jacg
Sep 12, 03:12 PM
I don't know how to include a screenshot in here but can anyone explain what the item in the Preferences > Advanced > General is that says:
'Allow iTunes control from remote speakers'
Also, while looking for iTunes7 I read that v 6.0.5 could send audio to more than one set of remote speakers simultaneously. How do you do that?
'Allow iTunes control from remote speakers'
Also, while looking for iTunes7 I read that v 6.0.5 could send audio to more than one set of remote speakers simultaneously. How do you do that?
Huntn
Mar 30, 11:31 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.
In essence booting out Qa-Daffy is no assurance of ending up with anything better or friendlier.
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.
In essence booting out Qa-Daffy is no assurance of ending up with anything better or friendlier.
wilsonlaidlaw
Mar 19, 07:28 AM
My standard music library (excluding spoken word, audio books) is around 72GB and growing. I want to have this in one simple library, available for streaming, playing in my car, taking with me when travelling etc. Split libraries are a pain to use, administer and load.
The iPod touch is too expensive for a simple music player and does lots of things I just don't need, since I have iPhones and an iPad to fulfil those functions. The iPod Classic is ideal. I do get annoyed with the incompatibility of the various versions with connecting devices, where some need version 5, 5.5 or 6 etc, as Apple has updated the Codex. it would have been nice to have built in backwards compatibility into docks etc but I suppose Apple want us to continue to buy new iPods. I would be happy if Apple made an improved iPod classic with higher quality storage and output (maybe optical like my old iRiver used to have and Macs and Airport Expresses have). I have just bought another 120GB Classic just in case they go out of production.
The iPod touch is too expensive for a simple music player and does lots of things I just don't need, since I have iPhones and an iPad to fulfil those functions. The iPod Classic is ideal. I do get annoyed with the incompatibility of the various versions with connecting devices, where some need version 5, 5.5 or 6 etc, as Apple has updated the Codex. it would have been nice to have built in backwards compatibility into docks etc but I suppose Apple want us to continue to buy new iPods. I would be happy if Apple made an improved iPod classic with higher quality storage and output (maybe optical like my old iRiver used to have and Macs and Airport Expresses have). I have just bought another 120GB Classic just in case they go out of production.
Amazing Iceman
Mar 22, 12:46 AM
I thought there were slightly more women? It would make sense that there would be as they live longer!
Well, I just thought I made a mistake by writing the above, but did some research and to my surprise, we are in trouble!
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
In 2010 the world sex ratio was 101 males per 100 females.
No wonder, like Rodney Dangerfield used to say: 'There's no respect!'
:mad::D
Well, I just thought I made a mistake by writing the above, but did some research and to my surprise, we are in trouble!
According to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_sex_ratio
In 2010 the world sex ratio was 101 males per 100 females.
No wonder, like Rodney Dangerfield used to say: 'There's no respect!'
:mad::D
heehee
Sep 6, 08:34 AM
Where is the Core 2 Duo in the Macbook Pro? :mad:
Detektiv-Pinky
Nov 8, 08:47 AM
The 2.0 model also includes 4MB L2 cache instead of "just" 2MB L2 cache... remember the days when we used to measure L2 in increments of 256KB?
One more reason to stay away from the 1.83 model.
However, for some people it also means to stay away from Apple altogether...:eek:
I remember the days when processor cache was an altogether new thing. Am I really that old? :confused:
One more reason to stay away from the 1.83 model.
However, for some people it also means to stay away from Apple altogether...:eek:
I remember the days when processor cache was an altogether new thing. Am I really that old? :confused:
brepublican
Sep 12, 05:05 PM
Question for everyone.
I was playing with itunes 7, and I realized that if i hit the yellow minimize button (with scale effect set) it minimizes into the dock like normal, but when i try to bring it back from the dock it does nothing for a second and then it just appears. I don't know if the way i wrote that makes sense, but give it a try and see if it works for you.
:confused: Do you mean the Genie effect? I havent updated yet, but I sure hope that that works just fine!
I was playing with itunes 7, and I realized that if i hit the yellow minimize button (with scale effect set) it minimizes into the dock like normal, but when i try to bring it back from the dock it does nothing for a second and then it just appears. I don't know if the way i wrote that makes sense, but give it a try and see if it works for you.
:confused: Do you mean the Genie effect? I havent updated yet, but I sure hope that that works just fine!
jacobo007
Mar 29, 12:46 AM
Apple is at the core a software company.
No, Apple is a hardware company.
Both of you are wrong, Apple is a vertical systems integrator and vendor.
Apple is a marketing company above all else.
The truth is Apple is a Systems Company.
:)
No, Apple is a hardware company.
Both of you are wrong, Apple is a vertical systems integrator and vendor.
Apple is a marketing company above all else.
The truth is Apple is a Systems Company.
:)
easlerjj
Aug 8, 08:39 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
"* An unconfirmed forum post claims (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=304580) that the Mac Pro CPUs are swappable."
It's true. The Mac Pro service manual is now available to technicians, which includes instructions for replacing the CPUs.
"* An unconfirmed forum post claims (http://forums.macnn.com/showthread.php?t=304580) that the Mac Pro CPUs are swappable."
It's true. The Mac Pro service manual is now available to technicians, which includes instructions for replacing the CPUs.
Huntn
Oct 12, 11:06 AM
That is fine. I'm not telling you what your opinion should be. I'm just saying, I found the story to be quite good, and all of the levels seemed very logical in their order and importance. The fact that you missed all the dates in all the cutscenes might explain why you found them to be "random" in their occurrence. The story was VERY far from rubbish, in my opinion.
I think it boils down to expectations. If you are happy living another chapter of the story, then it's ok. If a player is anticipating a "new" experience, I'd agree that there is room for disappointment from a story perspective. However I thought the space flying was fun. If I critique it, story wise there seems to be no revelations regarding mankind's prequel pre-Halo encounter with the Covenant. Their on Reach, mostly run around and fight'm. I think it confirms it's time to put the Halo story to bed.
My favorite Halo games are the original and Halo 3. Halo 3 is amazing. No surprises there? :)
I think it boils down to expectations. If you are happy living another chapter of the story, then it's ok. If a player is anticipating a "new" experience, I'd agree that there is room for disappointment from a story perspective. However I thought the space flying was fun. If I critique it, story wise there seems to be no revelations regarding mankind's prequel pre-Halo encounter with the Covenant. Their on Reach, mostly run around and fight'm. I think it confirms it's time to put the Halo story to bed.
My favorite Halo games are the original and Halo 3. Halo 3 is amazing. No surprises there? :)
bob232
Mar 25, 09:46 PM
Download links please?
ummm, ever heard of itune?
ummm, ever heard of itune?
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.
chris975d
May 5, 09:12 AM
AT&T already does ota updates for Android phones.
The update notice tells you that the download will begin once you connect to wifi.
Keeps you from blowing through your data plan.
Makes sense that they would do it for the iPhone too.
I was going to say this as well. It's how my Android phones have always been (with AT&T). Don't know why Apple can't utilize the same method (notification of update, and tell user to connect to wifi to complete update) for my iPhones.
The update notice tells you that the download will begin once you connect to wifi.
Keeps you from blowing through your data plan.
Makes sense that they would do it for the iPhone too.
I was going to say this as well. It's how my Android phones have always been (with AT&T). Don't know why Apple can't utilize the same method (notification of update, and tell user to connect to wifi to complete update) for my iPhones.
tsmithgolf2000
Aug 24, 12:03 PM
Powerbook G4's and Ibooks. Just announced on CNBC.
spencers
Oct 26, 09:12 AM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs903.snc4/71648_164866660198726_100000261799253_456073_3612241_n.jpg
That's quite a bit of BEIGE!
That's quite a bit of BEIGE!
vansouza
Oct 16, 01:48 PM
Personally the Zune is looking fairly attrective right now. Ever since the 5th Gen iPod came out everyone has complained that it needed to be widescreen and have a bigger screen. I don't care for the WiFi sharing really but you have to admit the interface looks pretty nice.
I don't have to admit any such thing..
I don't have to admit any such thing..
rlreif
Nov 27, 07:47 PM
Their greed, or yours?
ive spent over 10,000 on itunes since it came out... you dont know me dude... im the farthest thing from a cheapskate in the universe.... im tyoing this now from my yacht in Bora Bora it isnt about the money, its about the convenience.... itunes works cause its instant gratification, im not going to fly to some developed country just to buy a cd by a group thats too stuck on themselves to join the rest of the world offering their product in a convenient manor... screw them...
they had the nerve to sue apple over and over, jobs named apple apple as a tribute... and they were supposed to be about peace and love... and you are defenfending them... they are greedy bastards and they reaped what they sow
ive spent over 10,000 on itunes since it came out... you dont know me dude... im the farthest thing from a cheapskate in the universe.... im tyoing this now from my yacht in Bora Bora it isnt about the money, its about the convenience.... itunes works cause its instant gratification, im not going to fly to some developed country just to buy a cd by a group thats too stuck on themselves to join the rest of the world offering their product in a convenient manor... screw them...
they had the nerve to sue apple over and over, jobs named apple apple as a tribute... and they were supposed to be about peace and love... and you are defenfending them... they are greedy bastards and they reaped what they sow
theheadguy
Apr 12, 11:45 AM
If they build it from scratch, they could probably design the place with working conditions that don't make people as suicidal (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1104449&referrerid=51132).
Mess
Mar 25, 04:44 PM
I just downloaded the update, it told me something failed and I need to restore my iPhone. I am on try 3 and it is still failing every time it tries to restore. It's giving me error code 1013. I would stay away from this update for at least a day or two until others give feedback. It doesn't seem to be that critical of an update anyways.
As stated below, You just need to fix the host file. It gave me the same error earlier too :rolleyes:
It's not bricked. You've been using TinyUmbrella, so it didn't allow the baseband to get updated. Fix your hosts file and it will be fine.
Easy way to sort it, just put a hash in front of any lines that have gs.apple in and then try again!
As stated below, You just need to fix the host file. It gave me the same error earlier too :rolleyes:
It's not bricked. You've been using TinyUmbrella, so it didn't allow the baseband to get updated. Fix your hosts file and it will be fine.
Easy way to sort it, just put a hash in front of any lines that have gs.apple in and then try again!
i4Collin
Apr 4, 01:46 PM
This is the first, and last time Apple will ask for Sony's help.
vi2867
Nov 27, 10:31 AM
It really doesn't mean much to me, since I have had their entire catalog on cd since 1987...
The money they are talking about doesn't really go to the Beatles, since the Beatles were bad financial managers when they were together, they get very little of this money. They all made their fortunes after the brake up...;)
The money they are talking about doesn't really go to the Beatles, since the Beatles were bad financial managers when they were together, they get very little of this money. They all made their fortunes after the brake up...;)
FireFish
May 5, 02:46 AM
[/URL][URL="http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif"]Image (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/ios-5-to-finally-deliver-over-the-air-updates/)
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/04/234536-vz2_500.jpg)
According to 9to5Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/64928/apple-and-verizon-to-deliver-over-the-air-ios-updates-to-verizon-iphone/), Apple is negotiating with Verizon about delivering over-the-air iOS updates starting with iOS 5.An over-the-air update system would allow users to download the iOS update directly to their phone over 3G or Wi-Fi and update their phone to the latest version without connecting to iTunes. Android devices already offer this feature.
Due to the high bandwidth requirement, it seems Apple needs to negotiate deals with individual carriers to allow such a system to take place. We should note that Apple's iOS is partially capable of this functionality already. The Apple TV which is based on iOS 4 offers "over the air" updates with no iTunes syncing required. The Apple TV, however, stores little customer data so backups are not as critical as with iPhone and iPad devices. :eek:
Article Link: iOS 5 to Finally Deliver Over-The-Air Updates? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/ios-5-to-finally-deliver-over-the-air-updates/) :)
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Even if they just made "patches" so we aren't downloading half a gb of updates every 2 weeks. :(
Blow through your data cap with 650MB downloads for every point update? Not happening until Apple can deliver smaller downloads for updates.
:rolleyes: I'm starting to get the feeling that people are finding that the Verizon iPhone 4 wasn't all they thought it would be. Granted that the voice quality is better; remember you cannot use 3G while on the phone with Verizon and also remember that phones are more like 'personal communicators' these days. Now that Internet caps are being introduced, everyone is going to loose, just as a Predicted. You have more & more apps that rely heavily on cloud based content that need 3G web access. This is why I kept my AT&T grandfathered Unlimited Data Plan for both my iPhone 4 as well as my wife's iPhone 4 & my iPad 2.
On the new iPad, unlimited cell internet is awesome. You can watch movies from anywhere, etc. all without worrying about your bandwidth or throttle limitations. :apple:
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/04/234536-vz2_500.jpg)
According to 9to5Mac (http://www.9to5mac.com/64928/apple-and-verizon-to-deliver-over-the-air-ios-updates-to-verizon-iphone/), Apple is negotiating with Verizon about delivering over-the-air iOS updates starting with iOS 5.An over-the-air update system would allow users to download the iOS update directly to their phone over 3G or Wi-Fi and update their phone to the latest version without connecting to iTunes. Android devices already offer this feature.
Due to the high bandwidth requirement, it seems Apple needs to negotiate deals with individual carriers to allow such a system to take place. We should note that Apple's iOS is partially capable of this functionality already. The Apple TV which is based on iOS 4 offers "over the air" updates with no iTunes syncing required. The Apple TV, however, stores little customer data so backups are not as critical as with iPhone and iPad devices. :eek:
Article Link: iOS 5 to Finally Deliver Over-The-Air Updates? (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/ios-5-to-finally-deliver-over-the-air-updates/) :)
Wouldn't be a bad idea. Even if they just made "patches" so we aren't downloading half a gb of updates every 2 weeks. :(
Blow through your data cap with 650MB downloads for every point update? Not happening until Apple can deliver smaller downloads for updates.
:rolleyes: I'm starting to get the feeling that people are finding that the Verizon iPhone 4 wasn't all they thought it would be. Granted that the voice quality is better; remember you cannot use 3G while on the phone with Verizon and also remember that phones are more like 'personal communicators' these days. Now that Internet caps are being introduced, everyone is going to loose, just as a Predicted. You have more & more apps that rely heavily on cloud based content that need 3G web access. This is why I kept my AT&T grandfathered Unlimited Data Plan for both my iPhone 4 as well as my wife's iPhone 4 & my iPad 2.
On the new iPad, unlimited cell internet is awesome. You can watch movies from anywhere, etc. all without worrying about your bandwidth or throttle limitations. :apple:
Ayre
Aug 24, 04:29 PM
My laptop has been very hot to the touch recently, and my battery only holds a 24% charge. I wonder if this has anything to do with it.
Oh well, my order for a new battery has been placed. Thank you, Sony!
Oh well, my order for a new battery has been placed. Thank you, Sony!
Tmelon
Mar 25, 12:20 PM
Any "bug fixes" actually listed out?
Well the graphical issues on the iPod touch 4th gen are fixed. I'm afraid I didn't look through everything.
Well the graphical issues on the iPod touch 4th gen are fixed. I'm afraid I didn't look through everything.
No comments:
Post a Comment