complexcommunic
May 7, 05:20 PM
This would be really awesome. I've always been intrigued by mobileme but turned away by its price tag
SerenityInt
Apr 5, 01:15 PM
The only thing uglier than a Scion is a Scion iPhone theme.
lilo777
Mar 29, 10:48 AM
not really true. it depends on what kind of storage options they are currently running, there are many devices and programs out there that eliminate this kind of redundancy and odds are amazon is using them right now.
The fact that they offer free space for MP3 files purchased from Amazon clearly indicates that those files be stored in a single copy.
The fact that they offer free space for MP3 files purchased from Amazon clearly indicates that those files be stored in a single copy.
itcheroni
Apr 15, 06:25 PM
Which "game"? Are you "trading and investing" in companies by purchasing shares in IPOs, or are you "trading and investing" on Wall St.? If it is the latter, then basically you are buying and selling ownership interests in companies, which has almost no affect on underlying companies.
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. So, even if nothing "good" comes out of trading, one shouldn't have to make apologies for it. And if you were only able to invest in IPO's, who would you sell it to? Why invest in an IPO if you can never sell it?
Won't higher capital gains reduce your "take home" earned from trading in the secondary market? If so, don't hedge funds and the like start investing in more risk taking?
What do you think is/was the riskier investment? Investing in GE or investing in a start-up like Google? Innovation? I'm fairly certain buying 100 shares of GE from my broker didn't innovate a new lightbulb, but Google has innovated and expanded with the capital it received in its IPO. If you are trying to increase your rate of return over what you get from your GE shares, would you invest in AT&T or a little start-up called Chef John Smith, Inc. because you think he's an up and coming talent? One has a big upside, but also a lot of risk.
If the goal is to increase rate of return of an investment portfolio, your only choices are to be better at picking good stocks, or to invest in risker investments. Wouldn't that lead to an influx of start-up capital, innovation, hiring, and economic growth?
On the other hand, you can lower capital gains and encourage people to invest conservatively in the secondary market.
Firstly, your perspective would change completely if you ever decide to invest or trade. I don't want hedge funds going for more risk. That is what contributed to the housing bust and mortgage backed securities. I am completely self taught as a trader and investor. In fact, I don't know a single other person who does what I do. And when I do meet someone who works in finance, they are usually just a cog, and I have nothing in common with them.
Secondly, and more importantly, I don't think a person should have to give a good reason to be able to do anything. Unless you can prove that a person's actions causes harm to others, why attack it? Our legal system works that way; the burden of proof is always on the accuser not the accused. So, even if nothing "good" comes out of trading, one shouldn't have to make apologies for it. And if you were only able to invest in IPO's, who would you sell it to? Why invest in an IPO if you can never sell it?
McGiord
Apr 9, 07:42 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
PEMDAS... First time ever that I hear of it.
I did no go to school in the US.
So.. if the priorities are Parenthesis, then Exponents, Multiplication, Division, Addition and lastly Substraction, using your rule:
48/2(9+3)
First whatever is inside the Parenthesis: 9+3=12
48/2(12)
Then Exponent: none
Then Multiplication: 2(12) = 24
Then Division: 48/24 = 2
There you go...PEMDAS fans.
Mac Fly (film)
Aug 2, 10:52 AM
Mac Pro + Cinema Display (iSight), Leopard demo, Core 2 Duo iMac & MacBook Pro. New Nano's too (more storage + bluetooth)
Long shot, iPhone + iChat 4.0 (VoiP), Mac & Windows.
Long shot, iPhone + iChat 4.0 (VoiP), Mac & Windows.
netdog
Jul 31, 01:54 AM
Wifi. Free iChat/Skype calls from any Wifi hotspot. They can't leave this one out. If it is good enough, I might throw away my landline phone.
Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and be the party pooper: there is no iPhone people. Let's concentrate on the 'true video iPod' rumors instead. Or bring back the 'PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!!1' threads. But this, not happening
And for good measure, I hope I am wrong ;)
I thought Apple confirmed that it was working on a phone during their 3Q financial report.
Yeah. I'm gonna go ahead and be the party pooper: there is no iPhone people. Let's concentrate on the 'true video iPod' rumors instead. Or bring back the 'PowerBook G5 next Tuesday!!1' threads. But this, not happening
And for good measure, I hope I am wrong ;)
I thought Apple confirmed that it was working on a phone during their 3Q financial report.
d0minick
Mar 31, 08:12 AM
I've been using the inverted scrolling for a few weeks. At first, it was very weird and found myself scrolling the wrong way often. However, after a few day, I started to "get" the metaphor and it became natural. Now when I go to work and use their computers, I feel the scrolling on XP is the opposite of what feels natural.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
If it only took me a few days to reverse over a decade of training and muscle memory, then maybe it's not that a stupid setting.
LMAO, come on man!
You changed your ways to suit the OS? I'd understand if you were use to inverted but the OP is correct. It should not be defaulted inverted.
I bet you were also "holding it wrong". I love my apple gadgets, but thats a bit borderline ridiculous.
MikeTheC
Nov 25, 09:49 PM
To illustrate your point, PalmOne (if that's what the PalmOS Group is called this month...) is doing the aforemnetioned ground-up rewrite of PalmOS now (it should be available to devs soon if they're on schedule) and it's based on Linux. Stable, massively featureful, full PalmOS 5 backward-compatibility, and futureproof.
Yet the hardware arm of Palm has said it might not buy the new sytem from the software arm. I have to imagine this has to do with posturing/playing the good little beoch to Microsoft. We know what happens to companies which partner with Microsoft... that they have proves prima facia that they're unequipped to run a company.
I hate to keep dragging my personal employment history into the discussion here, but this is *hardly* the first time this kind of factor has been in play.
I worked for what was, until (talk about timing!) April 1st of this year, a fully-Sony-staffed technical support facility. We provided tech support for Sony computers, monitors, CLIÉ PDAs, WebTV, Satellite tv, TVs, DVD players, VCRs, phones, all the Business and Professional stuff, etc. Yet (with the exception of B&P), our facility competed for tech-supporting our products with other tech support agencies out there, including our own out-sourced tech support partners.
Sony frequently would not include their own subsystems (CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, writers, etc.) in their own products because they wouldn't (some say "couldn't" but I don't buy that) let themselves have their own inventory cheap enough in a lot of cases. Heck, for that matter, it wasn't until sometime in early 2004 (basically 1 year and change before we all got kicked out) that they switched from 500MHz P3-based Hewlett-Packard desktop computers as our actual "agent workstations" to 3.2GHz P4-based VAIOs. For that matter (and yes this is a rant, but it's also pertinent to this aspect of the discussion) it wasn't until like the last year-and-a-half, maybe not-quite-two-years of our operations that they managed to get more than a handful of current-model Sony computer products into the building AND into the hands of those of us doing the tech support. (The reason for this largely relates to the fact that we as the "tech support" division were the red-headed step-child, and basically a money pit, and we had to actually *buy* our own products at regular retail prices from our manufacturing divisions, instead of them sending them to us.) Now, make of that what you will.
I go into this to basically say that it doesn't surprise me to see any company playing the "house divided" strategy. The only problem is that it is a losing strategy. Whether religious or not, people should at least look *this* up in the Bible as a basic, common sense 101 lesson on how not to run your personal life or your business. Ah, but I digress...
Yet the hardware arm of Palm has said it might not buy the new sytem from the software arm. I have to imagine this has to do with posturing/playing the good little beoch to Microsoft. We know what happens to companies which partner with Microsoft... that they have proves prima facia that they're unequipped to run a company.
I hate to keep dragging my personal employment history into the discussion here, but this is *hardly* the first time this kind of factor has been in play.
I worked for what was, until (talk about timing!) April 1st of this year, a fully-Sony-staffed technical support facility. We provided tech support for Sony computers, monitors, CLIÉ PDAs, WebTV, Satellite tv, TVs, DVD players, VCRs, phones, all the Business and Professional stuff, etc. Yet (with the exception of B&P), our facility competed for tech-supporting our products with other tech support agencies out there, including our own out-sourced tech support partners.
Sony frequently would not include their own subsystems (CD-ROMs, DVD-ROMs, writers, etc.) in their own products because they wouldn't (some say "couldn't" but I don't buy that) let themselves have their own inventory cheap enough in a lot of cases. Heck, for that matter, it wasn't until sometime in early 2004 (basically 1 year and change before we all got kicked out) that they switched from 500MHz P3-based Hewlett-Packard desktop computers as our actual "agent workstations" to 3.2GHz P4-based VAIOs. For that matter (and yes this is a rant, but it's also pertinent to this aspect of the discussion) it wasn't until like the last year-and-a-half, maybe not-quite-two-years of our operations that they managed to get more than a handful of current-model Sony computer products into the building AND into the hands of those of us doing the tech support. (The reason for this largely relates to the fact that we as the "tech support" division were the red-headed step-child, and basically a money pit, and we had to actually *buy* our own products at regular retail prices from our manufacturing divisions, instead of them sending them to us.) Now, make of that what you will.
I go into this to basically say that it doesn't surprise me to see any company playing the "house divided" strategy. The only problem is that it is a losing strategy. Whether religious or not, people should at least look *this* up in the Bible as a basic, common sense 101 lesson on how not to run your personal life or your business. Ah, but I digress...
MacFly123
Mar 29, 02:31 PM
I'm really neutral toward all this, but I really just have one very valid question.......... Why, WHY does EVERYTHING Amazon does have to be sooooooooooooo DISGUSTINGLY HIDEOUS!!!??? :rolleyes:
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
I challenge anyone in here to show me a website uglier than amazon.com! Seriously!!!
cav23j
Nov 28, 11:30 AM
i never had any problems with the Boot Camp Partition until this
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
mac ran fine and i need to use Windows for certain programs
weckart
Nov 15, 01:32 PM
Is there anything it's not terribly good at?
It doesn't appear to be too good at dealing with Time Machine back ups (http://recoveringphysicist.com/17/did-sophos-free-a-v-for-mac-kill-my-time-machine-backups). Tread with caution.
It doesn't appear to be too good at dealing with Time Machine back ups (http://recoveringphysicist.com/17/did-sophos-free-a-v-for-mac-kill-my-time-machine-backups). Tread with caution.
Northgrove
Apr 9, 01:58 PM
LOL, OK, I may obviously be biased here but this is pretty funny. :D
Oilbrnr
Apr 7, 11:39 AM
By now you should know that Apple is a greedy company, just wanting to hurt others and bankrupt several in the process.. its corporate america at its best.. hopefully NOT FOR TOO LONG.
Too funny. :rolleyes:
I love all the posts that say, "competition is good, keep Apple on its toes." Problem is, the competition is just copying what Apple has done. Who else is really innovating anything new? Who else has any sort of long term vision of where technology can take us? RIM, MS, HP? Doubtful. Google? All they want is to know everything about you to improve their ability to sell marketing information.
Apple making smart business decisions will only force others to rethink, innovate and create their own demand. Or die. Sorry if you don't like how the free market works.
Too funny. :rolleyes:
I love all the posts that say, "competition is good, keep Apple on its toes." Problem is, the competition is just copying what Apple has done. Who else is really innovating anything new? Who else has any sort of long term vision of where technology can take us? RIM, MS, HP? Doubtful. Google? All they want is to know everything about you to improve their ability to sell marketing information.
Apple making smart business decisions will only force others to rethink, innovate and create their own demand. Or die. Sorry if you don't like how the free market works.
way2l84sanity
May 6, 06:20 AM
It wasn't long after I bought my first Mac in may of that I read this
rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/05/23/apple-in-talks-with-intel/). All of theses post sound very familiar.
rumor (http://www.macrumors.com/2005/05/23/apple-in-talks-with-intel/). All of theses post sound very familiar.
taylorc
Sep 15, 08:04 PM
I ordered my MacBook Pro this morning!!!!!!!
anyway I went on the website to see the ship date as soon as I could and here are the details...
MBPRO 17/2.16 CTO
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM- 2x1GB
120GB Serial ATA Drive@5400rpm
Widescreen Display
SD 8x(DVD+R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW)
BkLit Keyboard/Mac OS
Airport Extreme Card&BT
Estimated Ship Date
Sep 26, 2006 (wow that date looks familiar?!?!)
Arrival Date
Oct 3, 2006
Either way if I get it with Merom or not I'm opening that damn box as soon as I see it.
anyway I went on the website to see the ship date as soon as I could and here are the details...
MBPRO 17/2.16 CTO
2.16GHz Intel Core Duo
2GB 667 DDR2 SDRAM- 2x1GB
120GB Serial ATA Drive@5400rpm
Widescreen Display
SD 8x(DVD+R DL/DVD+/-RW/CD-RW)
BkLit Keyboard/Mac OS
Airport Extreme Card&BT
Estimated Ship Date
Sep 26, 2006 (wow that date looks familiar?!?!)
Arrival Date
Oct 3, 2006
Either way if I get it with Merom or not I'm opening that damn box as soon as I see it.
bhtooefr
Apr 30, 10:56 PM
OK, so a few things about this that I'm seeing...
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
3200x2000 background: A bit odd choice of resolution, but I think they're making a 16:10 resolution that they'll crop to 16:9 for the machine with an actually 3200px wide display.
But, that does indicate a few things.
3200x1800 makes sense if you're pixel quadrupling a 1600x900 display, which is what a 15.6" 16:9 MBP at current pixel densities would be. But, it DOESN'T make sense for pixel quadrupling the 17" MBP, or any of the desktop displays.
If the 15.6" or 15.4" MBP gets this, and the 17" doesn't... that means that (and this is pure conjecture here) the 17" isn't long for the world. How well do they sell, anyway?
As for display technology supporting a pixel-quadrupled iMac, we've had the technology for a pixel-quadrupled 21.5" iMac since 2001. The IBM T221, a 3840x2400 22.2" monitor, is the same density as that theoretical display. It was $18,000 when it came out, and by the time IBM pulled the plug on IDTech, a Viewsonic-branded version of the T221, the VP2290b, was in the $4000 ballpark in 2005. So, had the T221 followed a curve influenced more by technology improvements than by the market getting saturated with unusable monitors, we'd be seeing these panels in the $2000 range nowadays, as a standalone monitor, I think.
Now, to look at all the machines that Apple has. Keep in mind that I think that only pro hardware will get this, and Apple likes to stick to around 100-110 PPI for desktops, and 110-130 PPI for laptops.
I'll go ahead and speculate on theoretical 16:9 variants of existing models, too.
MacBook Air 11.6": Currently 1366x768, 135 ppi, retina at 25.4" - would be 2732x1536, 270 ppi, retina at 12.7"
MacBook Air 13.3": Currently 1440x900, 128 ppi, retina at 26.9" - would be 2880x1800, 255 ppi, retina at 13.5"
MacBook and MacBook Pro 13.3": Currently 1280x800, 113 ppi, retina at 30.3" - would be 2560x1600, 227 ppi, retina at 15.1"
MacBook Pro 15.4" low-res: Currently 1440x900, 110 ppi, retina at 31.2" - would be 2880x1800, 221 ppi, retina at 15.6"
MacBook Pro 15.4" high-res: Currently 1680x1050, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3360x2100, 257 ppi, retina at 13.4"
MacBook Pro 17.0": Currently 1920x1200, 133 ppi, retina at 25.8" - would be 3840x2400, 266 ppi, retina at 12.9"
iMac 21.5": Currently 1920x1080, 102 ppi, retina at 33.6" - would be 3840x2160, 205 ppi, retina at 16.8"
iMac/Cinema Display 27": Currently 2560x1440, 109 ppi, retina at 31.6" - would be 5120x2880, 218 ppi, retina at 15.8"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 low-res: 1366x768, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 2732x1536, 236 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 13.3" 16:9 high-res: 1600x900, 138 ppi, retina at 24.9" - would be 3200x1800, 276 ppi, retina at 12.4"
Theoretical 15.6" 16:9: 1600x900, 118 ppi, retina at 29.2" - would be 3200x1800, 235 ppi, retina at 14.6"
Theoretical 17.1" 16:9: 1920x1080, 129 ppi, retina at 26.7" - would be 3840x2160, 258 ppi, retina at 13.3"
Hrm. I am noticing a problem here for getting consistent resolutions when getting 16:9 into the mix... and, interestingly, Apple stayed on 16:10 for the 13.3" MBA. So, I wonder if this could even be a red herring of some kind? Because 3200x2000 doesn't really match up with any expected 16:10 resolution...
(Current lineup can do 255-270 ppi, which is fairly tight, ignoring the 13.3" MB(P) and the low-res 15.4" MBP, but going to 16:9, either desktop area would shrink for many users (and even then, the 11.6" and 17.1" wouldn't fit in well), or there would be a wide variance in ppi.)
Another thing to consider is the $3.9 billion that Apple pumped into LCD makers... possibly to secure a supply of retina panels?
(In case you can't tell, I'm SERIOUS about my high ppi displays. Looking at a IDTech IAQX10N, a 2048x1536 15.0" 171 ppi IPS display right now, and I'm stuck on a 5 year old machine because of it. Whoever makes something roughly equivalent or better gets my business, unless they're Sony.)
z3r01
Apr 26, 04:27 PM
http://www.gomonews.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/02/android-imbric-convergence-mid-m1.jpg
Oooh noooooooooooo, now they are gonna go after toaster! Watch out black and decker and procter silex , your next on android hit list
Oooh noooooooooooo, now they are gonna go after toaster! Watch out black and decker and procter silex , your next on android hit list
markfc
May 7, 11:11 AM
There will be a free version of mobileme, if only to save people having to register for a free AIM account to video conference on the new iPhoneHD.
iJohnHenry
May 2, 08:04 PM
a lb. of butter is still called a lb. of butter here in Canada
An oddity, a throwback perhaps? :p
My margarine is in metric. As is my moo-cow-****-milk, and many other things :D
An oddity, a throwback perhaps? :p
My margarine is in metric. As is my moo-cow-****-milk, and many other things :D
slu
Aug 7, 01:59 PM
All I can say is Apple better be coming out with a mid-range tower. Upping the baseline of the MacPro to $2500, what is that. Sure it looks like a sweet computer, but what about small businesses or starving artists who cant afford that. Now we're stuck with the all-in-ones.
You can configure it down in price as well you know. You can get 2.0 Ghz Xeons instead. If the store did not keep timing out on me, I'd tell you how much cheaper that would make it.
You can configure it down in price as well you know. You can get 2.0 Ghz Xeons instead. If the store did not keep timing out on me, I'd tell you how much cheaper that would make it.
iMikeT
Sep 11, 02:26 AM
I hope that the free iPod nano educational deal is still in effect if new iPods are released this week.
Jazwire
Apr 24, 07:47 PM
Please give us retina displays or at least an option for the next Imac refresh.
LordTyroxx
Apr 5, 02:21 PM
The people that are against apple here (and want the advertisement to stay) are the same people that are so against iAds. It's quite ridiculous. I find it extremely odd that a large company be a part of the jailbreak community to begin with. They could've used iAd and had much more success anyway. That theme is ugly. I don't want advertisements on my iphone if i jailbreak it. That's stupid. If i want a scion theme, there's probably 25 other people that have made better ones. So it's a moot point. Get your panties out of a wad.
I do give toyota props for having the balls to put something out on a jailbroken iphone. It's inventive and sneaky.
I think the only way people on here would be happy is if there was a little toggle on their iphone that switched between, I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO VIEW ADVERTISEMENTS, and ADVERTISEMENTS TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!
I do give toyota props for having the balls to put something out on a jailbroken iphone. It's inventive and sneaky.
I think the only way people on here would be happy is if there was a little toggle on their iphone that switched between, I HAVE THE FREEDOM TO VIEW ADVERTISEMENTS, and ADVERTISEMENTS TAKE AWAY MY FREEDOM!
No comments:
Post a Comment