Once again you are proving that you know nothing about production issues.
There is a big difference between making a few samples to show and circulate and real en masse production.
There are also issues with white products that only show up after a certain amount of time.
White tends to have aluminum oxide pigments and in many cases light inhibitors. Depending on the material used there may have been a delayed photo mechanical reaction.
That especially, when several layers of white are used.
But I am only guessing, the real issues are only know to Apple.
You also know absolutely NOTHING about the real issues other than what people speculated.
For Apple to recognize it and NOT ship it, just because they showed it proves what a good company they are.
Whatever time it then took to fix it is unimportant.
If you would be for once logical you could see that in Apple's eyes there was a significant problem that took time to figure out.
If there wasn't it would have shipped already long time ago!
more...
Dbrown
Apr 22, 10:58 PM
IIS
Remote Desktop Server
WMIC
That's just off the top of my head.
Those are just arbitrary incompatibilities.
Hardware limitations. If your computer doesn't have a Wacom pad attached, you can't run software that requires that piece of hardware. It doesn't mean you're running a different OS.
You can still run the software. You just cant do certain things. An ipad specific app can never work on an ipod touch
And do you really think OS are infinitely backward-compatible? Good luck with that... Of course I dont think that.
Remote Desktop Server
WMIC
That's just off the top of my head.
Those are just arbitrary incompatibilities.
Hardware limitations. If your computer doesn't have a Wacom pad attached, you can't run software that requires that piece of hardware. It doesn't mean you're running a different OS.
You can still run the software. You just cant do certain things. An ipad specific app can never work on an ipod touch
And do you really think OS are infinitely backward-compatible? Good luck with that... Of course I dont think that.
tehpwnerer19
Apr 25, 11:09 AM
Why is there no option "No, it is ugly" ? Because that would be the correct answer.
more...
Sydde
Apr 5, 07:36 PM
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
What kind of twisted logic hears of a rape decides that looking "like a prostitute" is the salient feature of the case? What about the crazed deviant who committed the crime in the first place? Indeed, I think Gelfin's analogy is apt - if a smartly-dressed man is mugged, should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "well, he looked like he had a lot of money so he was asking for it. He should have been wearing something less ostentatious."
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped. Such suppositions are the product of the same twisted male chauvinist perspective that suggests that looking "like a prostitute" means that women are "asking for it".
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless. If we can obtain a body of information that clearly demonstrates that rapists are commonly motivated by the victims' appearance/attire, then we can lend credence to the statement quoted in the OP. Prior to obtaining such evidence, to suggest that dress codes will improve school childrens' safety is at best unsupportable and at worst ridiculous. Odd that these "libertarian" types are back at attempting to steal away our freedoms.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
What kind of twisted logic hears of a rape decides that looking "like a prostitute" is the salient feature of the case? What about the crazed deviant who committed the crime in the first place? Indeed, I think Gelfin's analogy is apt - if a smartly-dressed man is mugged, should we simply shrug our shoulders and say "well, he looked like he had a lot of money so he was asking for it. He should have been wearing something less ostentatious."
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped. Such suppositions are the product of the same twisted male chauvinist perspective that suggests that looking "like a prostitute" means that women are "asking for it".
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless. If we can obtain a body of information that clearly demonstrates that rapists are commonly motivated by the victims' appearance/attire, then we can lend credence to the statement quoted in the OP. Prior to obtaining such evidence, to suggest that dress codes will improve school childrens' safety is at best unsupportable and at worst ridiculous. Odd that these "libertarian" types are back at attempting to steal away our freedoms.
jeffy.dee-lux
Jan 10, 08:20 PM
Volkswagen should bring the Polo to the US.
That's a really good point, I'm surprised they haven't already. Everybody else is all over the b-segment now, and yet I haven't even heard a peep from VW about this possibility.
That's a really good point, I'm surprised they haven't already. Everybody else is all over the b-segment now, and yet I haven't even heard a peep from VW about this possibility.
more...
rezenclowd3
Oct 14, 10:37 PM
On my personal work laptop, which luckily I really do not need much more than ARD and Windows 7:
lukefinch
Sep 5, 04:30 PM
That's the default iPad wallpaper? May I have the original?
Sure you can :D
http://grncndy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ipadwallpaper.jpg
Sure you can :D
http://grncndy.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/ipadwallpaper.jpg
more...
joeshell383
Nov 20, 04:45 PM
I'm beginning to think out this will come out about when the Powerbook G5 does...
Next Tuesday, Sweet!
Next Tuesday, Sweet!
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
more...
bwrairen
Mar 26, 09:26 PM
completely the opposite.
1. title doesn't state picture.
2. listed under the wrong category
buyer wins.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8739/35967530.jpg
Wrong category? Have you ever purchased or listed anything on eBay that was in the wrong category? I know I have. Does that deserve jail time?
There have been many time that I have purchased items on eBay as well that were described incorrectly. Now granted, when I have purchased these items, it was to my advantage or of no consequence. But I only knew that by reading and understanding the item description in the first place.
Don't get me wrong...I am not saying the buyer should have to pay. Just going through the experience and realizing how foolish he was should be enough to teach MOST people a lesson like that. I posted to respond to the fanatic that thinks that the seller should go to jail. He did nothing illegal. What he did was immoral, and morality is subjective.
1. title doesn't state picture.
2. listed under the wrong category
buyer wins.
http://img51.imageshack.us/img51/8739/35967530.jpg
Wrong category? Have you ever purchased or listed anything on eBay that was in the wrong category? I know I have. Does that deserve jail time?
There have been many time that I have purchased items on eBay as well that were described incorrectly. Now granted, when I have purchased these items, it was to my advantage or of no consequence. But I only knew that by reading and understanding the item description in the first place.
Don't get me wrong...I am not saying the buyer should have to pay. Just going through the experience and realizing how foolish he was should be enough to teach MOST people a lesson like that. I posted to respond to the fanatic that thinks that the seller should go to jail. He did nothing illegal. What he did was immoral, and morality is subjective.
BillyBobBongo
Oct 1, 03:36 AM
Well it's a nice wet start to October in the UK, here's mine for now :)
Sun is out today, and it's cold and crisp in Holland. Oooh, almost time for Bokbier! :D
Original (http://wlogger.com/blue-water-wallpaper/)
Sun is out today, and it's cold and crisp in Holland. Oooh, almost time for Bokbier! :D
Original (http://wlogger.com/blue-water-wallpaper/)
more...
Dbrown
Apr 21, 10:50 AM
As mentioned before, iPhone has continually been compared to Android as platform rather than manufacturer's phone to phone.
The only people who want to compare it that way are apple fans. The rest of the world rightfully compare it according to device. Smartphone OS to smartphone OS.
The only people who want to compare it that way are apple fans. The rest of the world rightfully compare it according to device. Smartphone OS to smartphone OS.
mac15
Dec 16, 05:49 PM
yay! :)
k1121j
May 1, 09:21 AM
Kinda funny they should pick Castle for a code name LOL
www.castleintheclouds.org
www.castleintheclouds.org
cchart
Aug 13, 09:04 PM
http://img20.imageshack.us/img20/3385/picture1pl.png
original (http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6159/84753913.jpg)
original (http://img202.imageshack.us/img202/6159/84753913.jpg)
justflie
Sep 27, 10:07 AM
I've been a very satisfied customer of .Mac since its inception. I receive zero spam e-mails and I am delighted with the ability to create aliases. On top of that there is no advertising at all. I also have a couple of other web-mail accounts and they get zillions of spam messages even with their respective anti-spam filters turned on. I think that this update adds a little bit more polish on an already decent offering. I do agree with a previous poster that the iCal integration needs some work.
Sopranino
That's true, I have received VERY little spam, and what i do receive gets put right into junk mail. I have 2 to 3 email addresses forwarded to my .mac account (those 2 to 3 do receive spam) but i still get very little in my Mail.app or webmail. good point, because if anyone has ever used hotmail, that crap gets annoying fast.
Sopranino
That's true, I have received VERY little spam, and what i do receive gets put right into junk mail. I have 2 to 3 email addresses forwarded to my .mac account (those 2 to 3 do receive spam) but i still get very little in my Mail.app or webmail. good point, because if anyone has ever used hotmail, that crap gets annoying fast.
gatepc
Jan 1, 11:05 PM
Ok... as for additional parameters, type
-smp 2 -advmethods
Make sure you set up your passkey. After completing 10 units with it, you should start getting bonus points.
Alright thanks a ton guys will fold for a long long time.
-smp 2 -advmethods
Make sure you set up your passkey. After completing 10 units with it, you should start getting bonus points.
Alright thanks a ton guys will fold for a long long time.
Stella
Apr 4, 11:17 AM
Thank you, Apple, for weeding out the companies whose business model depends on selling my information to junk-mailers.
This is the kind of 'crazy-Steve-Jobs-control' I can live with.
Do you have any proof that FT actually does sell email addresses?
Just because businesses wants your email doesn't equate to they'll sell your details...
This is the kind of 'crazy-Steve-Jobs-control' I can live with.
Do you have any proof that FT actually does sell email addresses?
Just because businesses wants your email doesn't equate to they'll sell your details...
reggoboy
Apr 8, 08:33 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Does this make Apple peta-philes? ;-)
Does this make Apple peta-philes? ;-)
No comments:
Post a Comment