Force10
Apr 22, 04:58 PM
Well, Rumors I hear suggest this may be a new iPhone but not the new iPhone.
Cook said he wanted a more affordable one. What better than an iPod Touch that can make calls if you buy credit on a pay-as-you go basis?
This will have A4, 4-8GB, retina res but not IPS and sell for under $200 with no contract.
Existing Touch will be replaced by a 5-6" game-centric model with A5 and 1024 x 768 retina screen.
Cook said he wanted a more affordable one. What better than an iPod Touch that can make calls if you buy credit on a pay-as-you go basis?
This will have A4, 4-8GB, retina res but not IPS and sell for under $200 with no contract.
Existing Touch will be replaced by a 5-6" game-centric model with A5 and 1024 x 768 retina screen.
lifeofart
Jul 12, 05:20 PM
That's more or less what I've done. The issue is this. If you envision a twenty page booklet, it will consist of five pieces of paper. On the front of the first piece of paper, the left panel will be page 20 and the right panel will be page 1. On the back, the left panel will be page 2 and the right panel will be page 19. And so on. It is this non-sequential printing of the pages that I'm struggling with. How do you tell it to print pages 20 and 1 on the first piece of paper, other than having it print page 1, then putting the paper back into the printer and having it print page 20.
(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)
Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:
Then you could just open the new brochure wizard. Set it up for four quadrants per page, front and back printing. Place your images & text in the proper quadrant in the proper orientation. Autopage number the quadrants, and email the doc file to your printshop.
Almost all professional printshops except word doc files and can print your brochure out on their professional quality printers on your paper of choice.
But I guess you are stuck with a worthless .pages file and if you fart around with it long enough you might just be able to get something out that a print / copy shop could use.
(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)
Too bad you don't have a professional app such as the latest MS Word!:eek:
Then you could just open the new brochure wizard. Set it up for four quadrants per page, front and back printing. Place your images & text in the proper quadrant in the proper orientation. Autopage number the quadrants, and email the doc file to your printshop.
Almost all professional printshops except word doc files and can print your brochure out on their professional quality printers on your paper of choice.
But I guess you are stuck with a worthless .pages file and if you fart around with it long enough you might just be able to get something out that a print / copy shop could use.
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 06:22 AM
Ah. You mean similar as to how Apple purchased NeXT and based OS X on their NeXTSTEP OS?
Give it up. This has been discussed to death already.
See above.
You really think OS X is just a rip off NeXTSTEP?
As you said its based and a lot of things were shared but it isn't like they said; here's OSX, NeXTSTEP build by Apple.
OSX shares a lot from the opensource community; so does windows;, Android, Symbian, etc etc.
What's the big deal?
Give it up. This has been discussed to death already.
See above.
You really think OS X is just a rip off NeXTSTEP?
As you said its based and a lot of things were shared but it isn't like they said; here's OSX, NeXTSTEP build by Apple.
OSX shares a lot from the opensource community; so does windows;, Android, Symbian, etc etc.
What's the big deal?
cjcampbell
Jan 26, 01:11 AM
Apple has received a great deal of favorable publicity in the last year as it introduced the iPhone and increased market share in computer sales. Whenever a company gets that kind of publicity, a number of people will buy its stock simply because it was mentioned in the newspapers, without really analyzing whether the stock was actually worth that or not. This halo effect can last as long as six months to a year, but it disappears on the appearance of any bad news, in this case a market downturn.
Apple was grossly overvalued because of all the publicity, so it was the first stock to be dumped when the market turned down. Now it is probably grossly undervalued. Personally, I stay away from volatility. There are too many people who are trading stocks, as opposed to investing in companies. There is a big difference. One is looking for a quick profit on a short-term change in price; the other is looking for long-term accumulation of value.
The short-term traders often do quite well and they brag about their successes, but overall their investments do not do as well as if they had put their money in slot machines in Vegas. That is why I stay away from volatility.
Apple was grossly overvalued because of all the publicity, so it was the first stock to be dumped when the market turned down. Now it is probably grossly undervalued. Personally, I stay away from volatility. There are too many people who are trading stocks, as opposed to investing in companies. There is a big difference. One is looking for a quick profit on a short-term change in price; the other is looking for long-term accumulation of value.
The short-term traders often do quite well and they brag about their successes, but overall their investments do not do as well as if they had put their money in slot machines in Vegas. That is why I stay away from volatility.
more...
poppe
Nov 4, 01:01 AM
Ok so here's the newb question of the day!!
Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?
Have to buy Windows correct regardless of Parallels or VMware?
Danindub
Jun 6, 11:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 3_1_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/528.18 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0 Mobile/7E18 Safari/528.16)
How do you request a refund? Who do you contact?
iTunes > My account > Account history (find app you want to report) > Report a problem
(or something similar anyways).
Now that I think about it - it could be EU thing - AFAIK by law there has to be a way to get refund ...
How do you request a refund? Who do you contact?
iTunes > My account > Account history (find app you want to report) > Report a problem
(or something similar anyways).
Now that I think about it - it could be EU thing - AFAIK by law there has to be a way to get refund ...
more...
KingYaba
May 1, 10:30 PM
President Obama will let us know soon ... it is being reported that it was an intelligence mission carried out by US forces
Awesome. I can't wait to read about the details.
Awesome. I can't wait to read about the details.
GekkePrutser
Apr 18, 04:06 AM
Why are you guys expecting Apple to drop a USB port for the Thunderbolt?
If Apple includes Thunderbolt it will be shared with the Mini DisplayPort. Just like on the MBP's. Which was already present on the MBA so I don't see the need to drop a USB port.
I'm not sure if it will get one though due to the footprint of the new chip on the motherboard.
If Apple includes Thunderbolt it will be shared with the Mini DisplayPort. Just like on the MBP's. Which was already present on the MBA so I don't see the need to drop a USB port.
I'm not sure if it will get one though due to the footprint of the new chip on the motherboard.
more...
FireStar
Nov 9, 03:54 PM
More Aero.
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8501265t386x450.jpg
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8359851t386x450.jpg
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8501307enh-z5.jpg
Not sure why this one is huge....
I can't not want this jacket.... :confused:
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-7853290t386x450.jpg
And some thermals.
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8501265t386x450.jpg
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8359851t386x450.jpg
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-8501307enh-z5.jpg
Not sure why this one is huge....
I can't not want this jacket.... :confused:
http://aero.imageg.net/graphics/product_images/pAERO1-7853290t386x450.jpg
And some thermals.
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
more...
ook cover Oprah winfrey
Lady Gaga, Oprah Winfrey,
more...
oprah-winfrey
Video-3 Mi amigo Michael Jackson: La historia de Uri Biography Channel Subtitulos Castellano By Vallevision Vallevisionhost.110mb.com and
more...
Oprah Winfrey
The ook has been optioned by
more...
Oprah Winfrey,
ms winfrey. the ook
Book which praises jan Here,
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
more...
lewis82
Sep 15, 09:05 PM
No HDD brand is fail proof.
Yes, but there has been a massive fail rate in IBM Desktar Models (Hitatchi has bought the IBM hard drive division after). I know the problem won't appear again, and that the current Desktar only shares the name with the problematic one, but I prefer to stay away from Hitatchi drives. There are other brands, and they are priced similarly. I'm losing nothing here.
Yes, but there has been a massive fail rate in IBM Desktar Models (Hitatchi has bought the IBM hard drive division after). I know the problem won't appear again, and that the current Desktar only shares the name with the problematic one, but I prefer to stay away from Hitatchi drives. There are other brands, and they are priced similarly. I'm losing nothing here.
Inkling
Oct 23, 02:46 PM
All this messiness is why when I go Intel, I'll be looking at running the one Windows application I need--FrameMaker--under WINE/Crossover. No Windows code is necessary and thus no problem with licenses, legalities or paying Microsoft up to $300.
And since WINE/Crossover isn't Windows, merely letting Windows applications run under OS X, it isn't troubled by the 200,000 Windows viruses, trojans etc. lurking out there.
Lawsuits for violating some badly written EULA aren't your worst nightmare. Windows on your Mac means Windows viruses on your Mac and that's your worst nightmare.
More on Wine/Crossover at Codeweavers:
http://www.codeweavers.com/
And since WINE/Crossover isn't Windows, merely letting Windows applications run under OS X, it isn't troubled by the 200,000 Windows viruses, trojans etc. lurking out there.
Lawsuits for violating some badly written EULA aren't your worst nightmare. Windows on your Mac means Windows viruses on your Mac and that's your worst nightmare.
More on Wine/Crossover at Codeweavers:
http://www.codeweavers.com/
more...
stroked
Apr 24, 06:15 PM
I understand from the news coverage that they attacked her after she used the woman's restroom.
Her transgender nature, and their reaction to that was absolutely central to this crime. If that isn't a hate crime, I don't know what is.
I wouldn't want that person in the same bathroom with my daughter.
Her transgender nature, and their reaction to that was absolutely central to this crime. If that isn't a hate crime, I don't know what is.
I wouldn't want that person in the same bathroom with my daughter.
samcolak
Apr 22, 11:58 AM
Coincidentally, a couple of days ago was recompiling the kernel and it appeared that OpenDarwin (DarwinBuild) was directing the latest plists to a 10.7 kernel.
Completely wiped out my MBP and as a result, no joy whatsoever in bless'ing the System as all. You have any experience in the past re the Darwin build process?
Completely wiped out my MBP and as a result, no joy whatsoever in bless'ing the System as all. You have any experience in the past re the Darwin build process?
more...
lordonuthin
Oct 16, 09:03 PM
You should be able to pull 20k ppd with that machine only with the bigadv units...
I will have to try it when I get home tonight.
I will have to try it when I get home tonight.
TwoSocEmBoppers
Mar 17, 01:44 AM
Ouch that is early. I could probably make it an hour before they open but not 5 lol. Don't know if it would even be worth it at that point. Maybe a week from now?
Yes it is pretty intense. I broke today and bought one off craigslist. Bought white but am really debating about opening it vs. trying to get black, which was the original color i wanted.
Yes it is pretty intense. I broke today and bought one off craigslist. Bought white but am really debating about opening it vs. trying to get black, which was the original color i wanted.
more...
mdelvecchio
Apr 26, 04:48 PM
this is APPLE we are talking about. nothing is free and nothing is cheap.
hmm the leading mp3 player, ipods, are pretty cheap. the leading tablet came out at $500 instead of predictions of $800-1000 based on MS' legacy tablets, so that seems pretty cheap to me, too.
hmm the leading mp3 player, ipods, are pretty cheap. the leading tablet came out at $500 instead of predictions of $800-1000 based on MS' legacy tablets, so that seems pretty cheap to me, too.
firestarter
Apr 24, 01:18 PM
I'm going to ask a dumb question here: if the victim had already undergone the surgery, then how could the perpetrators know the victim was genetically male? I'm not trying to be snarky, but there's a logical disconnect, unless I'm missing something.
By some other aspect of her character I guess.
It is a dumb question (sorry). Female toilets only have stalls, so the victim's surgical status is moot.
By some other aspect of her character I guess.
It is a dumb question (sorry). Female toilets only have stalls, so the victim's surgical status is moot.
Mac-Mariachi
Apr 13, 07:47 PM
Yes, white is beautiful, but I think it has to come with, at least, a small upgrade to make up for the late arrival. Perhaps 1GB of RAM or a bump in processor speed. I�ll consider it then, if it�s just a white iPhone 4 then I think I�ll wait for iPhone 5... although it looks sexy as hell in white.
mgguy
May 2, 01:23 AM
Oh yeah, the game is over. This will be seen as Obama doing what Bush could not, no matter what. Everyone at Fox News has to be crying in their beer right now.
No. It's still the economy stupid.
No. It's still the economy stupid.
Snowy_River
Jul 25, 11:05 AM
The 3G iPod did not have physical feedback, and they worked.
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click. What people are questioning is the usability of an interface where you don't have any tactile feedback. I think that the answer is that there would have to be visual feedback to replace it, thus the further issue that you couldn't simply use this iPod in your pocket or use it very safely while driving. However, if we consider that this is meant to be the video / ebook iPod, where you'll be staring at the screen anyway, this is much less of an issue.
But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.
Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
They most certainly did have physical feedback. You had to touch them to activate the buttons or drag your finger across the scroll wheel to use it. This would constitute a tactile feedback, even if there is no click. What people are questioning is the usability of an interface where you don't have any tactile feedback. I think that the answer is that there would have to be visual feedback to replace it, thus the further issue that you couldn't simply use this iPod in your pocket or use it very safely while driving. However, if we consider that this is meant to be the video / ebook iPod, where you'll be staring at the screen anyway, this is much less of an issue.
But the problem here is everyone is assuming that none-touch means you don't even touch the iPod. Did it occur to anyone that it means you don't have to touch the screen? This allows Apple to put a more durable transparent cover over the entire face of the iPod.
Think about it - a nice smooth seamless iPod face. When you put your finger over the display, the controls appear. Your finger touches the cover, but not the screen underneath. This allows for easy cleaning, and protection of the actual screen.
What you're describing is far less revolutionary, and wouldn't really constitute a none-touch interface. The current displays all have a durable, transparent cover over them, and they still get scratches and finger prints from handling. I think the reason that this interface idea is so exciting is that it offers the possibility of having a full screen for viewing without needing to worry about the act of touching the screen for controls making the screen dirty so you can't watch.
jctevere
Apr 28, 05:08 PM
I have looked at my new white iPhones and it appears that there is a ridge that goes around the front side of the iPhone. It appears to be a type of "buffer" so that when the iPhone is placed face-down on a surface, the glass surface doesn't actually touch the surface and it stands solely on this outside ridge. Pretty cool if you ask me, and it still fits in my old credit card iPhone 4 case.
ipader
Apr 13, 02:59 PM
How does one get to become an analyst? And what gives this guy any credibility? Seems like they just come up with crazy claims for the purpose of having something to say.
How can you tell when an analyst is lying?
His lips are moving.
How can you tell when an analyst is lying?
His lips are moving.
Corey Grandy
Jan 27, 04:41 PM
$9.99 taxes in, couldn't say no to that.
http://www.blu-rayaanbieding.nl/discs/youthinrevolt.jpg
http://www.blu-rayaanbieding.nl/discs/youthinrevolt.jpg
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий