weitzner
Oct 27, 03:05 PM
i really feel that greenpeace is trying to use the fact that Apple is the "cool" tech company to get what they want done. for instance, if Apple is bad for the environment, we hippie college kids won't think they're as "cool." Apple loves us hippie college kids and doesn't want to lose us as customers, so they HAVE to be greener - greener than all other tech companies which are JUST AS BAD AS APPLE - then the other tech companies will have to follow suit, because that's the way it is. Apple got rid of CRT displays a while ago- dell still sells them, hp still sells them... they've got friggin lead in them! ALL lcd panels contain mercury.... i mean i don't really see greenpeace's point here. i mean, yeah, i'd like apple to be the greenest, that way i'd feel better about giving them my money. but they do take back old iPods, they do take back your old computer when you buy a Mac... it's not like they do nothing. i think greenpeace is doing a pretty dumb thing here- they should be lobbying governments to make these chemicals illegal to include in consumer electronics, not attempting to bully apple. just my thoughts on the matter.
iMikeT
Aug 28, 12:34 PM
Quiet upgrade tomorrow?
ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 02:35 AM
And yet, you sounded almost human when you posted about your grandparents and their cancer. Now we know otherwise.
nonameowns
Mar 29, 12:43 PM
thanks for the laugh!
early for april fools though
by 2015, wp7 doesn't exist.
early for april fools though
by 2015, wp7 doesn't exist.
TheManOfSilver
Sep 4, 08:01 PM
If you're like me, you don't have your Mac right next to your TV. Not only would I have to string a DVI/HDMI cable aaaall the way across the room, I would also have to get an equally long digital audio cable. Probably end up costing about the same as a video AirPort Express (if they keep the prices the same) but with the added hassle of getting those cables across the room.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
This would be a lot less expensive than buying a Mac mini, especially if you already have a powerful desktop just waiting to play some HD videos...
Exactly! I think other potential twists would include a video Airport Express with a built-in TV tuner (to stream tv content back to your iMac/Mac Pro for recording, or an optional built-in HD for local storage when you don't have your Mac on or something.
Yvan256
Sep 5, 06:05 PM
OK hear me out on this one - WHAT IF Apple, in all its wisdom and foresight, avoids the format war (Blu-ray vs HD-DVD) altogether by NOT using a physical format? [...] they do something GENIUS like sell DOWNLOADABLE HD movies on their iTunes store and release a stream-to-TV device!
That's been my point of view since day one. Some kind of hardware to connect between your computer(s) and your television and you get your movies from the iTMS (iTunes Media Store).
The only thing that I'd like to see (and I'm sure I won't) is rentals. I wouldn't mind downloading 480p movies for rentals, either. It lowers the bandwidth costs, the download time, etc.
Will the "box" be an Airport Xpress (or something) or a special version of Mac mini (super-low cost, no hard drive, no optical drive, 512MB soldered on-board, not upgradable).
That's been my point of view since day one. Some kind of hardware to connect between your computer(s) and your television and you get your movies from the iTMS (iTunes Media Store).
The only thing that I'd like to see (and I'm sure I won't) is rentals. I wouldn't mind downloading 480p movies for rentals, either. It lowers the bandwidth costs, the download time, etc.
Will the "box" be an Airport Xpress (or something) or a special version of Mac mini (super-low cost, no hard drive, no optical drive, 512MB soldered on-board, not upgradable).
mohaukachi
Sep 14, 01:29 AM
so who else thinks this looks just like the chocolate?
http://www.dagadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/lg_kg800.jpg
http://www.dagadgets.com/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/lg_kg800.jpg
Spyriadon
Apr 30, 01:29 PM
Also the obligatory:
OMG A MAC RUMOR.
-snigger-
OMG A MAC RUMOR.
-snigger-
Vegasman
Mar 30, 01:29 PM
It looks descriptive to you because there is an App Store for your Mac and there is an App Store for the iPhone, iPod Touch, and iPad. If Apple hadn't invented the term "App Store" and used it for its super successful site, you would never have heard the term, and you wouldn't know what it means.
Uh!? Anytime someone tells me there is a YYYY store, my first reaction is that it is a store that sells YYYY's. It is no different with an app store.
What would one buy at a record store?
What would one buy at a grocery store?
What would one buy at a paint store?
What would one buy at an app store?
Uh!? Anytime someone tells me there is a YYYY store, my first reaction is that it is a store that sells YYYY's. It is no different with an app store.
What would one buy at a record store?
What would one buy at a grocery store?
What would one buy at a paint store?
What would one buy at an app store?
MagnusVonMagnum
Apr 12, 03:52 PM
I'm confused... What will this give us in XBMC that we don't already have? Since I'm assuming you're running XBMC on Apple TV2, Airplay already works just fine...
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
Airplay and Airtunes are two different things AFAIK. I was under the impression that AUDIO was routed ONLY through AirTUNES and that AirPLAY was purely the VIDEO portion of the stream. Thus, you could stream a video to XBMC from an iPad, but you would get no audio and/or music could not be streamed with it. At least this was the jist I got from a thread on the matter when Airplay functionality was first added. Cracking the Airtunes key would enable XBMC to be seen from within iTunes as a full fledged audio device and thus you could output audio to it and other speakers at the same time, etc. and control it all from "REMOTE" on an iOS device.
Come to think of it, I see the thread title is "AirPLAY Private Key Exposed". So either that is a misprint or this thread is terribly out of date. AirPLAY has been known for quite a long time and it has NOTHING to do with an Airport Express, which is only AirTUNES so I'm assuming they mean the Airtunes key has been exposed (Airplay was not encrypted to my knowledge, only Airtunes). AppleTV Gen1 only has AirTunes, not AirPlay, for example as does Airport Express.
Hi
Not simultaneous control like AirTunes. You can stream to multiple computers, but it will need to be controlled separately -- as far as I know.
I can't think of a good reason to stream strictly audio to multiple computers, even if each is connected to speakers. Seems very clumsy to me, and you'd be better off getting an Airport Express ($69 refurbished (http://store.apple.com/us/product/FB321LL/A?mco=MTY3ODQ5OTY)) for each speaker system or getting AirPlay-supported speakers.
Why would you want to buy another device and/or set of speakers for a given room if it already has a good set of speakers connected to a computer, especially if that computer is already turned on? You'd need switching of some kind (e.g. receiver) to even use the same speakers with another device and it would just be a waste of money (unless you never plan to have that computer turned on and/or that is not the main speakers in that room). For example, my whole house audio/video server is on 24/7 and has Klipsch THX speakers connected to it. Why on earth would I want an Airport Express in that room, especially when it's normally the computer that is spooling out the iTunes information to begin with?
It makes me grin a little when I see posts like in this thread posted by people who obviously have no shortage of money (with their multiple mac systems) and yet dont want to hand over a little money for something thats been out for 5 years and makes the audio elements of airplay completely redundant.
Sonos. Easier, way better quality, more options, fully upgradeable, completely unrestrictive. And it just works.
For videophiles get a popcorn hour, 1080p streaming goodness which plays formats Apple TV can only dream of.
To host the content (if you dont want to buy an internal hard drive for Popcorn Hour) a simple NAS.
- Sonos is not "way better quality" (AppleTV2 output is DIGITAL and so the "quality" depends entirely on the stereo you connect it to. So sorry but you have no point there.
- It may not be better quality, but it IS "way more expensive". AppleTV2 costs $99 (same price as an Airport Express which is "audio only" like Sonos). Sonos OTOH costs $349 for a basic receiver which then still requires to either be connected directly to a router (wired) OR you have to pay ANOTHER $99 for a "bridge" to send a separate wireless signal off your router just for Sonos devices (waste of bandwidth and clutters the band with more wireless signals instead of just using your existing wireless router, which most people already have (how many used a wired only router and if you did you cannot use the Sonos wireless for anything else). So already you are at LEAST $450 in the hole for a single room with Sonos and you have ONLY AUDIO capability.
-But then I would be forgetting you need a SOURCE of music. You tout the use of an NAS, but most NAS devices aren't exactly cheap or anything. For all intensive purposes they are a just a headless computer and most run Linux. AppleTV2 is out of the box a PITA if you don't want to leave a computer on, but you can put XBMC on it which will use any NAS or networked source. You then have the same functionality as Sonos BUT you also have full video capability. You could instead get a cheap Netbook for $250 (cheaper than most NAS devices) and connect a hard drive to that and run iTunes and the full Apple interface if you'd like and still have XBMC available as well. Personally, I just use an old PPC G4 PowerMac as a server and 24/7 Internet terminal. Intel machines can also be set to Wake On Lan, so you can have your machine sleep while AppleTV is not in use. In short, NAS isn't as great as you make it sound (most are also dog slow compared to a real computer) and there are alternative options even with Apple software like a cheap Netbook as a server.
-Now I come to the heart of the matter...VIDEO. You suggest a Popcorn Hour in ADDITION to the already out of this world priced Sonos system. They start at $179 and go up to $299. That brings your total minimum price for a wireless system for a single room to $629 AND you have to switch between two separate devices to listen to audio and/or watch videos. With AppleTV you have all your movies, tv shows, photos, music, music videos, YouTube and Internet Radio (plus the options of XBMC with a quick hack including non-Apple formats) and your TOTAL COST for **one** room wireless using an existing wireless router is $99. $629 versus $99...Hmmmmmm. And then there's the matter of Popcorn Hour's crappy interface versus Apple's polished one. XBMC makes Popcorn Hour look bad as well. Bugs or popcorn? :confused:
So for the price of your ONE room audio and video, I could have SIX rooms using AppleTV2 with both video and audio and still have $29 to spare. With XBMC installed, it can play any format (just like Popcorn Hour). With the Apple interface running, it can sync audio to all rooms or play independently (just like Sonos). And it all can be controlled by an iOS device as well or programmed to accept the signals from any IR remote out there with extra buttons available.
Using ONE device (AppleTV), I have menu access to ALL my media collection without even having to switch the input on the receiver. I can play slide shows to my music collection and watch my entire video library (including VHS/Laserdisc/DVD/Blu-Ray conversions) and rent HD movies at the push of a button (Netflix is available on ATV2 as well).
I see ZERO advantage to Sonos and it costs a LOT more (what restrictions are you referring to with ATV? iTunes handles WAV, AAC, MP3 and Apple Lossless and seamlessly plays DTS music CDs that have been dumped). 3rd party formats like Flac are easily converted or they can be played in XBMC. Popcorn Hour's only advantage (once you figure XBMC into the fold) is that it can output in 1080p (ATV2 downconverts the final output to 720p at the moment, although my Gen1 ATV can play 1080p with XBMC using the Linux OS install and a cheap Crystal card in the one room where it matters here with a 93" screen).
In other words, I need lack nothing here at a fraction of the price and way better integration than your solution.
scoobydoo99
Apr 20, 02:09 PM
You have no proof of this.
I'm sure they do... but for the most part they just subpoena the telecom provider for whatever records they require.
lol. they don't even have to subpoena these days. just ask nicely and the companies simply hand over anything they want (all in the name of being good patriots.) Of course, sometimes they charge the government for it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
I'm sure they do... but for the most part they just subpoena the telecom provider for whatever records they require.
lol. they don't even have to subpoena these days. just ask nicely and the companies simply hand over anything they want (all in the name of being good patriots.) Of course, sometimes they charge the government for it:
http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2006-05-10-nsa_x.htm
absurdio
Oct 12, 08:06 PM
Ultimately: who cares?
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
Bono still sucks, U2 has always sucked, and, much as i like a) the color of the new iPod and b) fighting AIDS, Apple's weird extended relationship with Bono makes very little sense to me.
P.S. Damn, Bono sucks.
woodbine
May 3, 10:14 AM
macpro dead in 2 years...my prediction:mad:
Bubba Satori
Mar 29, 03:24 PM
Wow, the natives are restless. IDC are just haters.
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1362599_02bcdea730.jpg
http://farm1.static.flickr.com/2/1362599_02bcdea730.jpg
cwt1nospam
Dec 31, 10:23 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
No, it doesn't. The only way your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is vulnerable to these things is if YOU jailbreak it. Even then, the number of jail broken IOS devices is and will remain too small a target to go after. This is why Apple has a walled garden, and why the Android model is destined to follow the PC down the virus/botnet hell hole. It's also why AV vendors would prefer that you bought Android or Windows mobile.
No, it doesn't. The only way your iPhone/iPad/iPod Touch is vulnerable to these things is if YOU jailbreak it. Even then, the number of jail broken IOS devices is and will remain too small a target to go after. This is why Apple has a walled garden, and why the Android model is destined to follow the PC down the virus/botnet hell hole. It's also why AV vendors would prefer that you bought Android or Windows mobile.
cmaier
Nov 14, 10:16 AM
I'm just a regular iPhone user...not a developer. I just want my phone work. And I want the apps to be fully vetted and tested before they are available for download. RA's action doesn't make me dislike the iPhone, Mac computers, or Apple. In fact, quite the opposite. It makes RA look childish. I say...good riddance. Oh, and I'm also now less likely to purchase other software from RA. Just sayin'
Then you're missing out. RA is a very highly regarded Mac developer.
And apple's actions here don't improve quality - they reduce it,
Then you're missing out. RA is a very highly regarded Mac developer.
And apple's actions here don't improve quality - they reduce it,
mozmac
Sep 14, 08:33 AM
Apple has been stockpiling TONS of great products for the past six months and now we are going to see a barrage of releases. I for one welcome said releases. I really hope they bring out the MBPs.
MacinDoc
Sep 9, 11:42 AM
http://www.tgdaily.com/2006/09/09/preview_kentsfield_processor/
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.
...
Kentsfield, which industry sources refer to as "Core 2 Quadro," arrived as a 2.67 GHz version with a 266 MHz/1066 MHz FSB. The test engineers were able to adjust the FSB to 1333 MHz - which is still supported by the 975X chipset - and overclock the CPU by about 25%. The benchmarks were conducted with clock speeds ranging from 2.0 GHz to 3.33 GHz.
Kentsfield easily shattered previous benchmarks records and highlighted its horsepower especially in threaded applications such as audio and video processing.
That should put to rest the ridiculous arguments that Apple made a mistake in making the transition to Intel.
Tom's Hardware benchmarks Intel's first quad-core "Kentsfield"
Culver City (CA) - Intel's first quad-core processor "Kentsfield" has found its way into the Tom's Hardware test lab. Several weeks before Intel will provide evaluation processors to the press, Tom's Hardware was able to obtain a qualification sample: The quad-core was sent through the entire test parcours and showed impressive performance.
...
Kentsfield, which industry sources refer to as "Core 2 Quadro," arrived as a 2.67 GHz version with a 266 MHz/1066 MHz FSB. The test engineers were able to adjust the FSB to 1333 MHz - which is still supported by the 975X chipset - and overclock the CPU by about 25%. The benchmarks were conducted with clock speeds ranging from 2.0 GHz to 3.33 GHz.
Kentsfield easily shattered previous benchmarks records and highlighted its horsepower especially in threaded applications such as audio and video processing.
That should put to rest the ridiculous arguments that Apple made a mistake in making the transition to Intel.
kavika411
Apr 20, 10:54 AM
Apple does not care about us, they just enjoy us lining their pockets full of cash. They get us hooked on using their products and we go and buy more and more of them. They just enjoy getting our money, like any business.
Alright. Let's go about it this way, using your own terminology.
How has Apple had success "lining their pockets full of cash."
How has Apple gotten us "hooked on using their products."
Are you suggesting they borrowed Harry Potter's wand and tranced us into purchases, held guns to our heads, or imposed government regulations requiring the purchase of iPod Nanos?
Or - what I believe to be more likely - are you just blathering, "I don't like corporations, and I happen to be on an Apple message board"?
Alright. Let's go about it this way, using your own terminology.
How has Apple had success "lining their pockets full of cash."
How has Apple gotten us "hooked on using their products."
Are you suggesting they borrowed Harry Potter's wand and tranced us into purchases, held guns to our heads, or imposed government regulations requiring the purchase of iPod Nanos?
Or - what I believe to be more likely - are you just blathering, "I don't like corporations, and I happen to be on an Apple message board"?
Moyank24
Apr 4, 11:53 AM
As others have said, it looks like it was more than a simple smash and grab...the suspects appear to have been armed. I'm sure as the day goes by we'll get more of an idea of what happened.
From the article:
Two men and woman apparently did a "smash and grab," in which glass doors and windows are broken and merchandise is grabbed quickly, CVPD Capt. Gary Facicci said.
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a vehicle that crashed while still inside the shopping mall, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. Reports from the scene indicate he had been shot in the head.
The getaway vehicle crashed into a wall at the mall.
The second male suspect and female were arrested at the scene, Facicci said. Both were described as being in their mid-20s.
From the article:
Two men and woman apparently did a "smash and grab," in which glass doors and windows are broken and merchandise is grabbed quickly, CVPD Capt. Gary Facicci said.
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
The male suspects and their alleged female accomplice then got into a vehicle that crashed while still inside the shopping mall, Facicci said, noting that one of the men was driving and he died in the crash. Reports from the scene indicate he had been shot in the head.
The getaway vehicle crashed into a wall at the mall.
The second male suspect and female were arrested at the scene, Facicci said. Both were described as being in their mid-20s.
aurichie
Apr 22, 05:44 AM
Useless to me if it is just for iTunes purchases. Please focus on more important things, Apple.
Given iTunes is the world's biggest music store, I think their new service will be quite useful to a lot of people. It's not difficult to imagine the kinds of people who would benefit from having their iTunes purchases backed up to the cloud automatically.
I just hope Steve Jobs doesn't wake up this morning and realise his new idea is useless to caspersoong and kill the project. :(
Given iTunes is the world's biggest music store, I think their new service will be quite useful to a lot of people. It's not difficult to imagine the kinds of people who would benefit from having their iTunes purchases backed up to the cloud automatically.
I just hope Steve Jobs doesn't wake up this morning and realise his new idea is useless to caspersoong and kill the project. :(
oTaRu
Apr 25, 02:10 PM
Are they going to launch it soon? June/July period?
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
I doubt it as they had just refresh their MBPs not long ago...
marshallbedsaul
Jan 18, 11:26 PM
Made a correction to the headline. It should be:
McAfee faces obsolescence with increasing Apple popularity.
;)
lol I laughed and my co-workers looked at me funny
back to spread sheets how funny can they be huh
McAfee faces obsolescence with increasing Apple popularity.
;)
lol I laughed and my co-workers looked at me funny
back to spread sheets how funny can they be huh
vwcruisn
Mar 23, 07:21 PM
You're telling me drunk driving is on the same level as eating or talking on a cell phone?
Yes.
The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.
Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html#ixzz1HTJlDgSO
Yes.
The study, published in the June 29 issue of Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, found that drivers talking on cell phones, either handheld or hands-free, are more likely to crash because they are distracted by conversation.
Using a driving simulator under four different conditions: with no distractions, using a handheld cell phone, talking on a hands-free cell phone, and while intoxicated to the 0.08 percent blood-alcohol level, 40 participants followed a simulated pace car that braked intermittently.
Researchers found that the drivers on cell phones drove more slowly, braked more slowly and were more likely to crash. In fact, the three participants who collided into the pace car were chatting away. None of the drunken drivers crashed.
Read more: http://news.cnet.com/8301-10784_3-6090342-7.html#ixzz1HTJlDgSO
0 comments:
Post a Comment