vincenz
Apr 6, 09:43 PM
Come on...update MobileMe already...
liamkp
Jul 10, 01:46 PM
Was wondering if you can use 2 bluetooth headsets at the same time.
I dont think so.
I dont think so.
wattso
Jan 10, 11:10 AM
Does anybody know the name of the song from the new ipod advert that was shown? Thanks
steviem
Apr 6, 04:40 PM
I tried the Toy Camera effect for this photo, unfortunately it showed up some water marks on my 50mm lens at the time of taking the photo. I retouched them, but it means I think some photos from August/September have these blemishes...
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5595865945_3dbc9fd348_b.jpg
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5185/5595865945_3dbc9fd348_b.jpg
more...
Heijtink
Apr 6, 01:52 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
It'll take you little over 111 days to download it's entire capacity via Thunderbolt.
It'll take you little over 111 days to download it's entire capacity via Thunderbolt.
iPhone1
Sep 4, 10:14 AM
I actually do like the new iTunes logo. Wondering if they will change it in iOS as well.
more...
macse30
Apr 20, 03:12 PM
How do they track individual users to know that one person owns multiple devices?
Marginalization of iOS!? That's some funny stuff. One company has more market share than all others combined and you talk marginalization. Full of hot air.
Marginalization of iOS!? That's some funny stuff. One company has more market share than all others combined and you talk marginalization. Full of hot air.
interlaced
Oct 31, 12:08 PM
Ahahahahahah. WOW. Between the confusion of 2GB Shuffles, Chundles's engraving suggestions and Snowy_River's picture, this thread has officially made my day.
more...
Tulipone
Apr 27, 06:27 PM
The fact the we post on a forum or add some rubbish to Twitter or Facebook means that we have lost anonymity on the internet - but those actions are (hopefully) made with some thought to security settings.
The thing that irks me is that I appear to have left a trace / was tracked in a different country as i deliberately turned 'Aircraft mode' on to save roaming charges and only used the video camera on my iPhone whilst there.
I now know that despite 'disabling' wifi and gprs, there was a conversation with cell masts. Does it really matter? Not really - the country I visited wanted to know who I was in advance and scanned my passport on entry. Uk also knew that I had left the country.
I guess I am guilty as anyone NOT reading the EULA as properly as I should have done, but thought that I would have had assurance the the option could be disabled. That option did not work and now I wonder if the text Apple has left IS accurate. Do they track data and return it to Apple for some reason?
The thing that irks me is that I appear to have left a trace / was tracked in a different country as i deliberately turned 'Aircraft mode' on to save roaming charges and only used the video camera on my iPhone whilst there.
I now know that despite 'disabling' wifi and gprs, there was a conversation with cell masts. Does it really matter? Not really - the country I visited wanted to know who I was in advance and scanned my passport on entry. Uk also knew that I had left the country.
I guess I am guilty as anyone NOT reading the EULA as properly as I should have done, but thought that I would have had assurance the the option could be disabled. That option did not work and now I wonder if the text Apple has left IS accurate. Do they track data and return it to Apple for some reason?
wrldwzrd89
Feb 18, 06:22 AM
I was just fooling around with GarageBand, and whipped up these 4 songs. 2 of them I've used in games I've created.
Battle (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle.mp3)
Battle 2 (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle_2.mp3)
Polyphonizer (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Polyphonizer.mp3)
Testing (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Testing.mp3)
Of the 4, Polyphonizer is my favorite. It got its name from the fact that it relies on mass polyphony to keep listeners' interest.
Battle (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle.mp3)
Battle 2 (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Battle_2.mp3)
Polyphonizer (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Polyphonizer.mp3)
Testing (http://www.worldwizard.net/songs/Testing.mp3)
Of the 4, Polyphonizer is my favorite. It got its name from the fact that it relies on mass polyphony to keep listeners' interest.
more...
Winni
Dec 21, 08:06 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ...
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
djgamble
Apr 27, 04:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-gb) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
if they are not tracking people then why have the feature? maybe the information is for someone else??... who knows but one thing is for sure its an invasion of privacy..... even if I do stay home all day and night.
How? That's like saying that Adium reads your chat transcripts because they are saved locally...
if they are not tracking people then why have the feature? maybe the information is for someone else??... who knows but one thing is for sure its an invasion of privacy..... even if I do stay home all day and night.
How? That's like saying that Adium reads your chat transcripts because they are saved locally...
more...
likemyorbs
May 5, 10:42 AM
That doesn't make it right. Retribution, revenge, anger, fear etc are not good emotions. Try to overcome these basic desires.
I overheard someone on the bus say something like this-
"So Bin Laden committed an awful crime, no denying that. But in response the US imprisoned people without trial for years in Gitmo, tortured some of them for information, then shot Bin Laden when he was unarmed. They both seem pretty bad to me."
I can see where this view comes from. Many times I've heard Americans complain that Europeans "look down their noses at them" and "maybe they would understand when planes fly into some of their buildings". However, when the US response to a disaster is detention and torture what do you expect? The US has lost the moral high ground, and these human rights violations only serve to encourage more people to fight against the US.
It times of difficulty many governments bend the rules, and it is how the courts and the public respond that matters. In the UK we detained some people, but they started a court case and won. We had a report of MI6 feeding questions to Moroccan security forces to get them to get information out of someone. However, MI6 was tripping over itself to say they don't condone torture and the courts constantly ruled more information on the subject should be released.
Detention without trial and torture are the methods used by dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, and the world will always look down on the US government so long as they are used.
Guess the world will just have to look down on us then. The US actually has a pair of balls, and we do what we need to do, unlike Europe who's militaries are a joke. Shooting bin laden while he was unarmed?? Seriously?? Who gives a crap? That's like being against shooting hitler while he was unarmed. Of course your solution would be to put him in jail for the rest of his life, but that doesn't fly here. Again, we are not europe and never will be, thankfully. You guys could look your noses down at us, but don't forget who's going to be there protecting your asses when you get into a war with an arab country (and that is possible, remember they don't like you either, and you're an easier target than us). I'm sorry, but their needs to be at least one nation that does what we do, and i'm glad we do it.
Still too squeamish to call it torture? The fundamental difference between terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes on the one hand, and the civilized world on the other, is the latter's unwillingness to have recourse to violence. Policies of torture are unbecoming of a nation of people who purport to uphold the US constitution, regardless of the extreme methods adopted by our enemies. Once we sink to their level, we lose all our moral superiority and become victims of our own hate and fear as much as victims of the machinations of our opponents.
Nope, not too squeamish just going by the thread title. It's torture, there you happy? Again, we are not europe. So europe doesn't torture and where has that gotten them? They still get attacked by terrorists, even sweden, go figure. Moral superiority or not, safety of our nation and other western nations is more important. If torture is needed to get that information and save thousands of lives, then we should do it. Someone has to do the dirty work, and it's always us. But that's ok, that's how it's always been and it's why we're such a proud nation.
I overheard someone on the bus say something like this-
"So Bin Laden committed an awful crime, no denying that. But in response the US imprisoned people without trial for years in Gitmo, tortured some of them for information, then shot Bin Laden when he was unarmed. They both seem pretty bad to me."
I can see where this view comes from. Many times I've heard Americans complain that Europeans "look down their noses at them" and "maybe they would understand when planes fly into some of their buildings". However, when the US response to a disaster is detention and torture what do you expect? The US has lost the moral high ground, and these human rights violations only serve to encourage more people to fight against the US.
It times of difficulty many governments bend the rules, and it is how the courts and the public respond that matters. In the UK we detained some people, but they started a court case and won. We had a report of MI6 feeding questions to Moroccan security forces to get them to get information out of someone. However, MI6 was tripping over itself to say they don't condone torture and the courts constantly ruled more information on the subject should be released.
Detention without trial and torture are the methods used by dictatorships and authoritarian regimes, and the world will always look down on the US government so long as they are used.
Guess the world will just have to look down on us then. The US actually has a pair of balls, and we do what we need to do, unlike Europe who's militaries are a joke. Shooting bin laden while he was unarmed?? Seriously?? Who gives a crap? That's like being against shooting hitler while he was unarmed. Of course your solution would be to put him in jail for the rest of his life, but that doesn't fly here. Again, we are not europe and never will be, thankfully. You guys could look your noses down at us, but don't forget who's going to be there protecting your asses when you get into a war with an arab country (and that is possible, remember they don't like you either, and you're an easier target than us). I'm sorry, but their needs to be at least one nation that does what we do, and i'm glad we do it.
Still too squeamish to call it torture? The fundamental difference between terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes on the one hand, and the civilized world on the other, is the latter's unwillingness to have recourse to violence. Policies of torture are unbecoming of a nation of people who purport to uphold the US constitution, regardless of the extreme methods adopted by our enemies. Once we sink to their level, we lose all our moral superiority and become victims of our own hate and fear as much as victims of the machinations of our opponents.
Nope, not too squeamish just going by the thread title. It's torture, there you happy? Again, we are not europe. So europe doesn't torture and where has that gotten them? They still get attacked by terrorists, even sweden, go figure. Moral superiority or not, safety of our nation and other western nations is more important. If torture is needed to get that information and save thousands of lives, then we should do it. Someone has to do the dirty work, and it's always us. But that's ok, that's how it's always been and it's why we're such a proud nation.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 19, 11:28 PM
^^^ Really? I think as usual it looks like a booring American car....
Eh, normally I would agree with you, but I can't deny Chevy this one. It is a good looking car, imo. Like Quagmire was saying, in the "Normal" family sedan market, bland and boring is par for the course. This new Malibu, at least on its exterior and interior looks, seems to be a nice change from that norm.
Eh, normally I would agree with you, but I can't deny Chevy this one. It is a good looking car, imo. Like Quagmire was saying, in the "Normal" family sedan market, bland and boring is par for the course. This new Malibu, at least on its exterior and interior looks, seems to be a nice change from that norm.
more...
jdminpdx
Mar 8, 11:28 AM
You missed a 27 page thread of non stop flaming. It was quite a good read.
Lord Blackadder
Jan 10, 05:55 PM
The car market here just plain sucks. There are not many useful models available. Mostly gas guzzling garbage or expensive luxury trash SUV's. Well each people gets the cars that they deserve..........
I'm not a one-dimensional eco-freak, but I would like to see more economical cars on the road. A couple years ago I was in the market for a used car and was shopping for either a Golf TDI or Golf 1.8 T. Very different engines, but both gave something - in one case good economy, in the other case good performance. I ended up being unable to find either and got a Subaru Forester.
I'm still hoping Subaru make good on their original promise of bringing the diesel over to the US.
Still, some of the new small cars coming to the US are promising.
I'm not a one-dimensional eco-freak, but I would like to see more economical cars on the road. A couple years ago I was in the market for a used car and was shopping for either a Golf TDI or Golf 1.8 T. Very different engines, but both gave something - in one case good economy, in the other case good performance. I ended up being unable to find either and got a Subaru Forester.
I'm still hoping Subaru make good on their original promise of bringing the diesel over to the US.
Still, some of the new small cars coming to the US are promising.
more...
dmmcintyre3
Aug 7, 09:20 PM
http://fang.stxt.tk/junk/imgs/Cats%20-%20173.jpg
ann713
Feb 16, 03:39 AM
No ass and ugly legs? Terrible! :(
Wow, really? Thank goodness the majority of men are not this douchey.
Wow, really? Thank goodness the majority of men are not this douchey.
vvebster
Feb 2, 12:57 PM
I would really like a link :) ?
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/2444/pier_house.html
Best site to get photography/wallpapers :) enjoy
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/2444/pier_house.html
Best site to get photography/wallpapers :) enjoy
YesThatGuy
Oct 13, 01:48 AM
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4091/5042749956_62796feb33_o.png
original?
original?
YS2003
Oct 1, 12:52 PM
Like many other mid-sized and large companies, my current company also uses Lotus Notes. One of the features I like about Notes is address search. I can partially type in the name of my colleague and Notes retrieves the rest of the name (without me creating the address book). It gets awefully slow after the local server (meaning, the notebook's internal HD) reaches 1 GB data (for email); So, I had to create new local every 1 GB.
The Mac support for Notes would be good as that might open up a possibility my current employer's IT department might allow MBP for a company-issued notebook. As of now, it is all Dell.
Now that Notes will become more Mac friendly, the only other obstacle would be using AS400 database via Ramba.
The Mac support for Notes would be good as that might open up a possibility my current employer's IT department might allow MBP for a company-issued notebook. As of now, it is all Dell.
Now that Notes will become more Mac friendly, the only other obstacle would be using AS400 database via Ramba.
Lord Blackadder
May 5, 02:11 AM
I want retribution, so do most americans.
We have a right to defend ourselves. But revenge is not self-defense. We had a right to pursue bin Laden in order to bring him to justice, but the way we went about doing it reaped a sickening harvest of death, destruction and loss of international credibility all out of proportion to even bin Laden's value as a target. Al Qaeda was designed to function without a head, and bin Laden was a willing martyr. Some retribution.
The real reason for the celebrations over his death is a perceived saving of face and rationalization of all the money and human flesh expended in the effort. You can take bin Laden's corpse; I'll take the trillion plus dollars and ten thousand American (and unnumbered Iraq/Afghan etc.) lives back, given the choice.
As for enhanced interrogation, go for it. Skunk, i know you want the best for the world and im sure you're good intentioned, but many of your views are simply unrealistic. The world isn't that rosey.
Still too squeamish to call it torture? The fundamental difference between terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes on the one hand, and the civilized world on the other, is the latter's unwillingness to have recourse to violence. Policies of torture are unbecoming of a nation of people who purport to uphold the US constitution, regardless of the extreme methods adopted by our enemies. Once we sink to their level, we lose all our moral superiority and become victims of our own hate and fear as much as victims of the machinations of our opponents.
We have a right to defend ourselves. But revenge is not self-defense. We had a right to pursue bin Laden in order to bring him to justice, but the way we went about doing it reaped a sickening harvest of death, destruction and loss of international credibility all out of proportion to even bin Laden's value as a target. Al Qaeda was designed to function without a head, and bin Laden was a willing martyr. Some retribution.
The real reason for the celebrations over his death is a perceived saving of face and rationalization of all the money and human flesh expended in the effort. You can take bin Laden's corpse; I'll take the trillion plus dollars and ten thousand American (and unnumbered Iraq/Afghan etc.) lives back, given the choice.
As for enhanced interrogation, go for it. Skunk, i know you want the best for the world and im sure you're good intentioned, but many of your views are simply unrealistic. The world isn't that rosey.
Still too squeamish to call it torture? The fundamental difference between terrorist organizations and authoritarian regimes on the one hand, and the civilized world on the other, is the latter's unwillingness to have recourse to violence. Policies of torture are unbecoming of a nation of people who purport to uphold the US constitution, regardless of the extreme methods adopted by our enemies. Once we sink to their level, we lose all our moral superiority and become victims of our own hate and fear as much as victims of the machinations of our opponents.
AP_piano295
May 6, 10:33 AM
Your thinking seems to contradict yourself back and forth.
Are you really saying that because Japan had limited natural resources it was justified in seizing Korea, invading Manchuria, invading China, attacking the Soviets, invading Indonesia, and attacking any country that decided not to resupply Japan's war machine?
I'd say you're totally wrong in trying to justify Japan's war of expansion
My thinking is that war is bloody stupid exactly 100% of the time. It only happens because humans display a shockingly small amount of psychological development between the age of 5 and 45.
Of course my opinions don't count, the world's opinions are what actually matter. And historically speaking the "world" has no problem with war, in fact we seem pretty into it.
So according to the world's opinion I see nothing wrong with what Japan did. They wanted stuff they started a war, we threatened their war effort they started a war with us.
In terms of national politics I see nothing particularly wrong with that. In terms of being a human being I find it enormously disgusting.
Are you really saying that because Japan had limited natural resources it was justified in seizing Korea, invading Manchuria, invading China, attacking the Soviets, invading Indonesia, and attacking any country that decided not to resupply Japan's war machine?
I'd say you're totally wrong in trying to justify Japan's war of expansion
My thinking is that war is bloody stupid exactly 100% of the time. It only happens because humans display a shockingly small amount of psychological development between the age of 5 and 45.
Of course my opinions don't count, the world's opinions are what actually matter. And historically speaking the "world" has no problem with war, in fact we seem pretty into it.
So according to the world's opinion I see nothing wrong with what Japan did. They wanted stuff they started a war, we threatened their war effort they started a war with us.
In terms of national politics I see nothing particularly wrong with that. In terms of being a human being I find it enormously disgusting.
reubs
Oct 13, 07:45 AM
That makes me sick.
What makes you sick about it?
What makes you sick about it?
0 comments:
Post a Comment