mdntcallr
Sep 25, 10:51 AM
I just saw that it is a free update to aperture owners.
AWESOME!! thanks apple!
AWESOME!! thanks apple!
yg17
Feb 22, 12:21 PM
So basically you pay like this for your phone now:
1. Minutes
2. Data on broadband
3. Power for microcell
ATT should pay you for this.
The calls still go through the AT&T network. How do you think a call gets from the Microcell to the person you're calling?
1. Minutes
2. Data on broadband
3. Power for microcell
ATT should pay you for this.
The calls still go through the AT&T network. How do you think a call gets from the Microcell to the person you're calling?
jamieg
Jan 8, 02:19 PM
3.1.1 is updating some of my contacts who aren't on Facebook and haven't got an email address assigned. It matches them to a seemingly random person's profile who I am not even friends with on Facebook!!
Anyone else getting this issue??
Push updates seem intermittent today, they were working well yesterday!!
Anyone else getting this issue??
Push updates seem intermittent today, they were working well yesterday!!
assembled
Mar 19, 08:04 AM
Do these devices need to access anything on your LAN, or do they just need Internet access ?
If they need LAN access, then if you're thinking about just using mac address filtering for them, then why bother with WPA2e for the rest ?
If they just need Internet access, then use a different SSID connected to a VLAN that only has Internet access, obviously with suitable firewall rules in place.
I tend to suggest using a wired connection for anything that doesn't support wireless at the required security level, and if it only supports wireless at a level that doesn't meet the required security level, then I wouldn't purchase it.
If they need LAN access, then if you're thinking about just using mac address filtering for them, then why bother with WPA2e for the rest ?
If they just need Internet access, then use a different SSID connected to a VLAN that only has Internet access, obviously with suitable firewall rules in place.
I tend to suggest using a wired connection for anything that doesn't support wireless at the required security level, and if it only supports wireless at a level that doesn't meet the required security level, then I wouldn't purchase it.
more...
D*I*S_Frontman
Nov 21, 07:53 PM
Nothing new. I remember playing around with this as a science experiment in the early 80's. Dissimilar metals sandwiched together--put one end in ice, the other in hot coffee--walaah! Current sufficient to make a fan turn. Hook up the same device to a battery, and one side gets slightly colder while the other gets slightly warmer.
The obvious problem is that the system requires isolated extremes of temperature to do aything. After an hour of use, my MBP's lower case is uniformly warm. Once a thermoelectric device is at a uniform temperature, it ceases to work, if you are using it as a way to convert heat into electricity. If you power the device with electricity in order to cool a laptop CPU, then the other half of the device will be throwing out MORE heat--which the singed hairs on your upper thighs will attest to when you are using your system as a "laptop".
The only time it would work with any effectiveness would be if you took your room-temp cold MBP and, immediately after start-up, tasked a huge Photoshop render file that pounded on the CPUs. At least for a while, the temp differential would give you some electricity back.
The obvious problem is that the system requires isolated extremes of temperature to do aything. After an hour of use, my MBP's lower case is uniformly warm. Once a thermoelectric device is at a uniform temperature, it ceases to work, if you are using it as a way to convert heat into electricity. If you power the device with electricity in order to cool a laptop CPU, then the other half of the device will be throwing out MORE heat--which the singed hairs on your upper thighs will attest to when you are using your system as a "laptop".
The only time it would work with any effectiveness would be if you took your room-temp cold MBP and, immediately after start-up, tasked a huge Photoshop render file that pounded on the CPUs. At least for a while, the temp differential would give you some electricity back.
e�Studios
Apr 1, 09:45 PM
The black 3ds officially beat the iPhone in sexiness
You're joking right? April fools? The 3DS is the ugliest thing to come out of Nintendo manufacturing in a long long while. The DSi was a nice looking handheld, as well as feeling good as far as ergonomics go. The 3DS is a glossy nightmare and should be used as a showcase of what not to do when it comes to industrial design.
You're joking right? April fools? The 3DS is the ugliest thing to come out of Nintendo manufacturing in a long long while. The DSi was a nice looking handheld, as well as feeling good as far as ergonomics go. The 3DS is a glossy nightmare and should be used as a showcase of what not to do when it comes to industrial design.
more...
tech4all
Aug 19, 10:18 PM
I haven't read the link yet, but what would be the URL to the files so you can access them either via a URL or to put an image up in the [IMG] tags?
Or are you simply wanting to use it as an "external HD"?
Or are you simply wanting to use it as an "external HD"?
LightSpeed1
Apr 24, 10:57 PM
Just what I was looking for.... Not.
more...
mmmcheese
Sep 27, 04:09 PM
hah! you are ridiculous, trying to play quake on an integrated graphics chip.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
Wasn't Quake 1 a software rendered game? In that case, the graphics processor has nothing to do with it. Even if it is OpenGL accelerated, the integrated graphics should have no problem on such an old game.
shoulda bought a macbook pro.
that said, for the money apple is charging, they could have definitely picked a low end dedicated graphics chip from ati or nvidia. shame on apple
Wasn't Quake 1 a software rendered game? In that case, the graphics processor has nothing to do with it. Even if it is OpenGL accelerated, the integrated graphics should have no problem on such an old game.
iEdd
Oct 10, 07:33 AM
Commercial Times claims that Foxconn Electronics has received notebook orders from Apple and volume shipments of one new MacBook model by the end of the year.
Small error there. ;) Sounds interesting, certainly an unpredictable update cycle, although with apple it always is.
Small error there. ;) Sounds interesting, certainly an unpredictable update cycle, although with apple it always is.
more...
citizenzen
Apr 13, 05:50 PM
There can be many valid reasons for refusing service to some people.
Exactly. Like they're racists who disrespect your minority employees.
That's an excellent reason to tell a customer to take a hike.
Exactly. Like they're racists who disrespect your minority employees.
That's an excellent reason to tell a customer to take a hike.
0815
Apr 12, 01:04 PM
WTF? Why does the MS Office updater force me to quit chrome ????
more...
zin
Feb 18, 10:19 AM
He doesn't look anywhere near as bad as he did in those "genuine" photographs from a certain news organisation. :rolleyes:
calderone
Feb 24, 10:43 PM
Well, it is pretty not functional in this early release.
There is a new app called "Server" which seems to be similar to the current "Server Preferences." I always find Server Preferences to be a joke.
Server Admin is still their, but all the Services that "Server" covers are not in Server Admin. Thankfully NetBoot and SUS are still in place as is DNS. What they may be doing is using "Server" for the consumer. And keeping more advanced features like DNS, OD, etc in Server Admin.
Notably missing from File Sharing is NFS and their are no advanced file sharing options in Server Admin.
All in all, I am pretty disappointed. I would much prefer the "Server Preferences" and "Server Admin" arrangement that is currently in SL Server. I definitely would not say this is fulling featured. At this time it is a giant downgrade
There is a new app called "Server" which seems to be similar to the current "Server Preferences." I always find Server Preferences to be a joke.
Server Admin is still their, but all the Services that "Server" covers are not in Server Admin. Thankfully NetBoot and SUS are still in place as is DNS. What they may be doing is using "Server" for the consumer. And keeping more advanced features like DNS, OD, etc in Server Admin.
Notably missing from File Sharing is NFS and their are no advanced file sharing options in Server Admin.
All in all, I am pretty disappointed. I would much prefer the "Server Preferences" and "Server Admin" arrangement that is currently in SL Server. I definitely would not say this is fulling featured. At this time it is a giant downgrade
more...
str1f3
Apr 17, 12:16 PM
The good news is that Apple's iPhone OS won't be the dominating mobile platform for much longer. The sales numbers show that Android is quickly gaining momentum, and Google's marketplace is not censored at all and developers can choose whatever development tool they want to produce software for Android.
Just because they went from 2.5% to 5.2% in the US means nothing. Apple is at 25%. It is a lot harder to get into the higher market. All that they've been showing is that they can take some of Palm and WM6 marketshare.
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2010/02/marketshare-comscore-400x282.png
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.
Do you mean history will repeat itself like the Mac/PC wars or like the iPod? Maybe I'm missing something when you say "They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties" because what comes to my mind is ActiveX and DirectX.
The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.
You do realize that no one is really mentioning the WePad (lol) except pretty much Germany. Go look at the current success of the iPad. If you think you can just blow up Android apps and it will be just like the iPad you're fooling yourself.
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
Is Android Evil? (http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/)
1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it�s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.
7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android�s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google�s blessing.
8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.
On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.
As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.
What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken).
Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes.
Just because they went from 2.5% to 5.2% in the US means nothing. Apple is at 25%. It is a lot harder to get into the higher market. All that they've been showing is that they can take some of Palm and WM6 marketshare.
http://www.tipb.com/images/stories/2010/02/marketshare-comscore-400x282.png
Apple will soon fall back into that little niche where they came from. And they deserve it because of their megalomaniac behavior and arrogant attitude.
History is going to repeat itself because Apple hasn't learned from their mistakes in the past. They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties. Now they will lose the mobile market to Google.
Do you mean history will repeat itself like the Mac/PC wars or like the iPod? Maybe I'm missing something when you say "They lost the desktop to Microsoft because Apple refused to open their platform to third parties" because what comes to my mind is ActiveX and DirectX.
The WePad is going to ship in July. Even if it might not be as sexy as the over-hyped iPad, it is an OPEN device. And in the end, the open platform will win.
You do realize that no one is really mentioning the WePad (lol) except pretty much Germany. Go look at the current success of the iPad. If you think you can just blow up Android apps and it will be just like the iPad you're fooling yourself.
As for your Android is "OPEN" comment, I don't think you know what "open" actually means.
Is Android Evil? (http://www.visionmobile.com/blog/2010/04/is-android-evil/)
1. Private branches. There are multiple, private codelines available to selected partners (typically the OEM working on an Android project) on a need-to-know basis only.
2. Closed review process. All code reviewers work for Google, meaning that Google is the only authority that can accept or reject a code submission from the community.
3. Speed of evolution. Google innovates the Android platform at a speed that�s unprecedented for the mobile industry, releasing 4 major updates (1.6 to 2.1) in 18 months. OEMs wanting to build on Android have no choice but to stay close to Google so as not to lose on new features/bug fixes released.
4. Incomplete software. The public SDK is by no means sufficient to build a handset. Key building blocks missing are radio integration, international language packs, operator packs � and of course Google�s closed source apps like Market, Gmail and GTalk.
5. Gated developer community. Android Market is the exclusive distribution and discovery channel for the 40,000+ apps created by developers; and is available to phone manufacturers on separate agreement.
6. Anti-fragmentation agreement. Little is known about the anti-fragmentation agreement signed by OHA members but we understand it�s a commitment to not release handsets which are not CTS compliant.
7. Private roadmap. The visibility offered into Android�s roadmap is pathetic. At the time of writing, the roadmap published publicly is a year out of date (Q1 2009). To get a sneak peak into the private roadmap you need Google�s blessing.
8. Android trademark. Google holds the trademark to the Android name; as a manufacturer you can only leverage on the Android branding with approval from Google.
On a more personal note: I do not need and I do not want Apple to tell me what I can read or see on my device. If I want to see naked flesh, then it's none of Apple's business and they have ZERO rights to deny me that. (I'm European - we're not prude here and we prefer sex over violence.) If I want to use software that directly competes with Apple's own offers, then obviously their competition is giving me something that I like better than Apple's software products.
As much as I like Apple's computers, I hate their entire AppStore and iPhone SDK policies with a passion.
What you want is a bigger walled garden. You are primarily to only use Google services on Android. I don't like the App Store policies but to simply put out that with Android "is all about choice" is naive. To use half the apps in the Android marketplace your phone has to be rooted (jailbroken).
Ultimately I'd like for Apple to allow third party apps to be downloaded outside of the App Store and can understand why Jobs doesn't want to offer questionable apps on iTunes.
JPyre
Apr 12, 04:36 PM
Will all the resellers buying all the AT&T versions I call BS on those stats.
Go to a store and I guarantee you can't buy an at&t model, but vzw are in stock everywhere.
There is NO way Vzw is outselling AT&T version, NO way, it's impossible.
My guess is maybe people in the mid-west would PREFER vzw, but they'll never buy one anyway...
Go to a store and I guarantee you can't buy an at&t model, but vzw are in stock everywhere.
There is NO way Vzw is outselling AT&T version, NO way, it's impossible.
My guess is maybe people in the mid-west would PREFER vzw, but they'll never buy one anyway...
more...
trrosen
Apr 17, 04:20 AM
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
Knowimagination
Mar 10, 08:29 PM
I think I am going to do the University Park store since I have never been there and I have been to the Knox street store a lot.
Probably get there around 1pm tomorrow hopefully the line won't be too bad.
Probably get there around 1pm tomorrow hopefully the line won't be too bad.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 15, 08:12 PM
WTF indeed.
tveric
Sep 27, 10:33 PM
Well, bear in mind they were sued (successfully, the first time around) for using that! ;)
I can only assume you're referring to Apple Music, the Beatles' publishing company. In which case, the irony here is quite hilarious.
You seem to know precious little about US trademark law. To sum Apple's intentions here: protection of their iPod trademark is their objective. I think we can all agree that no one is trying to trademark just the word "pod".
But if someone else creates a product in the arena of digital music, and the name of their product intends to capitalize on the popularity of the term "iPod", then if Apple doesn't actively protect their trademark, they run the risk of losing rights to the trademark entirely, so that in fact, not only would someone in the future be allowed to sell under a "mypodder" or similar name, they could actually create ipod clones and sell them under the name iPod!
Of course, it'd never get that far, since you'd have to have legal department of morons to allow that to happen.
I can only assume you're referring to Apple Music, the Beatles' publishing company. In which case, the irony here is quite hilarious.
You seem to know precious little about US trademark law. To sum Apple's intentions here: protection of their iPod trademark is their objective. I think we can all agree that no one is trying to trademark just the word "pod".
But if someone else creates a product in the arena of digital music, and the name of their product intends to capitalize on the popularity of the term "iPod", then if Apple doesn't actively protect their trademark, they run the risk of losing rights to the trademark entirely, so that in fact, not only would someone in the future be allowed to sell under a "mypodder" or similar name, they could actually create ipod clones and sell them under the name iPod!
Of course, it'd never get that far, since you'd have to have legal department of morons to allow that to happen.
linux2mac
Apr 5, 05:47 PM
The iPad2 is so popular it is even sold out in the afterlife!!
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/05/paper-ipad-2-sells-out-in-china-for-use-in-afterlife-rituals/
http://www.tuaw.com/2011/04/05/paper-ipad-2-sells-out-in-china-for-use-in-afterlife-rituals/
Small White Car
Apr 5, 09:30 AM
We can't tell you how to feel about this news. You have to figure it out yourself.
I'm really sorry, but I gotta say :woosh:
I'm really sorry, but I gotta say :woosh:
ender land
Apr 8, 10:31 PM
You know, I wish congress and everyone involved in this process would somehow realize money doesn't grow on trees and that running at an operating loss of nearly 33% is, ah, not the best way to ensure longterm longevity and is a bad financial strategy.
I just do not think politicians get this. Maybe because they can more or less print money at a whim?
50 billion in cuts is still barely 5% of the budget deficit. I guess it'll be a hard one to do considering the bulk of federal spending is defense, pensions/healthcare, and welfare. Those are all sacred cow spending sources to one of the two parties.
I'd love to see someone from the republican party make a challenge/promise to cut 10% from the defense budget if democrats were able to cut 10% from healthcare (either via premiums or other means) or vice versa from a democrat. Compromise is about both sides conceding something. Not demanding the other side give in 100%. It seems the majority of politicians can only do the latter.
I just do not think politicians get this. Maybe because they can more or less print money at a whim?
50 billion in cuts is still barely 5% of the budget deficit. I guess it'll be a hard one to do considering the bulk of federal spending is defense, pensions/healthcare, and welfare. Those are all sacred cow spending sources to one of the two parties.
I'd love to see someone from the republican party make a challenge/promise to cut 10% from the defense budget if democrats were able to cut 10% from healthcare (either via premiums or other means) or vice versa from a democrat. Compromise is about both sides conceding something. Not demanding the other side give in 100%. It seems the majority of politicians can only do the latter.
Watabou
Apr 30, 05:09 PM
*sigh* Okay I give up.
No comments:
Post a Comment