wpotere
Apr 13, 07:02 AM
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building. :rolleyes:
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building. :rolleyes:
Aniej
Jan 5, 02:54 PM
and old school would mean what on an apple II with 3D glasses?
penter
Dec 14, 02:17 AM
EDIT: In other news, rumor has it that Apple and NASA are launching a series of iPhone satellites on December 26th that will support the iPhone-SAT which will have 100MBps speeds with worldwide coverage using a series of Apple-owned satellites and taking the carrier completely out of the equation. There will be no more carrier exclusivity, because there will be no carrier. Apple will sell the phone for $700 unlocked with no monthly service charge, but will require you purchase an annual subscription to MobileMe for $99 for service.
Sounds like an awesome business plan to me :cool:
Sounds like an awesome business plan to me :cool:
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 1, 09:22 AM
I don't get it....
We in scandinavia have put up with MS for years up without raising a voice against MS's strive towards total monopoly. Now when there a new player has entered in a less profitable market and doing well...BAM!
I just don't get it
It makes one wonder if our honourable legislators have MS stocks
We in scandinavia have put up with MS for years up without raising a voice against MS's strive towards total monopoly. Now when there a new player has entered in a less profitable market and doing well...BAM!
I just don't get it
It makes one wonder if our honourable legislators have MS stocks
more...
Deefuzz
Aug 7, 03:40 PM
Price drops are always a good thing ;)
French iPod
Apr 8, 08:12 PM
I was supposed to get it today but my dad had a doctor appointment so i'll be getting it tomorrow:D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
more...
kingtj
Oct 17, 10:05 AM
Never underestimate the storage capacities people will require! It wasn't THAT long ago I remember having a 10 *megabyte* hard disk drive on my old TRS-80 computer and thinking "This thing is HUGE! I can store every program I own on here AND all my data!" And we all know the ever popular "640K should be enough for anyone!" quote regarding RAM memory.
But if you're talking about simply the "here and now", yeah - the typical user won't have a good reason to store 30-50GB on a single piece of media. On the other hand, someone who works with video a lot easily might. (Think of the idea of making a single disc that contains a full collection of HD video clips you made and edited so you could copy/paste them into future projects, at will.) Sort of like those "50,000 clip art images collection!" CDs people buy, except your own, personal HD video version.
I'd also imagine this would be nice for corporate backups. People currently shell out around $90-100 each for DLT or LTO type backup tapes that hold maybe 40GB or so of compressed data. They could substitute one with HD-DVD or Blueray media and have more reliable backups with easier, quicker retreival too.
That comment about not including the burner is interesting, and I'm at least trying to give it some more thoughtful consideration. Who really needs to burn 30 - 50 GB of data? For backup solutions, wouldn't just getting a huge external hard drive be more practical? Portability might be a factor there, but external drives aren't that cumbersome I don't think. I'm thinking that the majority use of those HD media burners would be to copy movies with illicit applications. Could Apple put in place some protection framework that attempted to only allow creative-works-originating software to burn HD discs, (ie, iMovie, iDVD, FinalCut and other pro apps that use full quality, large size files) therefore denying use of a program that takes a quick and dirty imported disc image and burn it to disc, so that you'd have to work around some long and annoying solution to make an illegal copy (ala burning audio CDs in iTunes and reimporting them to strip the DRM) that would deter any easy mass pirating?
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
But if you're talking about simply the "here and now", yeah - the typical user won't have a good reason to store 30-50GB on a single piece of media. On the other hand, someone who works with video a lot easily might. (Think of the idea of making a single disc that contains a full collection of HD video clips you made and edited so you could copy/paste them into future projects, at will.) Sort of like those "50,000 clip art images collection!" CDs people buy, except your own, personal HD video version.
I'd also imagine this would be nice for corporate backups. People currently shell out around $90-100 each for DLT or LTO type backup tapes that hold maybe 40GB or so of compressed data. They could substitute one with HD-DVD or Blueray media and have more reliable backups with easier, quicker retreival too.
That comment about not including the burner is interesting, and I'm at least trying to give it some more thoughtful consideration. Who really needs to burn 30 - 50 GB of data? For backup solutions, wouldn't just getting a huge external hard drive be more practical? Portability might be a factor there, but external drives aren't that cumbersome I don't think. I'm thinking that the majority use of those HD media burners would be to copy movies with illicit applications. Could Apple put in place some protection framework that attempted to only allow creative-works-originating software to burn HD discs, (ie, iMovie, iDVD, FinalCut and other pro apps that use full quality, large size files) therefore denying use of a program that takes a quick and dirty imported disc image and burn it to disc, so that you'd have to work around some long and annoying solution to make an illegal copy (ala burning audio CDs in iTunes and reimporting them to strip the DRM) that would deter any easy mass pirating?
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
toddybody
Apr 29, 01:14 PM
Hope Lion comes with my sandybridge mba :D
I hope something besides SB IGP comes with that MBA too:p
I hope something besides SB IGP comes with that MBA too:p
more...
macenforcer
Nov 23, 05:56 PM
You would be better off getting an ipod from Target with the 10% off for getting a target credit card. Apple sales suck.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 9, 12:51 PM
Sounds like MS either is paying Adobe a small fee or they are done being scared.
If I remember correctly, PDF became an open standard a few years ago. I think it was late-ish in so maybe it was just too late in the development of Windows 7 to get it in, but now it will appear in 8.
They're FINALLY going to some sort of UNIX thing.... Like Apple did.
...
My big question is... How is MS going to maintain strict control and ownership of a UNIX core?
Where are people getting this UNIX thing from? I can't seem to find any info about this.
If I remember correctly, PDF became an open standard a few years ago. I think it was late-ish in so maybe it was just too late in the development of Windows 7 to get it in, but now it will appear in 8.
They're FINALLY going to some sort of UNIX thing.... Like Apple did.
...
My big question is... How is MS going to maintain strict control and ownership of a UNIX core?
Where are people getting this UNIX thing from? I can't seem to find any info about this.
more...
kernkraft
Sep 30, 06:52 PM
For philosophical context, consider:
Apple does not have a "museum" of past products. Jobs considers any product which is no longer sold a failure (if it wasn't, they'd still be selling it) and not worthy of nostalgia.
If nobody is going to buy the Jackling House and live in it, then 'tis time to discard it and move on to something which someone will buy/build and live in.
That's just not human nature. I adore modern architecture and one of the main things I truly hate about the UK is the lack of quality architecture with sleek lines, simple structure, concrete, glass, quality materials, light spaces, decent ceiling heights and windows. The US is much better but still, there are so many backward-looking buildings. So in many respects, I should dislike a house that was built less than a hundred years ago to look like one built two hundred years ago.
Still... Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it.
But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. My neighbours' house has an effect on mine and it's not just for myself why I keep our home well maintained and decent.
If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes. But until the house got to a state of deep neglect, authorities maintained that they preferred if it was renovated and kept standing.
In a way, it's like locking the door on your date and telling her "You don't have to sleep with me but you haven't got much of a choice". So yes, I actually see Jobs as a house-rapist.
Apple does not have a "museum" of past products. Jobs considers any product which is no longer sold a failure (if it wasn't, they'd still be selling it) and not worthy of nostalgia.
If nobody is going to buy the Jackling House and live in it, then 'tis time to discard it and move on to something which someone will buy/build and live in.
That's just not human nature. I adore modern architecture and one of the main things I truly hate about the UK is the lack of quality architecture with sleek lines, simple structure, concrete, glass, quality materials, light spaces, decent ceiling heights and windows. The US is much better but still, there are so many backward-looking buildings. So in many respects, I should dislike a house that was built less than a hundred years ago to look like one built two hundred years ago.
Still... Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it.
But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. My neighbours' house has an effect on mine and it's not just for myself why I keep our home well maintained and decent.
If Jobs wanted a modern building - which by the way, I prefer to Jackling House - then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes. But until the house got to a state of deep neglect, authorities maintained that they preferred if it was renovated and kept standing.
In a way, it's like locking the door on your date and telling her "You don't have to sleep with me but you haven't got much of a choice". So yes, I actually see Jobs as a house-rapist.
Sannekita
Jan 15, 01:41 PM
The macbook air looks really cool i think. but it's so useless!
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
more...
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 26, 10:55 AM
P.S. The box surrounding the up/down buttons is baboon-ass ugly.
I agree. What browser are you using? IE at work has the ugly boxes you are describing, but Safari at home, doesn't. It looks MUCH better.
I agree. What browser are you using? IE at work has the ugly boxes you are describing, but Safari at home, doesn't. It looks MUCH better.
gnasher729
Oct 5, 02:45 PM
Methinks you don't have a good grasp of public key encryption. (Or at least how it's supposed to work).
It seems that you got encryption and decryption mixed up.
It seems that you got encryption and decryption mixed up.
more...
Chip NoVaMac
Mar 9, 11:39 PM
That's a bit of a superficial hypothesis you got. The majority of computers in the world are still Microsoft based. Perhaps businesses are switching to Apple but for now, the world is not at all run by Apple. Not even close. Once Steve controls the market like Bill and becomes half as rich as he is, we may consider talking. You need more experience in life son, as one person said, turn off your Apple product and look outside your window, there's life that doesn't breath Apple.
No the world is not run by Apple; and despite some folks claims Apple I don't think wants to be the next Microsoft either.... it does want to own a comfortable niche however...
No the world is not run by Apple; and despite some folks claims Apple I don't think wants to be the next Microsoft either.... it does want to own a comfortable niche however...
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 08:49 PM
You can point out an error and give solution
The goal of the forum is not to give out solutions, sorry. If that is what you are looking for, you're looking for it in the wrong places. We're here to help you figure out how to find the solution yourself (either by pointing out appropriate documentation or by giving hints).
or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one told you to quit and pointing out the documentation often times is better than someone trying to explain it. The documentation will be correct, and why type out an explanation to something Apple already documentation (ie, explained) in the proper terms ?
Now if there's something in the documentation you need help clarifying, please feel free to ask questions about the documentation.
The goal of the forum is not to give out solutions, sorry. If that is what you are looking for, you're looking for it in the wrong places. We're here to help you figure out how to find the solution yourself (either by pointing out appropriate documentation or by giving hints).
or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one told you to quit and pointing out the documentation often times is better than someone trying to explain it. The documentation will be correct, and why type out an explanation to something Apple already documentation (ie, explained) in the proper terms ?
Now if there's something in the documentation you need help clarifying, please feel free to ask questions about the documentation.
more...
cmaier
Apr 5, 04:28 PM
I'm going to start a TV channel that only shows commercials.
kuwisdelu
Apr 9, 05:21 PM
So what are the ton of features that apple introduced in 10.6?
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
I guess it depends what you call a "feature." They're not user-facing, and Apple didn't advertise them as features, but frankly I don't see how they're not features, even if they're under-the-hood. Anyway, here (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2009/08/mac-os-x-10-6.ars/)'s 22 pages worth of new and improved stuff.
balamw
Oct 3, 02:41 PM
I guess it depends how much of FairPlay they end up replicating. If they replicate the server too, then it'll probably be simple to tell iTunes to look at the third-party server (just capture the data going to Apple's IP address and send it off to DoubleTwist).
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks. This leads to the same kind of issue as Real faed, sure you can use the Real Store, but not at the same time as ITMS. ick.
(FWIW. They could probable accomplish a simple redirection just by adding an entry to the local hosts table, since Apple most likely addresses their servers by name not IP.)
We'll see if anything comes out of this, good or bad.
B
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks. This leads to the same kind of issue as Real faed, sure you can use the Real Store, but not at the same time as ITMS. ick.
(FWIW. They could probable accomplish a simple redirection just by adding an entry to the local hosts table, since Apple most likely addresses their servers by name not IP.)
We'll see if anything comes out of this, good or bad.
B
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 19, 11:30 AM
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
I bought 4600 shares in 1997, do that math ;)
My last comment was a complete fabrication!! :D
Do the math. :)
I bought 4600 shares in 1997, do that math ;)
My last comment was a complete fabrication!! :D
razzmatazz
Sep 12, 08:06 AM
I wonder if Apple has another Mac Vs PC video for this event :D
KnightWRX
Mar 25, 06:21 AM
Happy BD keynote?!
They didn't even put up a small square on their Mac sub-page.
I do hope OS X still has a good 10 years in front of it. The best of both worlds for Unix people.
They didn't even put up a small square on their Mac sub-page.
I do hope OS X still has a good 10 years in front of it. The best of both worlds for Unix people.
�algiris
Mar 25, 02:56 AM
Ridiculous? I defy you to name one thing (http://arstechnica.com/apple/reviews/2003/04/finder.ars) that Apple has fixed in the single-worst, most user-hostile app ever written for the Mac!
To a bad dancer even balls hinder movement.
To a bad dancer even balls hinder movement.
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
No comments:
Post a Comment