aohus
Apr 19, 02:56 PM
Apple mastered the GUI that Xerox gave it to them.In other words, my mother means much more to me than God.
Apple may have expanded upon existing GUI elements, but it didn't invent the GUI. Very big difference there.
Apple may have expanded upon existing GUI elements, but it didn't invent the GUI. Very big difference there.
ethana
Mar 22, 12:53 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Uhhh... screen size?
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Uhhh... screen size?
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 03:59 PM
Okay here's the deal....
None of the Radio Shack stores in our area
know anything yet because there is a conference
call within the hour.
Let me explain...
Called another RS store in the area. Was told
that they don't know anything about iPhone preorders
tomorrow simply because they are all due for a
conference call within the hour from corporate to
discuss what the procedure will be.
So, perhaps you store already got the news.
I will say this. The woman at the second RS
store took down my phone number and said she
would personally call me later today to give me
all the details.
None of the Radio Shack stores in our area
know anything yet because there is a conference
call within the hour.
Let me explain...
Called another RS store in the area. Was told
that they don't know anything about iPhone preorders
tomorrow simply because they are all due for a
conference call within the hour from corporate to
discuss what the procedure will be.
So, perhaps you store already got the news.
I will say this. The woman at the second RS
store took down my phone number and said she
would personally call me later today to give me
all the details.
AppleKrate
Sep 19, 07:53 AM
... and actually getting any work done.
speaking of which...
speaking of which...
63dot
Apr 25, 02:21 PM
Prove it.
It may be hard to prove and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the mere appearance of the technology allowing the possibility to be tracked is enough for the feds to get something out of Apple.
It may be hard to prove and the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, but the mere appearance of the technology allowing the possibility to be tracked is enough for the feds to get something out of Apple.
spazzcat
Mar 22, 01:36 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Apples multitasking is way better they anything out there. On these devices battery rules all...
spicyapple
Nov 28, 07:08 PM
All the more reasons to boycott the buying of Zunes. Consumers need to vote with your wallets and send a message to companies like Universal who treat customers as pirates. Ugh.
mccldwll
Apr 27, 08:50 AM
No it's not.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Yes, it is. It's hardly tracking if distant towers are also logged. It's a minor issue. Logs need to be deleted after a short period of time. It will be done.
And I think MOST people aren't blowing anything out of proportion. Being concerned about tracking information/privacy issues is important. Most people (stop generalizing just because some on this board are) are NOT over-reacting but were calling for deeper investigation into the issue.
Yes, it is. It's hardly tracking if distant towers are also logged. It's a minor issue. Logs need to be deleted after a short period of time. It will be done.
HecubusPro
Aug 26, 06:05 PM
I'm not sure if this is old news, but I only had heard last week that the UK Dell site was listing (not selling) Core 2 Duo systems. When I heard about that, I checked the US site, but no Core 2 Duo computers were yet advertised there. Well, I checked again today, and Dell is starting to sell their Core 2 Duo desktops. I didn't see anything about estimated ship time.
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
It doesn't look like their notebooks are selling the new chips yet.
http://www.dell.com/content/products/results.aspx/desktops?c=us&l=en&s=dhs&cs=19&~ck=anav&a=23~0~98591&navla=23~0~98591
gorgeousninja
Apr 20, 05:54 AM
WRONG! They weren't invented at Apple's Cupertino HQ, they were invented back in Palo Alto (Xerox PARC).
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
Secondly, your source is a pro-Apple website. Thats a problem right there.
I'll give you a proper source, the NYTimes (http://www.nytimes.com/1989/12/20/business/xerox-vs-apple-standard-dashboard-is-at-issue.html), which wrote an article on Xerox vs Apple back in 1989, untarnished, in its raw form. Your 'source' was cherry picking data.
Here is one excerpt.
Then Apple CEO John Sculley stated:
^^ thats a GLARING admission, by the CEO of Apple, don't you think? Nevertheless, Xerox ended up losing that lawsuit, with some saying that by the time they filed that lawsuit it was too late. The lawsuit wasn't thrown out because they didn't have a strong case against Apple, but because of how the lawsuit was presented as is at the time.
I'm not saying that Apple stole IP from Xerox, but what I am saying is that its quite disappointing to see Apple fanboys trying to distort the past into making it seem as though Apple created the first GUI, when that is CLEARLY not the case. The GUI had its roots in Xerox PARC. That, is a FACT.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/78/Rank_Xerox_8010%2B40_brochure_front.jpg
You're really pushing this aren't you? So what exactly is your point that has a significant relevance to the main topic? ...None, that's what.
Just because 30 years ago Apple took an idea initially developed by Xerox, but then improved upon it and subsequently released to the mass market a product that most people acknowledge as being the first home computer, has absolutely no bearing on the fact that Samsung have blatantly copied Apple's design.
katyoshi
Apr 7, 01:18 AM
This is why I waited for them to update the C2D first before purchasing. I will be buying the top 13". :rolleyes:
Erasmus
Aug 27, 04:08 AM
Except they get pissed off if you give them ideas.
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
Or was that Nintendo?
Both, probably. Legalities.
OK, that's wierd. Who would get angry about having research into what the public wants done for them???
No wonder Nintendo sucks so much.
BTW, Congrats on ur 500 Posts!
swingerofbirch
Aug 26, 07:40 PM
I'm sure the GPU will also be bumped, at the very least. The MBP will probably also see some things that the MB has like a user-removable hard drive and magnetic latch. The CPU and GPU alone make it worth getting the new one, IMO.
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
Also, I'll say it one last time (yea right) - the imac should not and will not get a mobile processor. It only got Yonah because there was no alternative. It had a real desktop processor when one was available on the PPC side (G5), and it will have a real desktop processor now that one is available on the intel side (Conroe). Leave merom for what it was meant for - laptops.
I agree with you wholeheartedly.
But, I guess they COULD have put a pentium d in them...didnt they have dual cores?
boncellis
Jul 20, 12:17 PM
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but Kentsfield will not be appearing in any of the Pro machines for some time.
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
That makes a lot of sense, actually. I hadn't thought of it, but with a server class processor ostensibly powering the Mac Pro, it begs the question of what the servers will get as an upgrade.
The simple answer--next generation server chips, duh!
Apple will be using them exclusively in the Xserves, at for the most part of 2007. This will finally give Apple another way to distinguish their server line from their pro line.
That makes a lot of sense, actually. I hadn't thought of it, but with a server class processor ostensibly powering the Mac Pro, it begs the question of what the servers will get as an upgrade.
The simple answer--next generation server chips, duh!
archer75
Apr 5, 04:56 PM
I'm hoping for new imacs too. And mini's. I just got a promotion at work and approval from the wife to pretty much buy whatever mac I want. Except for the high end mac pro.
Merzie
Jun 8, 11:56 PM
edit: last launch.. whoops
wmmk
Aug 17, 09:37 AM
Won't Adobe use Core Image when the Universal Binaries come out? If both Quads had the same high powered graphics card, the benchmarks may show them to be the same with Core Image tasks.
doubt it. because having core image would mean a totally seperate windows version. developing 2 totally different codebases would take forever.
doubt it. because having core image would mean a totally seperate windows version. developing 2 totally different codebases would take forever.
shamino
Jul 22, 12:06 PM
I'm just curious about your post. Why would anyone in their right mind maintain a website for a product/company that no longer exists? Seems like a big waste of time and resources. I can see doing something similar for archival purposes, but that link leads to a complete website that has the appearance that it is still active.
I can think of several reasons. To sell service and support to users that have no other source, and has a hobby are the biggest two that come to mind.
You might be surprised to learn that there are still a lot of Amiga (http://www.amiga.com/)-enthusiast web sites, and even one where the owners are making new hardware (http://www.a2retrosystems.com/index.htm) for Apple-II series computers. (And there appears to be a surprisingly strong demand for Apple II Ethernet cards!)
I can think of several reasons. To sell service and support to users that have no other source, and has a hobby are the biggest two that come to mind.
You might be surprised to learn that there are still a lot of Amiga (http://www.amiga.com/)-enthusiast web sites, and even one where the owners are making new hardware (http://www.a2retrosystems.com/index.htm) for Apple-II series computers. (And there appears to be a surprisingly strong demand for Apple II Ethernet cards!)
Mattsasa
Apr 6, 03:07 PM
Not bad for a $800 dollar device, available for one carrier. I wonder what the numbers will look like after the late march wifi-only.
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
please tell me! what defines a functional tablet
At least 100k people know what its like to have a really FUNCTIONAL Tablet.
please tell me! what defines a functional tablet
SiliconAddict
Aug 6, 03:06 AM
I'm hoping for a major bombshell of an announcement when it comes to Leopard. I've said it before and I will say it again - the gap between Windows and OS X will narrow with Vista. Yes we are all aware that Vista in all likelihood is going to be just as buggy as 10.0 when it was released. But keep in mind that this will probably be the last version of OS X to be released for the next 18+ months. (When its all said and done its prob going to be close to 2 years with 10.4->10.5) That time frame is more then enough time for MS to release SP1 and SP2 which WILL happen once its released, the general public (a.k.a Beta testers.) get their hands on it, and MS starts getting those crash reports.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
Leopard needs to go up against MS's next generation and to be honest while 10.4 vs. XP is a non contest the same can't be said between 10.4 and Vista. That gap is narrowed. Apple needs to do something more then Expose, Spotlight, Dashboard, icon changes, and migrating more and more of their graphic subsystem onto the video card. All of those changes are good and worthy additions to OS X but it's incremental. It's Apple doing cleanup from the days of 10.0. It's Apple resting on their laurels. This simply can't happen anymore. The gap between Windows and OS X NEEDS to widen again. If it doesn't the "its good enough" mentality that many PC users have will only increase because like it or not Vista IS a major revamp of Windows under the hood. Yes a revamp with many key missing technologies but a revamp of the core OS nonetheless.
We need something that was as revolutionary as 9.x ->10.0. While I'm under no illusions that Apple isn't ready to revamp the entire GUI they HAVE to have been working on new stuff over the last 6 years. There has to be something that almost done baking in the bowels of Cupertino that can make it into 10.5.
PS- Please Apple; FTFF.
DoFoT9
Aug 17, 10:48 PM
I drive a Focus, so... no :D
:rolleyes: thats ok i drive a lancer ;)
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
im a Subie boy at heart. ill eventually get an STi and play around with it.
:rolleyes: thats ok i drive a lancer ;)
Most people will never be able to afford a ford GT, but most people would be able to save up and buy a WRX and put a little work into it (even if it does take a few years of saving extra money), so i just find it more fun to push a WRX to its limits instead of a GT.
im a Subie boy at heart. ill eventually get an STi and play around with it.
sparkleytone
Mar 26, 08:42 AM
The first time this thought crossed my mind was when I first used WriteRoom, to write a paper. Many seem to think (and Apple has intimated as much) that Full Screen Apps originated from iOS. I think this is wrong. I think Apple first thought about these with WriteRoom, which is why Pages was the first App to get the Full Screen treatment.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
Combining it with the new form of spaces is a genius move though.
The idea has definitely been around for a while, but it�s the details of the *implementation* that make it so refreshing. I love and use Spaces, but as it stands in SL it�s just not a feature for every user. Mission Control + Full-screen apps very much is.
Yet another unimpressive "major" update to an O/S that's showing it's age and irrelevance.
Yet another complaint post that shows its originator�s lack of knowledge regarding the subject being commented on.
Compared to the iDevice world, the computer side of Apple has ground to a halt.
Just�false.
Enough!! Combine MacOS and iOS already!!! The transition is so painfully slow, would someone else in tech get off their lazy ass and prod these guys to move a LITTLE quicker?!?
How is this possibly a good idea? Their shells are completely different because they�re targeted at completely different UI paradigms. The underpinnings are generally comparable already, but to argue that they need to be merged is just asinine.
bbruneau
Aug 7, 03:28 PM
Did anyone see the nifty link in the iCal page that is supposed to direct to calDAV standards page www.calconnect.org but insted linked to www.calconnect.com whicdh has a beautiful picture of a 1948 Chrysler? Didn't take them long to find that one.
Overall looks good, and I could really use the iCal sharing, but Spring? Come on!
Overall looks good, and I could really use the iCal sharing, but Spring? Come on!
Bill McEnaney
Mar 3, 10:05 AM
And I don't see the point in being sexually attracted to anyone of the opposite sex, but since society tells me it's "normal" I live with it nonetheless. It's all a matter of perception and experience. You have yours, I have mine and they're both normal to us.
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
Sure, different people have different experiences. That's partly why some people feel same-sex attractions and why others feel opposite-sex attractions. Macaroony doesn't see any point in opposite-sex attractions. I don't see any point in same-sex attractions. Here are two videos that explain what I believe about why some people feel same-sex attractions. I think the speaker works for NARTH.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rFAJXvxcGrk&feature=player_embedded
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UziWSdC8Zhw&feature=related
Pedophilia is immoral - no matter man or woman. Please do not put both homosexuality and pedophilia into the same boat. There are plenty of grown men who abuse underage girls, it's when they happen to be gay that elevates the problem and lazily ties it to homosexuality.
Just as no one chooses to feel same-sex attractions, no one chooses to be a pedophile. I know some pedophiles. But some pedophiles do choose to molest children. I don't want to conflate pedophilia and immoral actions that some pedophiles do because they're pedophiles.
Many people ignore the difference between homosexuality and homosexual acts. Many Christians insist that homosexuality is immoral. But homosexuality is a property, not an action. Nor is it a sin of omission. Homosexuality the property is morally indifferent. Homosexual acts are, I think, immoral. An action can be immoral, even if someone doesn't deserve any blame for doing it.
No, I shouldn't put homosexuality and pedophilia in the same boat. I mentioned the Catholic Church's homosexual-abuse because skunk seems to think my opinions about sexual morality are feelings, not beliefs that are either true or false. Even psychotherapists I've talked with have agreed that feelings are neither truths nor falsehoods. Feelings are neither of those, but there are truths about feelings and there are falsehoods about them. If I only feel that homosexual acts are immoral, should some government outlaw feeling that way?
The phrase "a fact" is ambiguous. It can mean "a truth." It can also mean "a set of actual set of circumstances." There are truths about feelings, and there are feelings about truths. But my feelings aren't truths. Even if moral relativism is true, there are still objective truths about whether some society or other considers some action morally acceptable. And some relativists still hold a self-inconsistent belief when they believe that since every belief is relative to some context or other, there's no such thing as absolute truth. In one sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true about every context. In that sense of the phrase "absolute truth," I imply a self-contradiction myself when I say that since every truth is relative to some context or other, I imply that it's an absolute truth that there's no absolute truth.
In another sense of the phrase "absolute truth," a truth is absolute when it's true whether anyone believes it or not. Even if I'm mistaken when I believe that homosexual sex is gravely immoral, it's still true that either they're moral or not moral.
Too often, people who feel same-sex attractions suffer needlessly partly because they, others, or both ignore important distinctions. Unfortunately, people often ignore them when their feelings determine too much of what those people believe.
Immoral behavior continues partly because of moral relativism. Instead of conforming our minds to reality, we try to conform reality to our minds. Moral relativists talk as though an action is moral if and only if someone believes that it's moral. Some moral relativists even insist that if you believe that homosexual acts are morally acceptable, and I believe they're immoral, then we're both right. A moral relativist might say the same about the morality or immorality of gay-bashing. But someone is right when he thinks that gay-bashing is morally right, should a court punish him for gay-bashing someone?
No comments:
Post a Comment