srxtr
Mar 31, 03:54 PM
This wont end androids openness. It will make is so that there is more of a consistent experience amung all android devices.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
Openness means it should not matter whether it's consistent or not.
If every android device out there was consistent with each other, that defies the definition of openness.
Being able to install whatever you want from "unknown sources" is not the "open" OS this article is referring to.
We will still be able to install from "unknown sources" for example.
Relaz macrumors.. not as big as deal as you are making it.
Openness means it should not matter whether it's consistent or not.
If every android device out there was consistent with each other, that defies the definition of openness.
Being able to install whatever you want from "unknown sources" is not the "open" OS this article is referring to.
LarryB08
Apr 8, 08:24 AM
Reminds me of a true story - went into one of those pre-made sandwich shops because I need to feed a horde unexpectedly, and quickly. I asked for all their stock of three different kinds of sandwich. The woman behind the counter said "but sir what will we sell to other people!".
Bizarre way to run a business.
Scenario 1: Store expects 1000 customers. Customer 15 walks in and buys all the store's stock. The remaining 985 customer walk in through the day and are told we have nothing to sell you. These 98.5% of the daily customers never return to the store in the future.
Scenario 2: Store expects 1000 customers and rations stock to serve the needs of the greatest percentage of their daily customers as possible. The great majority of customers are happy and continue to patronize the store in the future.
Scenario 2 above does not seem so bizarre to me.
We are talking business here, business that needs to function over time and not just over one day. All I know is there are a lot of people here who are taking great pleasure trashing a store for their own personal reasons. But the store must serve their overall client base as best as possible and sometimes that may mean being unable to satisfy every specific request every day.
Bizarre way to run a business.
Scenario 1: Store expects 1000 customers. Customer 15 walks in and buys all the store's stock. The remaining 985 customer walk in through the day and are told we have nothing to sell you. These 98.5% of the daily customers never return to the store in the future.
Scenario 2: Store expects 1000 customers and rations stock to serve the needs of the greatest percentage of their daily customers as possible. The great majority of customers are happy and continue to patronize the store in the future.
Scenario 2 above does not seem so bizarre to me.
We are talking business here, business that needs to function over time and not just over one day. All I know is there are a lot of people here who are taking great pleasure trashing a store for their own personal reasons. But the store must serve their overall client base as best as possible and sometimes that may mean being unable to satisfy every specific request every day.
leekohler
Mar 3, 11:13 PM
no one is preventing you from living with the person you love or having sex with him
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
Nope, you just want to make sure that we can't have access to the same protections for our families that you do. How silly of me to want that.
Invalid because it endorses something that could cause the collapse of society
Not at all. Gay people raise kids just as well as straight people- that's been proven. And we do have families. There is no risk of destroying society. The question is valid. Answer it.
freeny
Aug 7, 04:05 PM
Guess we now know what this was all about now.. (Web Clip)
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=151828&highlight=safari+widget
Out of all the predictions I think I was the closest (post #29):cool:
perhaps this button will produce a widget for the page you have open? sort of like having your favorite sites in your dashboard? you wont need to open safari to check your sites or even wait for someone to create a widget for the site. safari will author its own widgets.
Even better would be the ability to frame just the part of the site you want to see like a weather bar or team score using a cmd+shft+4 like command..... any takers?
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
toddybody
Apr 6, 11:40 AM
what do you think Games on a Mac are? Jeeze dude, thats why I own a gaming PC. You couldnt dream of playing the majority of current titles at max settings on a mac...they need to start giving them real GPU's
mcrain
Mar 22, 10:09 AM
The hypocrisy coming from the left in the media on this issue is palpable...
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
I was stewing about this, and went to the Google News page, more "liberal" sites like the Huffington Post or MSNBC, my local paper, FoxNews and in every case, there were stories that were either critical or were about the criticism or the reasons for the criticism of the Libya action. (Stories about Senator XYZ saying coalition has issues vs. a story about the issues with the coaltion). So, it's pretty obvious that the mainstream media are covering this story, and reporting both the white house story and providing analysis and criticism.
I'm confused by what you think is so hypocritical or who you think is being such.
Are you talking about hipocracy from "the left in the media" or the left?" Do you expect every story to be critical of President Obama and Libya? Do you think every story that came out during the GWB administration was critical of Afghanistan or Iraq? Especially in the first days? Do you think every story from certain media outlets is liberal? I mean, is a story automatically liberal because it comes from NPR, or say, MSNBC or Huffington Post? Someone critiqued your using Fox News as a source, but what you quoted was mainly just facts. I think Fox News often inserts more of their spin into stories than their competitors (and as a result, their news reporting often appears tainted or is assumed tainted), and they are always supportive of the GOP, but that doesn't mean that I think the facts they report are any less fact. Is critique of the President from MSNBC any less critique because its coming from MSNBC? Are you suspicious of their criticism? Do you think they are using kid gloves? Would you expect a hypothetical neutral news site (if it exists) to be more critical? Would it be as critical and partisan as Fox News?
On the other hand, are you talking about hipocracy by those on the left, in the media? I mean, you quoted the President and what he said. If so, it really hasn't got anything to do with the media, right? Also, doesn't it seem like President Obama got pushed into this conflict? There were allies and some organizations clamoring for involvement, unlike prior to Iraq. The President was making statements that indicated reluctance to get involved. The military was saying it would not be simple, would involve real attacks, and it may be too late. But, there was pushing by our allies, human rights groups, etc... Plus, aren't we on the hook to have our allies backs? I mean, isn't the US on the hook to pay back a lot of favors to the Iraq/Afghanistan coalitions?
Unlike Iraq where the President was actively trying to sell the public on a conflict he, and a small group of insiders, wanted. Using evidence that was weak at best, and we now know was false. This salesmanship initially received pretty positive reporting, which only turned really sour as the evidence of betrayal and lies started coming out.
SlavKO
Jun 9, 01:32 PM
Hey, this is not possible because based on the number of preorders from each store is what determines how many get sent to each store. and if you order from store #1, a phone will be sent to store#1 specifically for you.
:)
Thx for the info. Would it be possible to call and preorder from the store I want to pick it up from even if it isnt in my state?
:)
Thx for the info. Would it be possible to call and preorder from the store I want to pick it up from even if it isnt in my state?
coolcom
Mar 26, 02:17 PM
Thank you!
I wanted to write every point you just made .. i'm just glad other people are capable of rational thought. It seems as though these people expect that if they don't like something then no one will, as though their uses are the most important and anyone else who disagree's doesn't use their computer for 'real work'.
Every one of the new features in Lion i am really excited about, the integration of server allows me to use my old Mac as a media server, Versions is a killer feature, as a developer i've been using local repo's forever. FDE is epic, anyone who cares about data security and used FileVault understands how much of a pain it is. I use my notebook and plug it into a large screen when i'm at a desk, i'd like fullscreen apps when i'm in notebook mode thanks. I could go on and on ...
I'm running Lion, and personally I hate Mission Control. There is no way to turn it off (there really should be). It's such a pain trying to select the other windows when they are grouped together. Horrendous implementation.
Full screen apps...If I wanted to run and see only one app at a time....I'd use my iPad!! Fullscreen apps are just gimmicky.
Resume...crappy, especially if you're not on a $$$$ SSD. It loads every program that you were using before reboot, good idea, but it just takes forever to use my computer after rebooting since it's loading 10+ apps!
I wanted to write every point you just made .. i'm just glad other people are capable of rational thought. It seems as though these people expect that if they don't like something then no one will, as though their uses are the most important and anyone else who disagree's doesn't use their computer for 'real work'.
Every one of the new features in Lion i am really excited about, the integration of server allows me to use my old Mac as a media server, Versions is a killer feature, as a developer i've been using local repo's forever. FDE is epic, anyone who cares about data security and used FileVault understands how much of a pain it is. I use my notebook and plug it into a large screen when i'm at a desk, i'd like fullscreen apps when i'm in notebook mode thanks. I could go on and on ...
I'm running Lion, and personally I hate Mission Control. There is no way to turn it off (there really should be). It's such a pain trying to select the other windows when they are grouped together. Horrendous implementation.
Full screen apps...If I wanted to run and see only one app at a time....I'd use my iPad!! Fullscreen apps are just gimmicky.
Resume...crappy, especially if you're not on a $$$$ SSD. It loads every program that you were using before reboot, good idea, but it just takes forever to use my computer after rebooting since it's loading 10+ apps!
shawnce
Jul 14, 06:45 PM
Agreed. I can make an argument for the consumer machines, where perhaps 512 MB is sufficient for basic users. Specifically, why force them to pay more for 1 GB if they don't need it. But when it comes to the Pro machines, as if anyone buying one of these beasts is not going to require at least 2 GB of RAM, let alone 1 GB. No one buys a quad Xeon Powermac to just surf the Internet and check their e-mail. :cool:
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
Personally I go the BTO route at Apple.com for my PowerMacs and downgrade all RAM to the minimum cost and buy my RAM from a trusted 3rd party vendor for a savings of at least 10% if not more so.
tortoise
Aug 7, 06:32 PM
I wonder how "Time Machine" is implemented.
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version. The concept is virtually identical, except that in databases the default behavior is to delete old versions that no transaction is using any more. Such file systems are often implemented now as MVCC-style databases with file system semantics.
In fact, PostgreSQL used to have a feature many years ago called "time travel" that would let you query a consistent view of the database at any point in its past.
Probably the same way it is in scalable transactional databases that use multi-versioning concurrency protocols (e.g. PostgreSQL and Oracle). No data is over-written, and every "update" actually creates a new record version. The concept is virtually identical, except that in databases the default behavior is to delete old versions that no transaction is using any more. Such file systems are often implemented now as MVCC-style databases with file system semantics.
In fact, PostgreSQL used to have a feature many years ago called "time travel" that would let you query a consistent view of the database at any point in its past.
iGary
Feb 28, 05:14 PM
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
Whatever crutch gets you through life.
dscuber9000
Apr 28, 04:24 PM
Did you ask to see W's birth certificate, or any other president's birth certificate? Why not?
Well he's obviously American! Just look at him! ;)
Well he's obviously American! Just look at him! ;)
chrmjenkins
Apr 11, 03:26 PM
Does Arn write every single article on this forum?
No, my guess is Eric Slivka is on vacation or something. He writes the majority of MR articles unless arn specifically wanted to take that over.
No, my guess is Eric Slivka is on vacation or something. He writes the majority of MR articles unless arn specifically wanted to take that over.
GFLPraxis
Mar 31, 02:39 PM
You could say the same thing about Apple though. The Apple fad will go away and the extremely closed ecosystem which seems to not be really developing much in terms of UI or having an actual roadmap could end iOS.
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Wars are great for the economy. This IS a war. But we're the economy that benefits from it. And it doesn't have that "people dying" downside to traditional wars.
Yay for corporate wars, since the winner is us!
I don't understand why people can't just see the pros and cons of both and accept both are great platforms. Its always a WAR with Apple fans. Apple against EVERYONE!
Wars are great for the economy. This IS a war. But we're the economy that benefits from it. And it doesn't have that "people dying" downside to traditional wars.
Yay for corporate wars, since the winner is us!
Padraig
Aug 12, 04:13 AM
If there is a phone on the way i'm guessing that we can be sure of few things.
1) Can't see it being a clamshell. Perhaps a slider, but in all likelyhood it will be a candybar - fits in with apple designs aesthetic, simple, elegant design.
2) It will have to be GSM, UMTS being included as well. There is no way Apple is releasing a CDMA only phone, the market is tiny.
3) I'm sure Apple will release this by themselves, rather than partnering up with a specific carrier. This would allow people who are already tied into contracts to purchase the phone, without having to switch networks. Also couldn't invisage Apple agreeing to something like Vodafone's software.
1) Can't see it being a clamshell. Perhaps a slider, but in all likelyhood it will be a candybar - fits in with apple designs aesthetic, simple, elegant design.
2) It will have to be GSM, UMTS being included as well. There is no way Apple is releasing a CDMA only phone, the market is tiny.
3) I'm sure Apple will release this by themselves, rather than partnering up with a specific carrier. This would allow people who are already tied into contracts to purchase the phone, without having to switch networks. Also couldn't invisage Apple agreeing to something like Vodafone's software.
Nuck81
Nov 24, 08:49 PM
I didn't start to care for the game until I changed the gas and brake to the right and left trigger instead of the awkward right stick. Once i did that the racing really started to feel better.
It's incredibly easy. Even with a severely underpowered car in some races I have yet to lose at the default difficulty.
Also Im disappointed in the graphics. I really don't think it looks as good as nfs shift, which for the time being is still my favourite racer this gen.
It's incredibly easy. Even with a severely underpowered car in some races I have yet to lose at the default difficulty.
Also Im disappointed in the graphics. I really don't think it looks as good as nfs shift, which for the time being is still my favourite racer this gen.
raymondso
Sep 19, 09:51 AM
I used to think that until I replaced my 12" Thinkpad with a (budget) 15" Thinkpad. A 15" laptop is obviously a lot bigger, possibly heavier and definetly more difficult to carry around everywhere. I'll never buy a 15" laptop again.
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
totally agree
Currently i'm using a 12.1" notebook(PC) with a 19" desktop LCD for photo editing :p
It depends on how you will be using it, but one good option that works for me is to go for a 13" so its more portable then get a cheap 17"/19" TFT monitor for home and use it to extend the desktop. Forget Merom, I don't know how I survived for so long without an extended desktop.
An extra 17"s really does change your life!
totally agree
Currently i'm using a 12.1" notebook(PC) with a 19" desktop LCD for photo editing :p
edwurtle
Mar 23, 09:54 AM
Will I make a snap judgement? No. I'll try the damn thing first before making a judgement.
Do I see these tablets wiping out the iPad? Not a chance. Not in a million years. Do I see future versions of the Playbook and Samsung tabs wiping out the iPad? Perhaps, who can say. Mobile computing and tablets are here to stay now - saying and believing that the iPad will remain as dominant is pure wishful thinking from the more fanboy-minded of us.
Did I have a great time with David Lickner last night? I sure did. Do I think there is a future here? I don't see why not.
Do I see these tablets wiping out the iPad? Not a chance. Not in a million years. Do I see future versions of the Playbook and Samsung tabs wiping out the iPad? Perhaps, who can say. Mobile computing and tablets are here to stay now - saying and believing that the iPad will remain as dominant is pure wishful thinking from the more fanboy-minded of us.
Did I have a great time with David Lickner last night? I sure did. Do I think there is a future here? I don't see why not.
63dot
Aug 17, 08:21 PM
Lastly, OS X will always be superior to Windows based on the fact that it's built on a UNIX foundation. If I'm not mistaken, Windows code has just built on top of existing code year-after-year. :mad: I think the OS X was a fresh build.
windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE
windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98
and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft
windows has been, in the past building on existing code for many years and the last incarnation was windows ME, which followed windows 3.x, 95, 98, and 98SE
windows XP is built from windows 2000 which was built from windows NT which was written in what microsoft calls "NT" code, similar to UNIX but not as good, but more stable than the widely used windows 95/98
and os x is superior, and easier to use, than anything from microsoft
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 05:23 PM
This is interesting, BUT, from what I know, Intel announced the desktop (Conroe) Core 2 Duo proccessor on July 27, and as far as I know, no Conroe systems are shipping right now, almost a month later.
Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.
Dell has announced some Conroe systems that you can order, but as far as I know they aren't readily shipping yet.
weckart
Apr 8, 02:48 AM
Really? C'mon. Most Best Buys don't even have an employee maning the Apple section.
Our local BB has an Apple employee looking after the Apple section. There is no way it could pull any stunt in breach of Apple's agreement with BB without Apple's finding out.
Maybe things are different in the US.
Our local BB has an Apple employee looking after the Apple section. There is no way it could pull any stunt in breach of Apple's agreement with BB without Apple's finding out.
Maybe things are different in the US.
jaxstate
Aug 11, 02:58 PM
Who wants to go through the trouble of doing a software change to unlock their phone.
I seem to be missing some information...:confused:
First, a locked phone is ONLY a problem if you have cdma. If you go GSM the "locking" is software based and can be unlocked. The networks here unlock it for you for a fee. (others do that too but that is another story...)
Secondly, if the "iPone" is GSM based you an sell the same phone both locked and unlocked. The question whether a phone will be "subsidized" is a deal between Apple and the carrier. Just how much the phone will be is up to the carrier.
As an example: Here in europe we have vendors that sell cellphones where you can pick which carrier you want and pay different prices for the phone dependent on what carrier and type of contract you pick. However, you can also buy the buy the phone without a contract (unlocked)
...so why do we have this discussion whether this or that carrier will carry it?
If the new "iPhone" is a hit everybody will carry it. Of course, assuming Apple allows it.
I seem to be missing some information...:confused:
First, a locked phone is ONLY a problem if you have cdma. If you go GSM the "locking" is software based and can be unlocked. The networks here unlock it for you for a fee. (others do that too but that is another story...)
Secondly, if the "iPone" is GSM based you an sell the same phone both locked and unlocked. The question whether a phone will be "subsidized" is a deal between Apple and the carrier. Just how much the phone will be is up to the carrier.
As an example: Here in europe we have vendors that sell cellphones where you can pick which carrier you want and pay different prices for the phone dependent on what carrier and type of contract you pick. However, you can also buy the buy the phone without a contract (unlocked)
...so why do we have this discussion whether this or that carrier will carry it?
If the new "iPhone" is a hit everybody will carry it. Of course, assuming Apple allows it.
mcgillmaine
Jun 23, 07:46 AM
NC RS's know nothing. Maybe today will be different when I call. We have 3 stores selling the phone out of maybe 10. I talked to one and he told me that what ever they get will be on 1st come bases.
So I'm not sure if my best bet is just to camp out at the apple store from which I hear will be getting a lot for "walk ins".
Also i'm trying to buy two phones so if ugp is right about most stores getting 3-5. I'm sure if any pre orders are wrote down at those stores, My chances are slim to none.
So I'm not sure if my best bet is just to camp out at the apple store from which I hear will be getting a lot for "walk ins".
Also i'm trying to buy two phones so if ugp is right about most stores getting 3-5. I'm sure if any pre orders are wrote down at those stores, My chances are slim to none.