Ugg
Apr 10, 07:29 PM
What's hard in the U.S. is that most people make a modest or poor salary--yet the culture is very materialistic and there is a lot of pressure to buy so many luxury goods and services. At least in third world countries, your friends aren't pressuring you to take extravagant vacations you can't afford or go out to expensive restaurants.
You also need to add in the ball and chain that is suburban/exurban hell. Some people are chained to their five acres willingly, but many are chained to suburbia due to poor planning caused by cheap oil. The added expense of owning two or three vehicles and maintaining a suburban home on a suburban sized lot, means a lot less money for other things. People bought into the false promises of suburbia and are now paying the price.
You also need to add in the ball and chain that is suburban/exurban hell. Some people are chained to their five acres willingly, but many are chained to suburbia due to poor planning caused by cheap oil. The added expense of owning two or three vehicles and maintaining a suburban home on a suburban sized lot, means a lot less money for other things. People bought into the false promises of suburbia and are now paying the price.
Kupp
Mar 23, 06:49 PM
I converted to Linux in 2007 and Mac in 2009 after using Windows since version 3.1 and don't miss a thing! It's true what they say "Mac's just work."
That is the funny thing I was thinking about either going Linux (just so I don't need to listen to my mac wife tease me about my conversion to the light.) But if I want something that as you say "Just works" why go linux, I might fool around with that by setting my Dell up to dual boot, just upgraded it to 300 GB internal drive so plenty of space.
I had also thought of grabbing a netbook, and making a hackintosh, but that isn't reliable or realistic for daily computing needs either.
But I must say the thing that was perhaps the most instrumental in my thinking of going mac, was android.
I wanted a phone that just worked and was looking at iPhone vs Android. In my opinion the iPhone is a more reliable platform, due to the fragmentation of droid. Too many manufacturers, with their own independent specs, and a separate entity creating the software.
If you extrapolate the fragmentation of droid argument, it is an equally valid argument against windows.
Apple is in my opinion the Volvo of the computer world. And at this point, working full time, while also taking night classes and working on an undergrad degree, a volvo is what I need.
On a side note, I just went to the apple store, and looked at the 27" imacs....
Ok, maybe I just should get one of those when they refresh. I thought my wife had the 27", but she must actually have the 24"
Those 27" ones are very pretty. More space than I have on the 2 screens I have now combined. I could just use my Ipad 2 when I get one as a 2nd remote screen and call it a day. Damn they look nice.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I think that is what my experience is turning into. Just swap for a iphone 4 and not caring as much about quad core.
That is the funny thing I was thinking about either going Linux (just so I don't need to listen to my mac wife tease me about my conversion to the light.) But if I want something that as you say "Just works" why go linux, I might fool around with that by setting my Dell up to dual boot, just upgraded it to 300 GB internal drive so plenty of space.
I had also thought of grabbing a netbook, and making a hackintosh, but that isn't reliable or realistic for daily computing needs either.
But I must say the thing that was perhaps the most instrumental in my thinking of going mac, was android.
I wanted a phone that just worked and was looking at iPhone vs Android. In my opinion the iPhone is a more reliable platform, due to the fragmentation of droid. Too many manufacturers, with their own independent specs, and a separate entity creating the software.
If you extrapolate the fragmentation of droid argument, it is an equally valid argument against windows.
Apple is in my opinion the Volvo of the computer world. And at this point, working full time, while also taking night classes and working on an undergrad degree, a volvo is what I need.
On a side note, I just went to the apple store, and looked at the 27" imacs....
Ok, maybe I just should get one of those when they refresh. I thought my wife had the 27", but she must actually have the 24"
Those 27" ones are very pretty. More space than I have on the 2 screens I have now combined. I could just use my Ipad 2 when I get one as a 2nd remote screen and call it a day. Damn they look nice.
I've been told "Once you go Mac you don't go back!"
Judging from my experience with my iPhone 3GS making me wanting to get an iMac 27" inch Quad Core I may agree.
I think that is what my experience is turning into. Just swap for a iphone 4 and not caring as much about quad core.
HarryKeogh
Mar 23, 04:34 PM
This is ridiculous. I drive better when I'm drunk.
justflie
Sep 14, 10:05 AM
So is this a stevenote or not? i think that might hint at what caliber of goodies are coming
thejakill
Oct 27, 12:28 PM
i think this whole environmental movement has been turned into a product. look at so-called environmentally-friendly cars (hybrids, flex fuel, etc). they're all using gas or resources in one way or another. but on the commercials you're told that by driving them, you're 'saving the earth'. it's all just a gimmick now.
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
don't throw your old ipods or computers away. give them to poor people. that's what i've done.
bommai
Sep 19, 03:49 PM
Sometimes it helps to do a quick search. ;)
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.
Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.
For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.
The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.
Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.
HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.
They do have surround sound support. (http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=304277#faq26)
It clearly states Dolby Surround and Dolby Pro Logic Systems. This is from the VHS days. DVDs support Dolby Digital 5.1 and DTS. This is plain nuts. Not only are you getting slightly inferior picture, the sound is ancient. Dolby Surround is nowhere as good as Dolby Digital. Here is a simple explanation.
Dolby Surround uses two tracks of audio to encode 4 tracks. The two additional tracks are for the center channel and a single rear channel. The single rear channel is not full spectrum (20Hz - 20kHz), but rather something very narrow.
For comparison, if you have a good surround sound system (I am not talking about the $200 Home Theatre in a box system, but a system that cost at least $1000), play a DVD that has both Dolby Surround and Dolby Digital. Play with the Dolby Surround track first and then play with the Dolby Digital track next. Huge difference. I am disappointed. Surely, there is a way they could embed discrete surround with AAC.
The specs for Dolby Digital is as follows: 5 tracks of discrete digital sound full spectrum 20Hz-20kHz. One channel for LFE (low frequency extension) - topping out at about 120Hz. That is why you have 5.1.
Dolby Digital is lossy compression though but still you have 5.1 channels. DTS is another lossy compression format but has a higher bit rate and sounds better than Dolby Digital. DTS typically have about 760kbps while Dolby Digital is about 448kbps.
HD-DVD and Bluray Disk support Dolby TrueHD that supports 8 channels of lossless sound upto 18Mbps. Cool. Well, we are way off from there.
Dmac77
Apr 25, 12:00 AM
Sure, your entire post just screams at what a safe driver you are. :rolleyes:I bet if your parents saw a post like this they would take away your car. You are a menace.
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
See above. A parent was in the car and actively encouraged me to cut the idiot off. My family's general philosophy (in regards to driving) is be aggressive and intimidate people who try to screw with you; it always results in you winning (it also helps when your uncle presides over the traffic court in town).
-Don
nem3015
Sep 1, 12:30 PM
Sept. 12th is a Tuesday in Cupertino.
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
oppps my bad.
OK then early in the morning so will be evening in Paris. Frenchs anyway like it better in the evening. :p
Eidorian
Jul 14, 10:08 AM
Because the mulitplier is unlocked , making it very easy to overclock.Yeah, otherwise it's FSB antics.
The goal was to reach the highest possible speed that was benchmark stable. Super Pi, 3DMarks, and several game benchmarks were run to test stability. The 2.93GHz chip reached 4.0GHz on air cooling in these overclocking tests. That represents a 36% overclock on air with what will likely be the least overclockable Core 2 processor - the top line X6800.
To provide some idea of overclocking abilities with other Core 2 Duo processors, we ran quick tests with E6700 (2.67GHz), and E6600 (2.4GHz). The test E6700 reached a stable 3.4GHz at default voltage and topped out at 3.9GHz with the Tuniq Cooler. The 2.4GHz E6600 turned out to be quite an overclocker in our tests. Even though it was hard-locked at a 9 multiplier it reached an amazing 4GHz in the overclocking tests. That represents a 67% overclock. Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
The goal was to reach the highest possible speed that was benchmark stable. Super Pi, 3DMarks, and several game benchmarks were run to test stability. The 2.93GHz chip reached 4.0GHz on air cooling in these overclocking tests. That represents a 36% overclock on air with what will likely be the least overclockable Core 2 processor - the top line X6800.
To provide some idea of overclocking abilities with other Core 2 Duo processors, we ran quick tests with E6700 (2.67GHz), and E6600 (2.4GHz). The test E6700 reached a stable 3.4GHz at default voltage and topped out at 3.9GHz with the Tuniq Cooler. The 2.4GHz E6600 turned out to be quite an overclocker in our tests. Even though it was hard-locked at a 9 multiplier it reached an amazing 4GHz in the overclocking tests. That represents a 67% overclock. Not that the locked chips aren't that bad either.
http://www.anandtech.com/cpuchipsets/showdoc.aspx?i=2795&p=18
afd
Apr 11, 03:10 AM
Ok this makes no real sense to I figure Apple is behind it. Merantz and Denon both have upgrade and both same price. Are they for real, come on Airplay upgrade WTF. I smell Apple crazy behind it. :rolleyes:
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
I guess its a software upgrade to their internal chip, but I still think its stupid, if your going to buy a 1000 plus receiver this is just dam bad PR to me.
Can't remember where, but I seem to remember reading that Apple were charging around $5 for AirPlay licensing, which makes the $40 seem even more of a rip-off. You'd think that they'd adsorb even the $5, seems like a small price to pay to make your device more desirable to all the iOS and iTunes users out there.
Lightivity
Oct 5, 03:16 AM
Being 16x9 encoded is not the same thing as being anaporphically encoded.
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
Being 16x9 encoded just means that the video is meant to be viewed at a 16x9 ratio. Yes, the movies (that I have bought, anyway,) are 16x9. Specifically, Good Will Hunting is 640x344.
Anamorphically encoded refers to the act of 'stretching' 16x9 source to the height of 4x3; so that you effectively get 33% more 'vertical' data than horizontal. The TV is then supposed to 'squish' the video back to 16x9. So, for example, if you tell your DVD player that you have a '16x9 anamorphic' TV, it will output the widescreen video to fill the entire 720x480 resolution. If you tell it you have a '16x9 non-anamorphic', it will still be outputting 720x480, but will add black bars on the top and bottom, to achive a 'video' resolution of 720x405.
My TV, for example, has a special '16x9 anamorphic' mode where it actually re-aims its electron beam so that it's only drawing in the 16x9 area, but at a higher vertical density than it normally would. Meaning that I no longer have square pixels. Instead, I have pixels that are 1.33 times wider than tall. (More data packed in height-wise.)
If iTunes movies were sold as anamorphic, then Good Will Hunting would be 640x372, and rely on the TV to 'squish' the 372 high into the height that 344 should be. Thereby displaying more vertical information in the same space.
I know exactly what 'anamorphic' means, and it was precisely what I meant when saying "16x9-encoded", with the exception that 'anamorphic' is a totally confusing and natively incorrect term.
Why? Because nothing is ever stretched or squashed in digital video. The anamorphic concept has unfortunately been transfered from the celluloid world where light truly is pressed together on a 35-mm film frame only to be expanded in the theater. Now, maybe I should have added the word "enhanced for widescreen" after "16x9-encoded" but it doesn't matter: All 16x9-videomaterial is encoded so that all 720x480 pixels carry the approximate dimension of 16x9 with the aim of fitting a television that holds a display with 1.78:1 proportions. That is the very definition of 16x9. It is not anamorphical. It is not sqeezed. It is just 16x9 pixels spread across a compatible display.
Ehurtley, what I think you thought I meant, was aspect ratio. But that is something completely else. The aspect ratio is the proportions of the frame the director intended the action to be shown in, and there are several. One is 2.35:1, but the most common is 1.85:1, which most closely resembles the 1.78:1 frame that 16x9-encoded video fits right into. The only ones using the 1:78:1 aspect ratio is tv-productions. Film productions rarely use it (they stick to conventional 2.35:1 and 1.85:1).
Don't confuse the 1.78:1 aspect ratio which -- together with 1.85:1 and 2.35:1 -- is the artistic concept of framing action, with 16x9-encoding which is the technical solution of using a standard pixel resolution in a widescreen setup.
So, my question remains: is there any 16x9-encoded film content on iTunes Store?
rmitchell
Sep 13, 10:43 PM
Yes, it was the "pre-announcement" that I find very un-Apple. The fact that the product doesn't have a solid name just adds to the strangeness. Is there a precedent for this at Apple announcements. Sure, I've heard of products that I couldn't go out and get today or even for 4 weeks, but Q1 2007?
This seems to me the "plan b" that had to get announced because the real "one more thing", out of left field announcement, hit a snag.
Maybe it wasn't the iPhone, but something didn't go exactly a planned on the 12th.
Anyone hear how they liked the satcast of the keynote in London?
That is actually a very intutive outlook on the apple annoucement.
Quite Intersting
Rob
This seems to me the "plan b" that had to get announced because the real "one more thing", out of left field announcement, hit a snag.
Maybe it wasn't the iPhone, but something didn't go exactly a planned on the 12th.
Anyone hear how they liked the satcast of the keynote in London?
That is actually a very intutive outlook on the apple annoucement.
Quite Intersting
Rob
DRewPi
Sep 3, 05:57 AM
Is Apple goin to pull out several tuesday upgrades like the 5th, the 12th, and so on .... ???? that should be very nice for us .... !!! macusers :D :cool: ;)
LaazyEye
Apr 14, 07:55 PM
Yes but why would these devices move to USB3 either?
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
I say this: Thunderbolt breakout boxes with built-in wireless usb =)
Most are happy on USB1 or 2. with no demand for 3.
If they have the market for features then Wireless is the most attractive up sell for most of them over faster wires. So Low bandwidth devices are either going to stay USB 2 or go wireless.
Low bandwidth is really a moot point, it's high bandwidth that drives wired connections.
I say this: Thunderbolt breakout boxes with built-in wireless usb =)
BornAgainMac
Apr 22, 01:31 PM
I expect Apple to have FaceTime HD on the next Air.
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 16, 09:23 AM
Or you could just buy a multi-port Thunderbolt adapter(that supports USB 3) for less than $10 when they are released making your half-baked scenario completely worthless.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
Yes because everyone loves to carry around external breakout boxes with their sleek portable Macbooks.... :rolleyes:
And $10? For Thunderbolt? You are DREAMING. You can't even get a decent USB2 hub for $10.
Oh and why would someone pay extra money for a drive that can reach at the LOWEST twice the performance of USB 3? Gee, I wonder. I'd love to know where you got the sales figures from also. From your ass perhaps?
Twice the performance of USB3? That would be Thunderbolt's maximum possible data rate. No single consumer hard drive on earth supports that kind of speed (let alone even USB3's top speed) so I haven't a clue what you're getting at. Why would someone pay MORE to get a drive that is no faster than a USB3 drive? They would almost certainly have to as demand determines price/availability and there is nearly zero demand for TB devices at this point in time while USB3 are backwards compatible with the vast majority of the computers on the planet. My sales figures are based on the relative cost of drives with Firewire interfaces (the closest example that already exists to Thunderbolt in terms of technology versus low demand) against drives that only support USB2 and/or USB3. There is always a large premium for a drive with a FW interface, even today when a fair amount of computers exist with FW interfaces (i.e. SOME demand). Therefore TB compatible drives will likely cost considerably more money than USB3 drives for the SAME underlying drive. You will pay a premium for the interface just like Firewire to offset the higher costs of low production numbers created by little demand compared to USB3/2 interfaces. There will be no speed advantage on a consumer drive because no consumer drive even comes CLOSE to the limits of either interface. So unlike YOUR $10 scenario, I didn't just make a number up out of thin air. Furthermore, the scenario is hardly half-baked given USB drives are already common at places like Best Buy (I personally already own TWO 3TB USB3 drives) so the unlikely 'friend' in the stated scenario would be more likely to already own a USB3 drive than a currently non-existent TB drive that will undoubtedly cost MORE when it does finally arrive.
TB is more suited to high-end professional use where maximum overall data throughput (probably across multiple banks of drives per interface) and low overhead is desired (e.g. professional video, future high-speed server banks, live audio, etc.) The average consumer doesn't want to pay $50-100 more for FW800 drive interface over USB2 today (nor is their computer even likely to have FW if it's not a Mac) even if does have a benefit over USB2. They certainly aren't going to want to pay a potentially larger premium to get the same relative performance (perhaps with a bit of CPU overhead differences) versus USB3 with today's drives that don't come near USB3 levels, let alone Thunderbolt.
Be my guest and continue to insult and rant and dream big of TB heaven where USB doesn't exist. I live in a more practical and logical world.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:14 PM
You really think so? Three programs between these two development teams. Facebook and then these two. Yeah I see a huge tide turning right now. Please.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
And the paid app didn't even sell that well.
You're talking about some hardcore Apple supporters, well known in the community, jumping ship. It ain't a good sign.
eye
Mar 23, 04:57 PM
:mad:If MacRumors didn't have a rule stating no personal attacks, I'd ream you a new *******.
And nothing could make me care as I remember the old saying "sticks and stones..." unlike our oversensitive posters. I am in no way in favor of irresponsible behavior or drunk driving, but making tasteless jokes is neither and harms nobody.
And nothing could make me care as I remember the old saying "sticks and stones..." unlike our oversensitive posters. I am in no way in favor of irresponsible behavior or drunk driving, but making tasteless jokes is neither and harms nobody.
Chris Bangle
Sep 8, 12:55 PM
Ok, my prediction:
New nano will have to have a new name, or more than 4gb in the low end, otherwise it will be available as part of the get a free ipod campaign... i don't think apple will do that. Reminds me of a certain SNL skit.
or... mb and mbp will be upgraded to C2D... the rebate clearly lists only core duo systems as eligible. then you won't be able to get any free ipods except with a mac pro
there you have it
Hope they do rename the nano, nano sounds too commmon these days. everyones got a nano. Go back too mini or someting better, mini sounds awesome, but so does G5. ipod G5 sounds cool as we dont have imac G5's now
New nano will have to have a new name, or more than 4gb in the low end, otherwise it will be available as part of the get a free ipod campaign... i don't think apple will do that. Reminds me of a certain SNL skit.
or... mb and mbp will be upgraded to C2D... the rebate clearly lists only core duo systems as eligible. then you won't be able to get any free ipods except with a mac pro
there you have it
Hope they do rename the nano, nano sounds too commmon these days. everyones got a nano. Go back too mini or someting better, mini sounds awesome, but so does G5. ipod G5 sounds cool as we dont have imac G5's now
heehee
Apr 25, 09:06 AM
I'm just wondering if anyone can help me reassure my mother that she'll get out of a parking ticket that we got tonight.
We were going out to dinner, and we parked in a handicap spot in downtown ann arbor (we were parallell parking). The sign wasn't clearly visible, so we didn't put up my grandmother's handicap sign in the windshield (she was with us). When we came back from dinner, my Mom found a nice $100 parking ticket on the windshield (her first in 24 years) because there was no handicap sign. So here's my question, she should get out of it if she goes down to the police station with my grandma and my grandma's handicap sign, right? She convinced that that won't work, but I think it will. Any opinions?
Thanks,
Don
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
I thought your mom is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan and your uncle is the traffic court judge ? :D
We were going out to dinner, and we parked in a handicap spot in downtown ann arbor (we were parallell parking). The sign wasn't clearly visible, so we didn't put up my grandmother's handicap sign in the windshield (she was with us). When we came back from dinner, my Mom found a nice $100 parking ticket on the windshield (her first in 24 years) because there was no handicap sign. So here's my question, she should get out of it if she goes down to the police station with my grandma and my grandma's handicap sign, right? She convinced that that won't work, but I think it will. Any opinions?
Thanks,
Don
Good luck with reporting my plates. I've done that to drunk drivers before, the 911 operator has told me "We're sorry sir, we cannot divert officers based on heresy." Also, see above: My uncle is the traffic court judge in the jurisdiction where I did this, good luck getting a ticket to stand.
EDIT: @mrsirs2009 - No I actually just felt like going fast.
-Don
Listen you're not going to beat me with legal antics. My mother is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan. I've grown up in legal libraries and in courtrooms watching her. You're lie detector statement is total BS. Lie detectors are not admissible in a court of law; also a court can not compel someone to take a polygraph. My previous history would be easily disputed. There were no witnesses present (besides my mother) when I was highbeaming her and laying on my horn. There were however cars present when she brakechecked me. There was one car present when I brakechecked her, but not when I cut her off. The simple fact is that I plan these things out in order to reduce my legal exposure, and increase the other person's legal exposure, in case there were to be an accident/law suit.
Go ahead and call me twisted for giving people what they deserve. It amazes me how such little things tick people off.
-Don
I thought your mom is a senior partner at the largest law firm in Michigan and your uncle is the traffic court judge ? :D
TC400
Apr 30, 01:13 PM
Still loving my 21.5 inch i3 iMac.
I am hoping it gets a chassis redesign though.
I am hoping it gets a chassis redesign though.
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:46 PM
So, here is an interesting argument, as app is short for Applications, and Applications are a strict subset of programs, doesn't the App Store technically sell Programs, not Apps? Thus, the term is no generic at all. "Program Store" would the generic term. It's the same as a club called "Liqueur Store" (which is TMed.)
Interesting indeed. But i would argue that app, application and program are all equally interchangeable.
A club can call itself "Liqueur Store" all it wants. It is not a store that sells liqueur. It's a club that sells liqueur.
Interesting indeed. But i would argue that app, application and program are all equally interchangeable.
A club can call itself "Liqueur Store" all it wants. It is not a store that sells liqueur. It's a club that sells liqueur.
hypmatize
Mar 11, 03:56 AM
I think the bottom line is don't download anything that you don't trust like on any other platform and 99% of the time you will be fine. Believe it or not all platforms are pretty safe as long as you use common sense.
cmaier
Nov 13, 05:18 PM
So why can't you use an official Apple API on the iPhone? That's crazy.
He's taking the fact that Apple has the legal right to object and extrapolating that it somehow makes sense for them to do so.
He's taking the fact that Apple has the legal right to object and extrapolating that it somehow makes sense for them to do so.
