Calidude
Apr 15, 10:00 PM
I'm beginning to think that on a lonely, quiet Friday night this is the most action that Calidude can hope for.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
slb
Oct 28, 02:56 PM
Logic Pro 7 has yet to be cracked, so Apple has people who know how to do copyright protection. I suspect Leopard will employ very strong TPM integration compared to Tiger.
djrod
Apr 30, 01:34 AM
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right. :o
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
puckhead193
Nov 24, 11:27 AM
if i buy .mac today, will the 360 days start now or when my brother actually inserts the disk and creates a name etc
MrSEC
Apr 15, 10:10 PM
Google, Microsoft and Bush are Devils!
So original.....
So original.....
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
iVoid
Sep 28, 10:53 PM
Too many folks think just because you have wealth that you have to build a oversized Gaudy McMansion as some kind of totem to prove your wealth to the unwashed masses.
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
kdarling
Apr 16, 06:36 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
slffl
Jan 8, 10:32 AM
BTW, I had to laugh when they demoed FMV used as a wallpaper in Vista, and the crowd ooohed and awwed and clapped. :)
is it possible to put fmv wallpaper on tiger? how?[/QUOTE]
It looks like I was thinking of how you can use a screensaver as your wallpaper. Both Moving Desktop and Coolbackground. Serene Saver also uses FMV as wallpaper. So it's possible, but it's not built in quite yet.
is it possible to put fmv wallpaper on tiger? how?[/QUOTE]
It looks like I was thinking of how you can use a screensaver as your wallpaper. Both Moving Desktop and Coolbackground. Serene Saver also uses FMV as wallpaper. So it's possible, but it's not built in quite yet.
GregA
Oct 3, 05:02 AM
Bear in mind, there is nothing inherently bad in a company having a monopoly, not even Microsoft. What's bad (and illegal) is when a company in such a position abuses its monopolistic power.
Occassionally it can be beneficial to have one company setting certain standards. However, the value of competition is that the stronger/better thrive (while the weak adapt or die out). If you have a monopoly, that disappears.
The most important thing is that we don't create a system where the weaker stuff can survive because a monoply throws more money into it, while the better one can't make it.
How does this relate to everything? I don't know... maybe I lost the point... oh no here it is.
At the moment Apple competes as an entire ecosystem (iPod/iTunes/iTMS) against other combinations... and everything is still improving for consumers. So that's a good thing. Apple is using its muscle to force open some new markets, which again is good. I think we need Apple to do what it's doing with the iPod, for now, but it also needs the flexibility to know when to work with everyone (like MS does). I think they'll have to open up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS trifecta soonish, but they might not realise till it's too late.
And on a personal note - iPod/iTunes/iTMS is great if you've got all 3. If you don't have iTMS movies, where do you buy movies from? What about if you're a BIG movie renter, but never buy them - what choice do you have?
The single option both forces big change, and stops flexibility.
Occassionally it can be beneficial to have one company setting certain standards. However, the value of competition is that the stronger/better thrive (while the weak adapt or die out). If you have a monopoly, that disappears.
The most important thing is that we don't create a system where the weaker stuff can survive because a monoply throws more money into it, while the better one can't make it.
How does this relate to everything? I don't know... maybe I lost the point... oh no here it is.
At the moment Apple competes as an entire ecosystem (iPod/iTunes/iTMS) against other combinations... and everything is still improving for consumers. So that's a good thing. Apple is using its muscle to force open some new markets, which again is good. I think we need Apple to do what it's doing with the iPod, for now, but it also needs the flexibility to know when to work with everyone (like MS does). I think they'll have to open up the iPod/iTunes/iTMS trifecta soonish, but they might not realise till it's too late.
And on a personal note - iPod/iTunes/iTMS is great if you've got all 3. If you don't have iTMS movies, where do you buy movies from? What about if you're a BIG movie renter, but never buy them - what choice do you have?
The single option both forces big change, and stops flexibility.
gkarris
Mar 28, 05:27 PM
Good. I'm all in favor of Apple adding more incentives for devs to embrace the Mac App store. As a consumer I really like the idea of an App Store that makes buying and installing as easy as one click as well as fostering competition between comparable apps.
And not being able to resell it or trade it in... :eek:
And not being able to resell it or trade it in... :eek:
c-ker
Dec 13, 07:32 PM
need more than a grain of salt for this. These rumours come and go all the time. I doubt it will happen. In the summer? yes, but not now
Maybe VZW will bundle their only current 4G device -- the Mi-FI gizmo -- with a 3G CDMA iPhone 4. Would be similar to what they are doing with the iPad.
Before you ask if VZW is stupid enough to do that, remember that VZW ninnies nixed the iPhone way back when.
Maybe VZW will bundle their only current 4G device -- the Mi-FI gizmo -- with a 3G CDMA iPhone 4. Would be similar to what they are doing with the iPad.
Before you ask if VZW is stupid enough to do that, remember that VZW ninnies nixed the iPhone way back when.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 15, 10:28 PM
Google, Microsoft and Bush are Devils!
For the most part they all work together. Apple Google and Microsoft are all the devils they all work together to form a greater overarching monopoly. It all cost so much because they want it so.
For the most part they all work together. Apple Google and Microsoft are all the devils they all work together to form a greater overarching monopoly. It all cost so much because they want it so.
Warbrain
Nov 23, 10:22 PM
I guess it's just me, but none of the deals seem to be that great. No store has anything that seems to be getting me all excited, so meh, I guess I can sleep in.
JaSuS
Sep 28, 02:38 PM
Gates: What's that?
Jobs: It's an iHouse.
Gates: But there's no Windows.
Jobs: Exactly!!! Hahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO8l-Bd1O4
CAH CAH CAH!
I love this one man you rock!
Jobs: It's an iHouse.
Gates: But there's no Windows.
Jobs: Exactly!!! Hahahahaha!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHO8l-Bd1O4
CAH CAH CAH!
I love this one man you rock!
fr0
Apr 15, 08:34 PM
Using aluminum would hinder the cellular reception wouldn't it ?
Ummm, you use AT&T too, right? I couldn't imagine we'd see much of a difference :D
Ummm, you use AT&T too, right? I couldn't imagine we'd see much of a difference :D
MacRumors
Oct 28, 02:21 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Apple appears to have pulled the publicly accessible Mac OS 10.4.8 Source Code (Darwin, the open-source foundation of OS X, and XNU, Darwin's open-source kernel), leaving only developers with ADC log-ins with access to the code (public link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/), ADC link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/))
Earlier this week, the OSx86 project (http://osx86project.org/) released a version of the 10.4.8 kernel (http://semthex.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2006/10/24/haleluja-it-s-done.html) that was hailed to be 100% legal according to the APSL and run on any x86 machine. Prior to this release, Apple's code would only run on Apple's hardware due to various dependencies (such as EFI).
Beluga whale, and I guess
“Beluga Whale Dreaming
Apple appears to have pulled the publicly accessible Mac OS 10.4.8 Source Code (Darwin, the open-source foundation of OS X, and XNU, Darwin's open-source kernel), leaving only developers with ADC log-ins with access to the code (public link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/), ADC link (http://www.opensource.apple.com/darwinsource/tarballs/apsl/))
Earlier this week, the OSx86 project (http://osx86project.org/) released a version of the 10.4.8 kernel (http://semthex.freeflux.net/blog/archive/2006/10/24/haleluja-it-s-done.html) that was hailed to be 100% legal according to the APSL and run on any x86 machine. Prior to this release, Apple's code would only run on Apple's hardware due to various dependencies (such as EFI).
Eidorian
Sep 25, 11:20 AM
The reasons people HATE this new version so much:
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:pWhy it's obvious why people hate this update so much. In fact I'm almost tempted to get Aperture to manage my photos (Academic discount, 3,000 images, 500 photos <3)
Now I just wish my earlier comments were still here. Tomorrow is Tuesday.
1. It adds a lot of features and answers requests.
2. It's a free update.
3. This is a photography event, and people were caught off guard when Apple showed their photography product, despite the Aperture image right on the invitation.
4. Apple never releases hardware on Tuesdays, so there is no hope for any MacBook Pro updates tomorrow.
5. There will never be another chance for new MacBook Pros. We now know that the current models will be sold forever and ever, even after Apple goes out of business, which will happen by the end of the year.
:pWhy it's obvious why people hate this update so much. In fact I'm almost tempted to get Aperture to manage my photos (Academic discount, 3,000 images, 500 photos <3)
Now I just wish my earlier comments were still here. Tomorrow is Tuesday.
Doctor Q
Apr 21, 12:11 PM
However, without actually counting towards something, it's kind of pointless.
Correct. But we have to add the feature to produce the data before we can start to make use of it! See the first post of this thread.
Correct. But we have to add the feature to produce the data before we can start to make use of it! See the first post of this thread.
strabes
Apr 29, 03:47 PM
Bummer, I really liked the iOS-style scrollbars. My favorite thing about Lion is the inverted scrolling. It feels more natural on a touchpad once you get used to it.
dvkid
Apr 29, 03:54 PM
Wow, if they don't get those changes implemented immediately Lion is going to be the Mac's Vista!!1! :p
What are you talking about? The screenshots shown here are from the latest developer release of the software, meaning that anything you see is already implemented in code and being used by registered Mac OS developers the world over.
What are you talking about? The screenshots shown here are from the latest developer release of the software, meaning that anything you see is already implemented in code and being used by registered Mac OS developers the world over.
PhoneyDeveloper
Apr 26, 10:22 PM
Nekbeth, you didn't thank Philip Endecott, who posted the solution to your problem on the Apple forum about three hours before wlh99 posted essentially the same solution here.
WiiDSmoker
Mar 24, 06:35 PM
I hate intrude in the birthday party, but if OS X 10.0 can have indicators to which process in open and running in the background (the black triangles in the screen shot) in 2000, then why can't iOS in 2011? :rolleyes:
Jailbreak
Jailbreak
Edge100
Oct 20, 02:22 PM
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
I whole-heartedly agree with this.
Apple should be buying up companies, but only those that can give it some actual edge in competitive markets.
I'll give you three examples:
1) Adobe, for obvious reasons. This probably wont happen, but just imagine if it did!
2) EMI Music Group. This would be HUGE, but I'm not sure Apple has the cash. It might not even be legal, given the Apple (Computer) vs. Apple (Corps...the Beatles) stuff. What's even more odd is that EMI OWNS the master recordings of the Beatles.
3) Digidesign. This is the most likely, and probably the best bet for Apple. In case people don't know, Digidesign makes ProTools software and hardware. ProTools is the Photoshop of the audio production world; EVERYONE uses it. Apple already owns Emagic, which made Logic. The purchase of Digidesign would be a massive coup for Apple, and make it the undisputed champ of the pro audio world. And if you think this is a relatively small market, you're wrong. Nearly every movie is recorded/mixed in ProTools (with some people using either Nuendo or Digital Performer). I would LOVE to see Apple buy Digidesign, kill ProTools on Windows, and make a truly top-notch audio solution.
Forget about paying dividends; people are making enough money on Apple stock. Apple needs to think about how to turn its $10 billion in cash into $50 billion in cash. And the way to do that is to grow. Buy up companies!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment