iThinkergoiMac
Apr 18, 06:05 AM
What does this have to do with MacBooks and Macs in general?
twoodcc
Nov 29, 11:56 AM
i believe the studios will eventually agree to Apple's terms. the sales of Disney will justify it....hopefully
mw360
Apr 29, 11:50 AM
Just FYI I bolded out the most specific part. You do realize that there are still phones not capable of setting the time remotely? I still use an old Nokia phone that has no automatic time syncing.
Either you really think it's a trivial implementation to acquire a time-signal over the cell network or you just haven't grasped the concept of the patent.
The patent application has this to say about acquiring a time-signal over an established connection to a CDMA network...
the controller 110 (eg a microprocessor) extracts the system time, as well as various parameters, from the received sync channel message and stores the extracted data
That's it. They make it sound quite trivial don't they? Almost as if that's not the point of this patent.
Either you really think it's a trivial implementation to acquire a time-signal over the cell network or you just haven't grasped the concept of the patent.
The patent application has this to say about acquiring a time-signal over an established connection to a CDMA network...
the controller 110 (eg a microprocessor) extracts the system time, as well as various parameters, from the received sync channel message and stores the extracted data
That's it. They make it sound quite trivial don't they? Almost as if that's not the point of this patent.
irun5k
Sep 27, 01:58 AM
My $10 a month ($120 a year) web hosting account has 170 (thats right, 170!) gig of storage, something like hundreds of email accounts, php, ssh access, mysql, more, more and more.
True, it doesn't do all the fancy stuff that .mac does with sync'ing and so forth. But that isn't my point. My point is that we should expect more, much more for $100 a year because web hosting providers are able to make a profit by offering much more. If the users demand it Apple will come around. But not if people keep paying for the service as-is. So they upgraded the webmail client- great. The eagle really took a ***** today didn't it?
True, it doesn't do all the fancy stuff that .mac does with sync'ing and so forth. But that isn't my point. My point is that we should expect more, much more for $100 a year because web hosting providers are able to make a profit by offering much more. If the users demand it Apple will come around. But not if people keep paying for the service as-is. So they upgraded the webmail client- great. The eagle really took a ***** today didn't it?
more...
osx11
Mar 31, 10:11 AM
Soon we will only have one OS called iOSX
OSX 10.7 has iOS features that were sent "Back to the Mac"
iOS is getting OSX apps (Photoshop, Garage Band, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Photo Booth.......)
OSX is getting apps originally designed for iOS
If you imagine iOS and OSX on a line
iOS......................|.....................OSX
They are moving in opposite directions toward each other.
......iOS................|..............OSX.......
Eventually, they will meet in the middle and we will have either 2 similar operating systems or simply a mix of the two.
I think Apple thinks that by taking the best of the two worlds they are creating a "better" user experience. I don't know if this is the case but I think that this is clearly the inevitable long-term outcome. Time will tell.
OSX 10.7 has iOS features that were sent "Back to the Mac"
iOS is getting OSX apps (Photoshop, Garage Band, iMovie, Pages, Numbers, Keynote, Photo Booth.......)
OSX is getting apps originally designed for iOS
If you imagine iOS and OSX on a line
iOS......................|.....................OSX
They are moving in opposite directions toward each other.
......iOS................|..............OSX.......
Eventually, they will meet in the middle and we will have either 2 similar operating systems or simply a mix of the two.
I think Apple thinks that by taking the best of the two worlds they are creating a "better" user experience. I don't know if this is the case but I think that this is clearly the inevitable long-term outcome. Time will tell.
jessica.
Mar 27, 08:29 PM
Are you the seller for this Iphone's photo? the seller name is Dan as well as you are. :rolleyes:
Umm he said he was. :rolleyes:
Umm he said he was. :rolleyes:
more...
toddybody
Apr 7, 12:00 PM
Great Combo...that said, the iCade is a tad overpriced for this handsome hebrew.
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.
more...
LGShepherd
Jun 19, 10:20 AM
It is nice and easy to get to, plus there is a 24 hours mcdonalds on the way in. Having a maccys breakfast whilst waiting will help.
nefan65
Dec 28, 08:09 AM
The IT Business climate is changing. In 5 years it won't matter what you're using; Mac, Windows, iPad, Linux, Android, et-al. Applications will become both more Web-Centric than ever, as well as the ability to virtualize the app to run on anything [ala Citrix XEN APP'ish]. That doesn't mean PC's, and/or Mac based systems with horsepower won't be needed, they will. However, the whole idea of locking systems down, and GPO's will be moot. People will be able to work in the office, at home, or on the road with whatever they want. It's already started. Some larger companies are giving their users stipends for systems. They give them an allowance of "X Dollars" and they can buy what they want.
As for this thread; anyone that says Mac's cannot live in an Ent environment, PC's are cheaper, or Macs have a higher TCO than their PC counterparts [which is a great buzz work to toss around, but 90% of IT people that use that term rarely understand it's full meaning] is rubbish. The days of a single system type across the enterprise are gone my IT friends. The new mantra is give the users the tools they need to get their jobs done, and allow them to be proficient....
As for this thread; anyone that says Mac's cannot live in an Ent environment, PC's are cheaper, or Macs have a higher TCO than their PC counterparts [which is a great buzz work to toss around, but 90% of IT people that use that term rarely understand it's full meaning] is rubbish. The days of a single system type across the enterprise are gone my IT friends. The new mantra is give the users the tools they need to get their jobs done, and allow them to be proficient....
more...
HarryPot
Oct 5, 11:24 PM
do you have a link to the wallpaper by any chance? Thanks!!
Link. (http://www.myhdwallpapers.net/wallpapers/Cartoon-boy-1440x900.jpg)
It has some letters in the bottom left, but it can be easily taken out in PS.
Link. (http://www.myhdwallpapers.net/wallpapers/Cartoon-boy-1440x900.jpg)
It has some letters in the bottom left, but it can be easily taken out in PS.
Edwin the Elder
Sep 26, 09:53 PM
Seems like the Canadian price hasn't changed wither. It's stuck at $139 (Canadian).
And my subscription expires in 6 days.
And my subscription expires in 6 days.
more...
espoo
Dec 10, 02:56 PM
Come on dude, get in the holiday spirit and share :D pretty please :D
merry christmas :p
merry christmas :p
psychofreak
Jan 9, 03:58 PM
Check out apple.com in a few days.
more...
Island Dog
Dec 16, 07:37 AM
My December desktop!
D4F
Apr 20, 06:25 PM
This is a sandbox with a bunch of kids screaming my dad is better than yours...
Coming here and crying that your device is better you just prove to be absolute idiots. And I'm not talking as from insulting point of view. I'm just stating the obvious which points to the fact that you were born without most braincells needed for basic functions such as common sense. I really want to see the look on your face the day you will realise that.
Coming here and crying that your device is better you just prove to be absolute idiots. And I'm not talking as from insulting point of view. I'm just stating the obvious which points to the fact that you were born without most braincells needed for basic functions such as common sense. I really want to see the look on your face the day you will realise that.
more...
Kyffin
Mar 31, 01:06 PM
Thought I caught the a whiff of spam but wanted to make sure first aye. Hey, what you get for Christmas? :D
Moyank24
Apr 27, 09:24 PM
They didn't know I was a guy because I was dressing gender neutral. I said that the sane lesbians don't hate men, unfortunately with lesbians like muslims the annoying ones stick out.
Umm ok.
I might revise that to say annoying people of all religions and sexualities (?) and races, etc.. stick out. It doesn't sound quite so...bad.
Umm ok.
I might revise that to say annoying people of all religions and sexualities (?) and races, etc.. stick out. It doesn't sound quite so...bad.
dernhelm
Oct 31, 12:01 PM
Called it as soon as I read it on the front page. At least 50% of the posts reading 2G as 2GB (most of course with tongue planted firmly in cheek). Still what a waste of bandwidth. Is it really that much harder to type 2nd Gen instead of 2G?
Brother.
:(
Brother.
:(
hcho3
Mar 23, 09:21 AM
Damn.... Sir Serlet had a best accent ever.
"REDMOND START YOUR PHOTOGRAPHERS. IT WAS ONLY A JOKEEE, BUT THEY ACTUALLY TOOK IT SERIOUSLY."
Craig has no accent! Get an accent, Craig.
"REDMOND START YOUR PHOTOGRAPHERS. IT WAS ONLY A JOKEEE, BUT THEY ACTUALLY TOOK IT SERIOUSLY."
Craig has no accent! Get an accent, Craig.
leowyatt
Apr 17, 05:59 AM
http://i52.tinypic.com/23huhzb.png
http://i55.tinypic.com/10omaoo.jpg
Do you have originals for either of those please? :)
Here is mine at the moment
http://i55.tinypic.com/10omaoo.jpg
Do you have originals for either of those please? :)
Here is mine at the moment
edesignuk
Aug 13, 03:55 PM
I like that a lot.
Hemingray
Sep 4, 02:53 PM
"This item is not stocked OR has been discontinued."
So maybe they're just out of stock for now? :confused:
Sounds like a generic notice to me.
So maybe they're just out of stock for now? :confused:
Sounds like a generic notice to me.
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
