bigandy
Sep 6, 09:20 AM
brilliant news. and 3gb ram max? :D
only thing i'm not sure about is the height with the bottom white plastic on a 24" screen. hmm. but tis good :)
only thing i'm not sure about is the height with the bottom white plastic on a 24" screen. hmm. but tis good :)
britishempire
Aug 24, 08:21 PM
they've changed the error page now. instead of saying the serial wasn't valid, it told me that their systems are experiencing heavy traffic and I should try later.
After G
Aug 24, 04:04 PM
I had my battery recalled earlier.
Wonder if the replacement falls under this recall? :D
Wonder if the replacement falls under this recall? :D
kugino
Sep 13, 01:21 AM
so when does amazon start selling these? with no education discount now, it makes sense to buy from amazon and free shipping/no tax.
liketom
Sep 13, 01:37 AM
i'm very happy with the new lineup
i went for the silver 4gb mini and pre-ordered a shuffle :D
these nano's are gonna sell like hotcakes:cool:
i went for the silver 4gb mini and pre-ordered a shuffle :D
these nano's are gonna sell like hotcakes:cool:
Dr Kevorkian94
May 4, 10:03 PM
I don't get the "3D" screen thing???? My regular 1080p TV can play a 3d Movie just fine. The 3D software shared here on MacRumors didn't have any special screen... what the heck would Apple do to make it a 3D screen?
I say "false".
Is your tv a 3D tv (most if not all need glasses) or just a regular hd tv, because if u need glasses then that is not the 3D we are talking about. Go play with a nintendo 3DS at Gamestop they have one on display to play with. There is a special type of screen that uses no glasses, also there is a regular screen in witch a camera tracks your head and the angle u are looking at the screen, then the objects in the screen will look to be "popping out" but it's just a simple eye trick and it's gimmicky.
I say "false".
Is your tv a 3D tv (most if not all need glasses) or just a regular hd tv, because if u need glasses then that is not the 3D we are talking about. Go play with a nintendo 3DS at Gamestop they have one on display to play with. There is a special type of screen that uses no glasses, also there is a regular screen in witch a camera tracks your head and the angle u are looking at the screen, then the objects in the screen will look to be "popping out" but it's just a simple eye trick and it's gimmicky.
Nuvi
May 5, 03:36 AM
Awesome "no glases" technology. This must be healthy...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8&feature=fvwrel
and
http://www.jonathanpost.com/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uef17zOCDb8&feature=fvwrel
and
http://www.jonathanpost.com/
4God
Sep 22, 03:12 PM
Well if I were in the movie studio business, I'd say BYE-BYE Wal-Mart.:mad:
Tymmz
Sep 15, 03:06 PM
Bought the black one today.
Great product.
Great product.
laserbeam273
Mar 22, 04:55 AM
Time to buy an ipod, leave it in the box, then sell it in 30 years for $10,000? Try get Jobs to sign it first! How about $100,000?
And the first ipod had firewire?!?!?! What is this! We've downgraded!
And the first ipod had firewire?!?!?! What is this! We've downgraded!
Doctor Q
Oct 15, 03:46 PM
Is there any medical concern with sharing earbuds?
Tymmz
Sep 15, 03:06 PM
Bought the black one today.
Great product.
Great product.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Sep 14, 07:00 AM
How would the built-in tuner make the iPod worse? Don't want to use it? Then don't.Except I would have to pay for the parts and the R&D...
And the iPod would have to be (slightly) bigger to accommodate the extra features... Now, maybe not much for a FM/AM radio, but then what about digital radio...? Or Satellite...? Many places old analogue radio is on its way out... Which radio standards should be supported...?
And the iPod would have to be (slightly) bigger to accommodate the extra features... Now, maybe not much for a FM/AM radio, but then what about digital radio...? Or Satellite...? Many places old analogue radio is on its way out... Which radio standards should be supported...?
T'hain Esh Kelch
Mar 19, 05:38 AM
I don't get why they don't push a 220GB drive into the iPod Touch and sell that instead.. Best of both worlds!
Lord Blackadder
Apr 26, 03:08 PM
Um, yeah, tell me something i don't know. The question we are pondering is why more blacks live in poor areas with high crime rates than other races.
This is basic history. Beginning in the early 20th century, several waves of black emigration took place from the rural south to industrialized urban centers, primarily in the north. This was known as the "Great Migration" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)) (search this on Google Books for plenty of literature on the subject) - this, by the way, also contributed to falling numbers of lynchings by the KKK, because blacks simply fled from areas where such violence was taking place. This was done in order to try and escape Jim Crow as well as find better job opportunities. Just as all minority or immigrant groups do in cities, they tended to concrentrate in the same districts for mutual support. There is nothing specifically "black" about displaced people moving to cities looking for better opportunities. As a group they started at the economic bottom of the barrel, why would be shocked that they their socioeconomic status remains lower than whites, who outnumber them, have far more political and economic power, and have a history of discriminating against them that they is only slowly being reversed?
Well, seeing how blacks commit more violent crimes than whites
That is completely false. (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html)
it seems logical that a white trailer park would be safer than a black ghetto.
First it was "common knowledge", now it's logic. I still see it as an irrelevant, unproven assertion.
Name me one single white gang that you've heard of(and not the KKK, they don't terrorize streets anymore, that's sooo 1960's)
Since when did you get to make the rules? How can we possibly have a useful discussion about race and crime if we can't talk about some of the basic underlying causes for the disparity in wealth and political power in America between white people and everybody else? Why should we forget the 3/5ths clause, Dred Scott, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement or the KKK and its children. Not to mention the slave trade that brought these people here in the first place. You might not like to talk about all those things, but you are flat out ignoring or dismissing their impact on current issues - and that is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Your "ponderings" are based on casual observation and a lack of historical or even contemporary context.
I don't see how the issue can be boiled down to listing gangs either. Do only gangs commit crime? There isn't a shred of evidence out there that white people are any more or less likely to commit crime than any other race, or that white people are inherently more prosperous or law-abiding than any other race. Focusing on race itself is always a red herring when talking about crime. The real reasons lie in the mechanics of interaction between different groups.
It's also worth mentioning that over 70% (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html) of hate crimes involve an anti-black bias.
This is basic history. Beginning in the early 20th century, several waves of black emigration took place from the rural south to industrialized urban centers, primarily in the north. This was known as the "Great Migration" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Migration_(African_American)) (search this on Google Books for plenty of literature on the subject) - this, by the way, also contributed to falling numbers of lynchings by the KKK, because blacks simply fled from areas where such violence was taking place. This was done in order to try and escape Jim Crow as well as find better job opportunities. Just as all minority or immigrant groups do in cities, they tended to concrentrate in the same districts for mutual support. There is nothing specifically "black" about displaced people moving to cities looking for better opportunities. As a group they started at the economic bottom of the barrel, why would be shocked that they their socioeconomic status remains lower than whites, who outnumber them, have far more political and economic power, and have a history of discriminating against them that they is only slowly being reversed?
Well, seeing how blacks commit more violent crimes than whites
That is completely false. (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/cius2009/data/table_43.html)
it seems logical that a white trailer park would be safer than a black ghetto.
First it was "common knowledge", now it's logic. I still see it as an irrelevant, unproven assertion.
Name me one single white gang that you've heard of(and not the KKK, they don't terrorize streets anymore, that's sooo 1960's)
Since when did you get to make the rules? How can we possibly have a useful discussion about race and crime if we can't talk about some of the basic underlying causes for the disparity in wealth and political power in America between white people and everybody else? Why should we forget the 3/5ths clause, Dred Scott, the Civil War, Jim Crow, the Civil Rights movement or the KKK and its children. Not to mention the slave trade that brought these people here in the first place. You might not like to talk about all those things, but you are flat out ignoring or dismissing their impact on current issues - and that is the fatal flaw in your reasoning. Your "ponderings" are based on casual observation and a lack of historical or even contemporary context.
I don't see how the issue can be boiled down to listing gangs either. Do only gangs commit crime? There isn't a shred of evidence out there that white people are any more or less likely to commit crime than any other race, or that white people are inherently more prosperous or law-abiding than any other race. Focusing on race itself is always a red herring when talking about crime. The real reasons lie in the mechanics of interaction between different groups.
It's also worth mentioning that over 70% (http://www2.fbi.gov/ucr/hc2009/incidents.html) of hate crimes involve an anti-black bias.
clukas
Mar 21, 06:28 PM
I bet this will be mentioned on the next apple keynote! :D
DiamondMac
Apr 1, 10:51 AM
I keep seeing posters state that the rep of Apple will be hurt (some say long term, others say short term) and I still have not actually seen a reason for this
Of course, I agree that Radioshack is a bit of a low-type choice for Apple but at the end of the day, why exactly would ANYONE look at Apple even slightly more different?
I mean, if BestBuy and others are selling and the rep has not taken a hit, I find it hard to believe that Apple is somehow in danger rep-wise with Radioshack.
Of course, I agree that Radioshack is a bit of a low-type choice for Apple but at the end of the day, why exactly would ANYONE look at Apple even slightly more different?
I mean, if BestBuy and others are selling and the rep has not taken a hit, I find it hard to believe that Apple is somehow in danger rep-wise with Radioshack.
nemaslov
Oct 16, 06:00 PM
come on, I said I was 5 :rolleyes:
[/SIZE]
Yeah and Look what that Tie that Yellow Ribbon started.....:D
[/SIZE]
Yeah and Look what that Tie that Yellow Ribbon started.....:D
SevenInchScrew
Oct 24, 04:35 PM
Cheers - I'd forgotten about Halo Wars; I haven't played that. Does that include the 'first contact' between humans & Covenant?
No, the events that take place during that game are after battle has already started. "First Contact" and the start of the Human/Covenant war happened 6 years earlier than the events of Halo Wars, which in turn is about 20 years before Reach and the following games.
First Contact = 2525
Halo Wars = 2531
Reach/CE/2/ODST/3 = 2552
Also I read that Reach may not be the last Halo game. Is the world visible at the end of the Halo 3 cinematics a hint to another game, or just 'keeping their options open'?
Well, Reach was the last Halo game that Bungie are going to make, but you can pretty much guarantee that MS (the owners of the Halo IP) are going to keep it going for as long as they can. It's a cash cow, and a big company like that loves cash cows. Frank O'Connor, one of the writers/creative directors of the Halo universe and games, talked about the ending of Halo 3 at Comic-Con this year. When asked if we would ever find out what happened to Chief and Cortana, he said, and I quote....
We'd have to be the world's biggest a**holes to not follow through on a cliffhanger like that .... we certainly haven't seen the last of the Master Chief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUVQuyRHY4#t=4m50s
Given that the planet seems to be of Forerunner origin, and there being a new series of books based around the Forerunners coming early next year, I'm going with that as the basis of "Halo 4", whatever/whenever that happens.
No, the events that take place during that game are after battle has already started. "First Contact" and the start of the Human/Covenant war happened 6 years earlier than the events of Halo Wars, which in turn is about 20 years before Reach and the following games.
First Contact = 2525
Halo Wars = 2531
Reach/CE/2/ODST/3 = 2552
Also I read that Reach may not be the last Halo game. Is the world visible at the end of the Halo 3 cinematics a hint to another game, or just 'keeping their options open'?
Well, Reach was the last Halo game that Bungie are going to make, but you can pretty much guarantee that MS (the owners of the Halo IP) are going to keep it going for as long as they can. It's a cash cow, and a big company like that loves cash cows. Frank O'Connor, one of the writers/creative directors of the Halo universe and games, talked about the ending of Halo 3 at Comic-Con this year. When asked if we would ever find out what happened to Chief and Cortana, he said, and I quote....
We'd have to be the world's biggest a**holes to not follow through on a cliffhanger like that .... we certainly haven't seen the last of the Master Chief.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7sUVQuyRHY4#t=4m50s
Given that the planet seems to be of Forerunner origin, and there being a new series of books based around the Forerunners coming early next year, I'm going with that as the basis of "Halo 4", whatever/whenever that happens.
NT1440
Mar 10, 11:11 PM
What makes it worse is that the US doesn't benefit from it's imperialistic tendencies aside from a few corrupt politicians and the select defense and oil business. The net effect to the tax payer is negative. The UK at least was smart enough to let it's empire go when it realized that it was no longer profitable.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The UK now just helps us out because they are basically our #2. After WWII the United States was the only world power that didn't have devastated infrastructure and economy and had a never before seen military strength. No one was capable of coming back from that, and if you don't play nice with the big dog, its going to bite you. They didn't give up the imperialism, they just decided second in command was good enough. Take a look at the Bush/Blair bromance.
Cheers,
Ahmed
The UK now just helps us out because they are basically our #2. After WWII the United States was the only world power that didn't have devastated infrastructure and economy and had a never before seen military strength. No one was capable of coming back from that, and if you don't play nice with the big dog, its going to bite you. They didn't give up the imperialism, they just decided second in command was good enough. Take a look at the Bush/Blair bromance.
ssteve
Aug 24, 12:58 PM
Can Sony do anything right these days?
NO! I bet that if given the chance, they will screw-up Blu-ray.
NO! I bet that if given the chance, they will screw-up Blu-ray.
solyd
Mar 25, 02:18 PM
Then how do you turn it off? If it's a feature I should have the option to change it back to how it was. It's pretty annoying and I'm surprised no one else is complaining about it
It's an Apple feature, and Apple said yes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/18/ipad-2-wife-says-no-but-apple-says-yes/), so you don't get an option :)
As for those people with Verizon iPhone:
I'm pretty sure Verizon got a copy of 4.3.1 and decided not to release it for their customers. It's usually up to the carrier to test and okay any OS on their network. Verizon has always been the slowest in doing so; it's probably a good thing because the OS on their phones are for the most part very solid.
It's an Apple feature, and Apple said yes (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/18/ipad-2-wife-says-no-but-apple-says-yes/), so you don't get an option :)
As for those people with Verizon iPhone:
I'm pretty sure Verizon got a copy of 4.3.1 and decided not to release it for their customers. It's usually up to the carrier to test and okay any OS on their network. Verizon has always been the slowest in doing so; it's probably a good thing because the OS on their phones are for the most part very solid.
fabsgwu
Sep 12, 02:21 PM
Nice upgrade, the color options on the small and big ones are kind of lame, but I hope they will work with a firewire to dock cable for those of us without USB 2.
NO FireWire sync support since the G5/Nano iPod's. This is why I'm crying today :rolleyes:
You can charge your USB 2.0 iPod via FireWire, but don't hold your breath for increased FireWire support from Apple for future products.
NO FireWire sync support since the G5/Nano iPod's. This is why I'm crying today :rolleyes:
You can charge your USB 2.0 iPod via FireWire, but don't hold your breath for increased FireWire support from Apple for future products.
ArizonaKid
Aug 9, 10:35 AM
Time Machine seems more like the Shadow Copies on Server only on a local level rather than a network drive. (example attached)
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
I use Shadow Copies on our network all the time, it is very handy. The concept and implementation of Time Machine is not original. Apple simply slapped Eye Candy on it and raved about how it is a revolution.
Outside of my company's network, which has tons of server space, I don't know if I would want Time Machine to automatically make backups. Guess I am just old school and prefer to manually make backups. That way I am maximizing my personal hardrive space.
I'm assuming they will use a form of Single Instance Storage with TM, so you have one copy of the file and only the deltas from any changes to reduce space requirements.
I use Shadow Copies on our network all the time, it is very handy. The concept and implementation of Time Machine is not original. Apple simply slapped Eye Candy on it and raved about how it is a revolution.
Outside of my company's network, which has tons of server space, I don't know if I would want Time Machine to automatically make backups. Guess I am just old school and prefer to manually make backups. That way I am maximizing my personal hardrive space.
No comments:
Post a Comment