szsiddiq
Nov 8, 09:33 AM
I have a 12" PowerBook and when I saw the new 13" MacBook, there is no comparison, Why are people waiting for a 12" ? Have you even seen the 13"?
it's a widescreen unlike the PB12... keep waiting, but it is not going to happen.
Anyhow, I have been waiting awhile for this upgrade, the store has been offline forever!!! Hurry apple.. My wallet is itching for one in black!!!
wahoooooo
i agree that there'll never be a 12" again, considering they've all gone widescreen. and as everyone noted, the 13" looks sweet, but its just not as portable. the wideness of it makes it more akward to hold than the 12" powerbook. im hoping they do release a 10" widescreen MBP next year. they'll definatly be stealing some Vaio engineers for that gig tho.
it's a widescreen unlike the PB12... keep waiting, but it is not going to happen.
Anyhow, I have been waiting awhile for this upgrade, the store has been offline forever!!! Hurry apple.. My wallet is itching for one in black!!!
wahoooooo
i agree that there'll never be a 12" again, considering they've all gone widescreen. and as everyone noted, the 13" looks sweet, but its just not as portable. the wideness of it makes it more akward to hold than the 12" powerbook. im hoping they do release a 10" widescreen MBP next year. they'll definatly be stealing some Vaio engineers for that gig tho.
Pegamush
May 5, 05:19 AM
ok that seems nice, but..
where's the bluetooth syncing?
it's four years people were asking for bluetooth syncing...
what's the problem with it? i don't want to unplug the cable from behind the bed, plug it to the computer just to upload my calendar, music, contacts.
..oh, ok, i've got it. maybe they just want me to subscribe to mobileMe.
i'm sick of castrated technology, i'd like to use them at their full possibilities.
where's the bluetooth syncing?
it's four years people were asking for bluetooth syncing...
what's the problem with it? i don't want to unplug the cable from behind the bed, plug it to the computer just to upload my calendar, music, contacts.
..oh, ok, i've got it. maybe they just want me to subscribe to mobileMe.
i'm sick of castrated technology, i'd like to use them at their full possibilities.
AaronMT
Oct 11, 07:53 PM
http://aaronmt.com/misc/macsetup.jpg
Warbrain
Mar 28, 08:42 PM
Apple is at the core a software company.
No, Apple is a hardware company that develops the OS that runs on its hardware.
No, Apple is a hardware company that develops the OS that runs on its hardware.
blueflame
Jan 11, 04:21 PM
that is just the refresh rate being captured. and since it is just a lcd screen the lines are going horizontal, and its turned sideways.
A
If you look at the picture of the iPhone poster, it seems to have a couple of subtle differences compared to my iPhone:
http://images.appleinsider.com/macworld-banner-7.jpg
1) The white etching on the home button seems rounder than current iPhones
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/button.jpg
2) The In Call screen is different, and is that a desktop above the call status? Looks like somefiles icons there
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/files.jpg
3) Look very, very carefully at the top left hand corner: Is there a front facing camera hidden amongst the reflections?
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera.jpg
Maybe I'm just suffering from pre macworld hallucinations, but that certainly looks different to my iPhone...
A
If you look at the picture of the iPhone poster, it seems to have a couple of subtle differences compared to my iPhone:
http://images.appleinsider.com/macworld-banner-7.jpg
1) The white etching on the home button seems rounder than current iPhones
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/button.jpg
2) The In Call screen is different, and is that a desktop above the call status? Looks like somefiles icons there
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/files.jpg
3) Look very, very carefully at the top left hand corner: Is there a front facing camera hidden amongst the reflections?
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera.jpg
Maybe I'm just suffering from pre macworld hallucinations, but that certainly looks different to my iPhone...
Ugg
Mar 30, 10:20 AM
I'm not sure how serious all the offers that Qaddafi has reportedly received for asylum, but there does seem to be some effort to help him leave.
I've also been thinking that the Arab League's support of the NFZ is probably in part because if all those EU and NATO planes are busy in Libya, they can't be flying over Yemen or Syria or any other troubled ME country.
The problem with Libya is that Qaddafi has encouraged tribal rivalries on a large scale. Post Qaddafi, Libya could end up a factionalized nightmare.
I've also been thinking that the Arab League's support of the NFZ is probably in part because if all those EU and NATO planes are busy in Libya, they can't be flying over Yemen or Syria or any other troubled ME country.
The problem with Libya is that Qaddafi has encouraged tribal rivalries on a large scale. Post Qaddafi, Libya could end up a factionalized nightmare.
pdpfilms
Sep 12, 01:32 PM
new itunes icon. funky. didnt it used to be this color back at like version 1.0?
I noted the same thing upon install.
I noted the same thing upon install.
iGary
Aug 24, 02:09 PM
Really?
iGary has an Apple product that's slightly dodgy?:eek:
You do surprise me!:) :)
Ha!
I was thinking the same thing. :( :D
iGary has an Apple product that's slightly dodgy?:eek:
You do surprise me!:) :)
Ha!
I was thinking the same thing. :( :D
MacBoobsPro
Oct 27, 05:57 AM
As has been suggested earlier, by instructing the controller to ignore anomalous input from the sensor, or by kicking in the fans earlier to prevent rapid expansion of the heatsink on startup, or both.
But still its not a total fix is it. If you really push your machine it is likely to shutdown again. Also 'ignoring' a potential fire hazard is a bit dangerous dont you think.
But still its not a total fix is it. If you really push your machine it is likely to shutdown again. Also 'ignoring' a potential fire hazard is a bit dangerous dont you think.
LoganT
Mar 11, 03:12 PM
Please Apple, include the 13".
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
ilovethisgame
Mar 28, 07:37 PM
I just called two of my local Radio Shack's here in NYC and both said that I would be REQUIRED to purchase AppleCare AND a case if I wanted to buy an iPad 2 tomorrow morning. That is ******** and hopefully Apple won't allow it.
morespce54
Jul 24, 01:30 PM
i hope it comes with a battery that lasts two or three days. the last thing i'd do is read a book connected to an adapter.
LOL !!! :D
LOL !!! :D
Sydde
Mar 12, 08:53 PM
So, in this situation, would the Military Complex be called an entitlement program, as much of it exists solely to keep people from starving or going homeless? Because that's what it sounds like to me when you talk about it like this.
Yeah, I would say it is a huge entitlement program, but its impact crosses socio-economic lines. Wealthy people are subsidized by Pentagon profligacy just as much as the lower classes. Bear in mind, also, that service represents a route out of poverty for some people. But, really, with a wide-angle lens, many government programs affect more than just their central focus. Education, for example.
My personal opinion is that our socio-economic system is already so horribly feudal, broken and unstable that any reasonable, measured action we take to fix it amounts to duct tape on the reactor core.
Yeah, I would say it is a huge entitlement program, but its impact crosses socio-economic lines. Wealthy people are subsidized by Pentagon profligacy just as much as the lower classes. Bear in mind, also, that service represents a route out of poverty for some people. But, really, with a wide-angle lens, many government programs affect more than just their central focus. Education, for example.
My personal opinion is that our socio-economic system is already so horribly feudal, broken and unstable that any reasonable, measured action we take to fix it amounts to duct tape on the reactor core.
todd03blown
Mar 28, 12:25 PM
I'm not american. Am I meant to know what RadioaShack is?
www.radioshack.com - a small electronics type of store.
www.radioshack.com - a small electronics type of store.
Detlev
Nov 2, 04:56 PM
Hmm, support of the standards on one hand (see Adobe apps in the Itunes store) and criticism on the other.
The only thing they failed to do is provide a call to action. There is neither a link to Adobe or Apple. They are expecting that people actually care enough about the product that they will search out a way to provide feedback on the topic to the appropriate powers that be.
If they are serious about making it a cause then they need to do something radical. Pull all of their products from the store, even if it is only temporary. Otherwise, it's just talk.
The only thing they failed to do is provide a call to action. There is neither a link to Adobe or Apple. They are expecting that people actually care enough about the product that they will search out a way to provide feedback on the topic to the appropriate powers that be.
If they are serious about making it a cause then they need to do something radical. Pull all of their products from the store, even if it is only temporary. Otherwise, it's just talk.
daneoni
Aug 24, 08:14 PM
Won't it be weird if the replacement batteries are the ones that actually start to explode?.
I guess they plan to use Lithium Polymers from now on...or Lithium ions from other manufacturers
I guess they plan to use Lithium Polymers from now on...or Lithium ions from other manufacturers
flyfish29
Aug 24, 01:32 PM
didn't see this mentioned- but I guess there are 1.1 million in US and 700,000 abroad so that of course totals the 1.8 mentioned on some reports.
So now we know exactly why apple didn't post their own link yet- site can't handle 1.8 million hits at once huh?:D
So now we know exactly why apple didn't post their own link yet- site can't handle 1.8 million hits at once huh?:D
Full of Win
Mar 28, 12:57 PM
Lenox Mall one in Buckhead. Here without a car, so it has to be something I can Marta to. I got there early this morning and the sign was already up that they were out of stock for the day.
If you have an idea where I could look let me know. I'd love a 64 gig black ATT ready Ipad2. Many coworkers have either the original or the newer iPad and I'm ready to hop on that train.
I don�t know if Apple systems take takes this into account for stock distribution, but LS would be one of the last places I�d expect to find an AT&T/GSM based iPad, given the US Headquarters for AT&T Mobility 1500 feet from the mall.
There are other stores, I like the one in North Point. Not too big and not the snobbery found at LS, IMHO. However, if you don�t have a car, I guess its kind of moot.
If you have an idea where I could look let me know. I'd love a 64 gig black ATT ready Ipad2. Many coworkers have either the original or the newer iPad and I'm ready to hop on that train.
I don�t know if Apple systems take takes this into account for stock distribution, but LS would be one of the last places I�d expect to find an AT&T/GSM based iPad, given the US Headquarters for AT&T Mobility 1500 feet from the mall.
There are other stores, I like the one in North Point. Not too big and not the snobbery found at LS, IMHO. However, if you don�t have a car, I guess its kind of moot.
iBunny
Mar 12, 05:30 AM
I'm holding my breath.
...im not
...im not
Xibalba
Mar 14, 05:31 PM
I'm still very happy with my late 2008 MacBook but I am very ready for the next iMac revision...
And of course my iPads on order...
And of course my iPads on order...
SMM
Nov 27, 12:40 PM
They banned songs like Lucy in the Sky and Ticket to Ride... (not to mention Metallica's Seek and Destroy) because the songs reminded people of the event.
I see. I wonder who conducted this sorely-needed poll? I bet they banned "Ahab the Arab" too.
I see. I wonder who conducted this sorely-needed poll? I bet they banned "Ahab the Arab" too.
Bonsai1214
Mar 25, 01:09 PM
I think with patching, there's a chance that something can go wrong and cause the phone not to work. its the same rationale behind Sony making you download the whole OS in an update for PS3.
cvaldes
Apr 17, 10:29 AM
The board that oversees what the top 3 executives do at Apple knows more than you about production issues of MILLIONS of hi-tech devices.
Anybody familiar with production and distribution issues knows that despite excellent planning there may be issues during production that cannot be forecast.
Selling and shipping MILLIONS in a few weeks is a exactly fiasco for whom?
There are a lot of haters on this site. And I mean a LOT.
Plus there are a few people who have zero connection with reality. The type of people who ignore COGS, have no understanding of the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing and marketing, and disregard the basic laws of Newtonian physics. Basically, people who live in an effing dreamworld based on an totally domestic American worldview largely based on sci-fi movies and pop culture, with no real world experience as a contributor to a global economy.
Anybody familiar with production and distribution issues knows that despite excellent planning there may be issues during production that cannot be forecast.
Selling and shipping MILLIONS in a few weeks is a exactly fiasco for whom?
There are a lot of haters on this site. And I mean a LOT.
Plus there are a few people who have zero connection with reality. The type of people who ignore COGS, have no understanding of the economics of consumer electronics manufacturing and marketing, and disregard the basic laws of Newtonian physics. Basically, people who live in an effing dreamworld based on an totally domestic American worldview largely based on sci-fi movies and pop culture, with no real world experience as a contributor to a global economy.
No comments:
Post a Comment