ChrisTX
Apr 25, 07:30 PM
Bigger sensor requires bigger lens and bigger lens requires bigger housing. With Apple, you are not going to get this. If you look for bigger sensor -check Nokia or Sony phones.
While I agree to an extent, Engadget put the iPhone 4 against a majority of the major smartphone's and the only one to even come close in camera quality was the Nokia N8.
While I agree to an extent, Engadget put the iPhone 4 against a majority of the major smartphone's and the only one to even come close in camera quality was the Nokia N8.
Rocketman
Oct 3, 03:46 PM
...I'd like The Steve to walk on stage and announce that they absolutely will not release certain products,
That is a really good idea.
He would have to come up with language that does not confirm or deny, but still states "not this quarter".
I believe it would increase sales on the margin for peple waiting for the next great thing to come out ala Merom MBP, despite the fact that the only benefit to Merom over Yonah is 64 bit.
He should UPOD and SAY this was the greatest processor improvement in a decade and additional improvements will be incremental for a couple years.
Even if we later learn those increments are doublings of processor counts. Besides that ONLY benefits threaded applications, not "traditional applications" which have seen a plateau for the forseeable future.
At some point the consumer experience is not appreciably improved by processor improvements. Except for media processing intensive applicatons, we are there.
That alone ia an amazing statement for the Apple platform.
Can any other platform say that or even promise that any time within 2 years?
Rocketman
That is a really good idea.
He would have to come up with language that does not confirm or deny, but still states "not this quarter".
I believe it would increase sales on the margin for peple waiting for the next great thing to come out ala Merom MBP, despite the fact that the only benefit to Merom over Yonah is 64 bit.
He should UPOD and SAY this was the greatest processor improvement in a decade and additional improvements will be incremental for a couple years.
Even if we later learn those increments are doublings of processor counts. Besides that ONLY benefits threaded applications, not "traditional applications" which have seen a plateau for the forseeable future.
At some point the consumer experience is not appreciably improved by processor improvements. Except for media processing intensive applicatons, we are there.
That alone ia an amazing statement for the Apple platform.
Can any other platform say that or even promise that any time within 2 years?
Rocketman
Josias
Nov 16, 04:35 PM
So annoying newbs just spamming threads about this. there are seven right now.
come to think of it, though it's porbably phil who spilled soda into the server, i gotta wait up till midnight dansih time, to see if anything interesting happened
come to think of it, though it's porbably phil who spilled soda into the server, i gotta wait up till midnight dansih time, to see if anything interesting happened
Amnak
Apr 25, 12:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_7 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E303 Safari/6533.18.5)
I definitly think this is a good idea, The screen the size it is now is fine , however the most important part is the phones physical sizes which is perfect
I definitly think this is a good idea, The screen the size it is now is fine , however the most important part is the phones physical sizes which is perfect
more...
ArtOfWarfare
Sep 28, 01:15 PM
No screening room (http://img263.imageshack.us/img263/2859/xxapple1984.jpg)?
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
Megakazbek
May 4, 09:36 AM
for drawing during class, maybe. there is a lot of stuff in chemistry or physics where you need to make a quick drawing. but for writing? i am typing way faster than i am writing with a pen. and in the end its way more readable. :D
This is how my typical lectures look like and I don't really see how do you even try to approach typing something like this on a keyboard in real time:
http://i.imgur.com/5kSuS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NMtQn.jpg
etc
Actually, having stylus isn't really that important for taking lecture notes as usually they are available as pdfs anyway, but I don't see how you can do without a pen when solving math/physics problems.
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
ALL of them have tips of enormous diameter. I've tried some of them, and you really can't write in small handwriting, your letters have to be big and in many cases you can't even fit some equations in one line. Those styluses are not a good solution.
This is how my typical lectures look like and I don't really see how do you even try to approach typing something like this on a keyboard in real time:
http://i.imgur.com/5kSuS.jpg
http://i.imgur.com/NMtQn.jpg
etc
Actually, having stylus isn't really that important for taking lecture notes as usually they are available as pdfs anyway, but I don't see how you can do without a pen when solving math/physics problems.
if you really need a stylus there are already lots of options you can buy and use em with your ipad.
ALL of them have tips of enormous diameter. I've tried some of them, and you really can't write in small handwriting, your letters have to be big and in many cases you can't even fit some equations in one line. Those styluses are not a good solution.
more...
dethmaShine
May 2, 02:19 PM
They don't need to track you any more, they got Osama Bin Laden already.
Image (http://cynic.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iPhoneTrackingWorks.jpg)
lolol
That's the best post I have seen all day.
Image (http://cynic.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iPhoneTrackingWorks.jpg)
lolol
That's the best post I have seen all day.
skunk
Apr 21, 12:31 PM
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
Okay, the Arabs brought us the Indian invention of Zero... :p
Okay, the Arabs brought us the Indian invention of Zero... :p
more...
arn
Apr 5, 03:41 PM
why does macrumors link to the appshopper description of the app instead of the actual apple link?
Seems like a useless middle step
The practice was started when straight itunes linking was awkward, as iTunes had to be installed, and people browsing from work would get dead-ended into an "Install iTunes please". It's perhaps less useful these days since Apple now does offer a web preview without itunes installed, so it may be just as easy to link using normal links again.
arn
Seems like a useless middle step
The practice was started when straight itunes linking was awkward, as iTunes had to be installed, and people browsing from work would get dead-ended into an "Install iTunes please". It's perhaps less useful these days since Apple now does offer a web preview without itunes installed, so it may be just as easy to link using normal links again.
arn
ramram49
May 3, 11:02 PM
- if you asked an iPad 2 speculator, it is $$$ and more $$$
- if you asked an iPad 2 user who want to buy one from shop, it is queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, (endless)
- if you asked the Apple Online shop, it is "Ships: Currently unavailable"
- if you asked the retailed shop manager, "you need to buy this with a protected screen at USD70 and case at US60"
- if you asked the retailed shop staff, "No stock....but we have reserved for other customer, do you really want one urgently? Take it, with the crap accessories at USD100."
-
-
:(:(:(
- if you asked an iPad 2 user who want to buy one from shop, it is queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, (endless)
- if you asked the Apple Online shop, it is "Ships: Currently unavailable"
- if you asked the retailed shop manager, "you need to buy this with a protected screen at USD70 and case at US60"
- if you asked the retailed shop staff, "No stock....but we have reserved for other customer, do you really want one urgently? Take it, with the crap accessories at USD100."
-
-
:(:(:(
more...
ChaosAngel
Apr 2, 12:26 PM
Good points and for the me the Apple ecosystem is very important (something Microsoft doesn't have). However, looking purely at the operating system itself, I can always remember first showing my "Windows" friends OS X (even in the early days) and them being blown away by how amazing it was. These days I don't see that same excitement (really since Leopard) and the gap between OS X and Windows is now much closer.
I wonder if we will hit a point when the OS X guys/gals look at Windows in amazement? To far? :)
I just hope Lion brings more then what I am seeing in the Developer Builds. Don't get be wrong it's looking like a great OS, but is it the leap I was hoping for? Not yet...
I wonder if we will hit a point when the OS X guys/gals look at Windows in amazement? To far? :)
I just hope Lion brings more then what I am seeing in the Developer Builds. Don't get be wrong it's looking like a great OS, but is it the leap I was hoping for? Not yet...
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 12:50 AM
Nice. Too bad some kid is going to have $300 docked from his pay...
more...
IJ Reilly
Oct 20, 05:19 PM
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!!!
Success in not necessarily about accumulating cash. Far from it, in fact. A company that sits on huge piles of cash and does nothing with it, is not seen as managing their capital resources well. Many if not most financial analysts would argue that if the company is not investing their cash in future growth (and Apple decidedly is not), then they should give at least some of it back to the stockholders.
In addition to what I said above, dividends are a signal from the company that they're feeling secure about the future. Dividends, even token dividends, are a sign of maturity and stability. Hoarding cash is not.
Success in not necessarily about accumulating cash. Far from it, in fact. A company that sits on huge piles of cash and does nothing with it, is not seen as managing their capital resources well. Many if not most financial analysts would argue that if the company is not investing their cash in future growth (and Apple decidedly is not), then they should give at least some of it back to the stockholders.
In addition to what I said above, dividends are a signal from the company that they're feeling secure about the future. Dividends, even token dividends, are a sign of maturity and stability. Hoarding cash is not.
takao
Nov 28, 05:06 PM
the thing with the RC cars is comapred to spy planes they are not really "1 shot destroyable" .. with a spy plane: 1 rocket (locked on) fired -> 1 plane shot down (i downed i think around 60 so far.. and countless choppers)
the RC car has a hit box the size of a bee: on one occasion i walked around with akimbo semi auto shotguns and unloaded all 8 shots towards one and it just didn't die.. so far i have been able to destroy perhaps 3-4 of them while driving around
they should make the supply drop a 4 and the rc car a 5 killstreak at least
or at least add out the ability to drive up stairs
and while dogs are terryfing ... they are also much easier to kill than a single RC car: if you see them running towards you you can down 1-2 with a clip if you are lucky
if we are talking about killstreaks: the huey chopper gunner red highlighting needs to go
the RC car has a hit box the size of a bee: on one occasion i walked around with akimbo semi auto shotguns and unloaded all 8 shots towards one and it just didn't die.. so far i have been able to destroy perhaps 3-4 of them while driving around
they should make the supply drop a 4 and the rc car a 5 killstreak at least
or at least add out the ability to drive up stairs
and while dogs are terryfing ... they are also much easier to kill than a single RC car: if you see them running towards you you can down 1-2 with a clip if you are lucky
if we are talking about killstreaks: the huey chopper gunner red highlighting needs to go
more...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
pondosinatra
Jul 21, 09:44 AM
"Apple - our products suck just as much as everyone else's" :rolleyes:
more...
leekohler
Apr 22, 10:56 AM
whoops, I forgot america is slowly turning into france
I mean ... Yay for gay people are special and the best :D
We must be if we can bring down entire cultures and empires. :rolleyes:
Do you hear yourself?
I mean ... Yay for gay people are special and the best :D
We must be if we can bring down entire cultures and empires. :rolleyes:
Do you hear yourself?
ipodtoucher
Apr 9, 09:05 PM
Paid a trip to IKEA today and came out with some great stuff all for $210!
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/expedit-bookcase-white__0092712_PE229410_S4.JPG
desk
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/expedit-desk-white__72998_PE189253_S4.jpg
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/moses-swivel-chair-black__62392_PE169062_S4.jpg
need to go back for the bulb...
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/grono-table-lamp-frosted-glass__03335_PE074239_S4.jpg
ready to hang
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/solmyra-picture-dot__0110383_PE260630_S4.JPG
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/fixa--piece-tool-kit__0114491_PE266984_S4.JPG
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/fixa-picture-hook-assorted-sizes__0114488_PE266982_S4.JPG
Then on sale for $10 at Target :)
http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/3b/0/AAAADBzPIRkAAAAAADsKdg.jpg
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/expedit-bookcase-white__0092712_PE229410_S4.JPG
desk
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/expedit-desk-white__72998_PE189253_S4.jpg
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/moses-swivel-chair-black__62392_PE169062_S4.jpg
need to go back for the bulb...
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/grono-table-lamp-frosted-glass__03335_PE074239_S4.jpg
ready to hang
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/solmyra-picture-dot__0110383_PE260630_S4.JPG
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/fixa--piece-tool-kit__0114491_PE266984_S4.JPG
http://www.ikea.com/us/en/images/products/fixa-picture-hook-assorted-sizes__0114488_PE266982_S4.JPG
Then on sale for $10 at Target :)
http://www.kaboodle.com/hi/img/c/0/0/3b/0/AAAADBzPIRkAAAAAADsKdg.jpg
iShater
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
ju5tin81
Sep 12, 07:26 AM
The main thing is... (For me anyway) is the ability to burn a film to DVD....
It'll be hard to make an impulse purchase on a new film, that I can only watch on my Mac, or, until I spend a few hundred quid buying a new iPod or wireless streaming gizmo for my telly... (Something I'd prefer not to do)
Can we please burn them so we can watch films on normal DVD players!
Just like iTunes does with CD's. (Don't mind if there is a restriction on numbers that can be burnt etc. Only gonna do it once.)
Also, aren't laptop HD's gonna need to grow up to accomodate all this media? A desktop, easy, get an external, but I'd like me (New MacBook) laptop to be attachment free!
It'll be hard to make an impulse purchase on a new film, that I can only watch on my Mac, or, until I spend a few hundred quid buying a new iPod or wireless streaming gizmo for my telly... (Something I'd prefer not to do)
Can we please burn them so we can watch films on normal DVD players!
Just like iTunes does with CD's. (Don't mind if there is a restriction on numbers that can be burnt etc. Only gonna do it once.)
Also, aren't laptop HD's gonna need to grow up to accomodate all this media? A desktop, easy, get an external, but I'd like me (New MacBook) laptop to be attachment free!
emoeric
Dec 13, 11:07 AM
Haha, nope.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Before my impending question...I agree with Warbrain here. The proof is across the board when it comes to Apple and their products. The didn't adopt 3g when it was out for a while and also didnt adopt wireless N technology for routers for a long time. Apple likes to perfect the technology first.
Now, onto my question. Sorta belongs here... My white iphone 3GS 32gb just bit the dust. I have squaretrade and they are allowing me a replacement phone. sweet! The trick is do I get the iphone that is out right now, wait til january to see if they update the skin/ casing of the existing iphone4 (due to a verizon announcement and in turn update AT&T iphone as well) or do I postpone and wait until summer 2011?
I find waiting until 2011 almost impossible and wonder if they are going to announce Iphone 5. Or will they do an Iphone4GS, with even faster network speeds, bigger screen, blah blah blah. Will the update be critical (iphone 5 rumors of location based computing, paying with the swipe of a phone)?
I find the second option to be most feasible, but would like to test out the online community.
Thanks!
-Eric
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Before my impending question...I agree with Warbrain here. The proof is across the board when it comes to Apple and their products. The didn't adopt 3g when it was out for a while and also didnt adopt wireless N technology for routers for a long time. Apple likes to perfect the technology first.
Now, onto my question. Sorta belongs here... My white iphone 3GS 32gb just bit the dust. I have squaretrade and they are allowing me a replacement phone. sweet! The trick is do I get the iphone that is out right now, wait til january to see if they update the skin/ casing of the existing iphone4 (due to a verizon announcement and in turn update AT&T iphone as well) or do I postpone and wait until summer 2011?
I find waiting until 2011 almost impossible and wonder if they are going to announce Iphone 5. Or will they do an Iphone4GS, with even faster network speeds, bigger screen, blah blah blah. Will the update be critical (iphone 5 rumors of location based computing, paying with the swipe of a phone)?
I find the second option to be most feasible, but would like to test out the online community.
Thanks!
-Eric
err404
May 2, 11:47 AM
I dont know why people on MR seem hellbent on defending Apple no matter the situation (literally)...
Because a huge amount of the reported details on this matter are wrong.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
Because a huge amount of the reported details on this matter are wrong.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
stukick
Apr 8, 05:42 PM
Best Buy still sucks.
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment