LEStudios
Apr 15, 08:18 PM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
yeah I heard this before when early pictures and videos of the 2009 Mac mini. Then it came true. If you look at the iPad Accessories this would use the same dock that the iPad currently uses. Apple hardly make single use of accessories per product. It's varies of products. I say it's a winner to me! :D
yeah I heard this before when early pictures and videos of the 2009 Mac mini. Then it came true. If you look at the iPad Accessories this would use the same dock that the iPad currently uses. Apple hardly make single use of accessories per product. It's varies of products. I say it's a winner to me! :D
Eidorian
Mar 24, 07:31 PM
Downhill since Tiger.
arn
Oct 10, 07:32 PM
I'm starting to doubt page 1 rumors just as much as I doubt Page 2 rumors. Unless you (MacRumors, not the 'source' website of the rumor,) have credible, reliable, direct sources, it belongs on Page 2. If you don't have direct sources, (as rumors on other websites would be,) it does not belong on page 1. By your own standards.
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
tekker
May 4, 08:33 PM
It's basically the ultimate "access" machine. Just yesterday I used my phone as a dictionary, store, terminal to enterprise software, link to external contact database. (also made some phone calls) iPad would be similar. Lookup, lookup, lookup. Web browsing is covered under that, too.
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
The iPad is soo ultimate in access, that you can't even access its file system...
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
One thing the iPad brings that any phone cannot is a level of professionalism. In the companies I deal with, using your phone during a meeting looks questionable, like you're fooling around. Using a tablet or laptop to do the exact same lookup of whatever would be ok. It's a little silly, but that's the vibe I get currently.
This is not to say everyone has use for it. I'm happy with the phone, I'm not in that many meetings.
The iPad is soo ultimate in access, that you can't even access its file system...
...and the only professional work being done on iPads in meetings are trying to get to the last level in Angry Birds LOL
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 09:37 AM
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
jmthigpen
May 3, 09:27 PM
just getting started...iPad 3!
.jpg "amitabh bachan house.")
Full of Win
Mar 28, 02:18 PM
BS. Pure, BS.
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
Zwhaler
Apr 15, 09:55 PM
Agreed.
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
http://att.macrumors.com/attachment.php?attachmentid=222299&d=1271355038
Owned that's all I have to say...
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.
BLUELION
Apr 6, 01:17 PM
Well, take the superbowl ads. Many, and I mean mean are lame but you know what people flock to them every hear like flies on scat just to watch. Why? Because there is a hype around the superbowl event and we have been conditioned over time to tune in.
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
roadbloc
Apr 24, 05:13 AM
STOP RESPONDING TO, AND QUOTING, THE TROLLS!!!
What trolls? If you're on about *LTD* here, he is entitled to his opinion, and whereas our opinions differ, it does not mean he is a troll.
What I don't like in this case, is that *LTD* appears to have altered his opinion to suit Apple. He has, on several cases, accuse Google of being a company that cares more about the personal data of users, rather than the user experience. And now that Apple are also seen to be possibly collecting user data, it's a non-issue.
I also disagree with his thought that the 'average person' wouldn't care about the safety and security of their children on cyberspace. Utter rubbish. The 'average person' wants re-assuring that cyberspace is totally safe before they let their kids use it. The 'average person' wants full control over what their kids can and can't do on cyberspace. The 'average person' also doesn't really know the difference between a conversation with a pedo over messenger, and a conversation with an actual friend.
Let me give an example:
Lizzie: Hey.
Amy: Hi. :p
Lizzie: Check out this cool song.
<Lizzie offers Amy track01.mp3.exe>
<Transfer complete.>
Amy: Clicked on it. Doesn't work :(
Lizzie: :/ I'll look for it on YouTube.
Amy: k :)
Lizzie: Here you go :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
And before you know it, the pedo has access to everything on "Amy's" computer. If our pedo knows how to get a malicious program like that, they certainly know which file contains their iPhone locations.
Slim chance, I know. But there is a risk that it may happen. And I find that unacceptable.
What trolls? If you're on about *LTD* here, he is entitled to his opinion, and whereas our opinions differ, it does not mean he is a troll.
What I don't like in this case, is that *LTD* appears to have altered his opinion to suit Apple. He has, on several cases, accuse Google of being a company that cares more about the personal data of users, rather than the user experience. And now that Apple are also seen to be possibly collecting user data, it's a non-issue.
I also disagree with his thought that the 'average person' wouldn't care about the safety and security of their children on cyberspace. Utter rubbish. The 'average person' wants re-assuring that cyberspace is totally safe before they let their kids use it. The 'average person' wants full control over what their kids can and can't do on cyberspace. The 'average person' also doesn't really know the difference between a conversation with a pedo over messenger, and a conversation with an actual friend.
Let me give an example:
Lizzie: Hey.
Amy: Hi. :p
Lizzie: Check out this cool song.
<Lizzie offers Amy track01.mp3.exe>
<Transfer complete.>
Amy: Clicked on it. Doesn't work :(
Lizzie: :/ I'll look for it on YouTube.
Amy: k :)
Lizzie: Here you go :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CD2LRROpph0
And before you know it, the pedo has access to everything on "Amy's" computer. If our pedo knows how to get a malicious program like that, they certainly know which file contains their iPhone locations.
Slim chance, I know. But there is a risk that it may happen. And I find that unacceptable.
MacinDoc
Sep 12, 12:15 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)• Several sites continue to report (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609moviestudios.html) that only the Disney Studio is on-board for the initial launch of the iTunes Movie Store.
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
If it's just Disney, then there's not much point. The reason iTMS succeeded from the start was that it was simple and it had the largest library from which you could purchase single songs. If the iTunes Movie store starts with just Disney movies, then it's dead in the water. Let's just hope that ThinkSecret is wrong again, as usual.
Popeye206
Apr 16, 05:59 PM
Apple has by far the most restrictive ecosystem. You can't even load applications that are not approved by Apple.
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.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
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.
Yeah, I know... there are also Apps that break the rules and get axed, but for the most part, my first point is true. Any legitimate application can get approved.
If you keep up with Android apps, security is one of the their problems. Open? Yes... risky? Yes.
lilo777
Apr 25, 01:18 PM
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
But will they stop calling it a retina display then? Because the dpi will drop with screen size increase :D
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
But will they stop calling it a retina display then? Because the dpi will drop with screen size increase :D
Karnivore
Apr 26, 08:34 AM
3.7" ain't going to cut it, sorry
z4n3
Mar 24, 04:10 PM
When I first saw OSX I was blown away :D and looking though my geek pics found a screen shot from my G4 Cube in cannot remember if the screenshot from 2001 was 10.0 or 10.1 as that cube came with OS9 and had them both 10 beta and 10.1 installed, anyway though I would share a screenshot of my desktop now and then then :D
p.s.
Can anyone remember the name of the iTunes player in the pic from 2001? it had LOADS of skins and the particular one in the pic! used to sink into the desktop when you clicked the screen or on another program, does anyone know if they brought it back to life? I miss that player SOOOOO MUCHHHHH :(
Funny to see that the Screen icon has not changed!!! since 10 / 10.6 hahha, at-least in 10.7 they have finally changed it to reflect the actual screens on sale.
p.s.
Can anyone remember the name of the iTunes player in the pic from 2001? it had LOADS of skins and the particular one in the pic! used to sink into the desktop when you clicked the screen or on another program, does anyone know if they brought it back to life? I miss that player SOOOOO MUCHHHHH :(
Funny to see that the Screen icon has not changed!!! since 10 / 10.6 hahha, at-least in 10.7 they have finally changed it to reflect the actual screens on sale.
WillEH
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
10 years of making history! :)
jz1492
Dec 13, 03:37 PM
There are two powerful reasons for Verizon to push for an LTE/CDMA iPhone at this time:
1) Fear of the iPhone data hogs. What better way to avoid saturation in large cities than to channel iPhone users to their highest-BW unused spectrum.
2) Voice + Data. After so much pressure from AT&T and Apple's marketing in this regard, there is no way the new Verizon's iPhone could be introduced successfully without top notch V+D functionality. CDMA is a no go, even with the latest upgrade.
On the other hand, this could be a false rumor slipped by the competition to hurt Christmas time sales of the iPhone 4.
1) Fear of the iPhone data hogs. What better way to avoid saturation in large cities than to channel iPhone users to their highest-BW unused spectrum.
2) Voice + Data. After so much pressure from AT&T and Apple's marketing in this regard, there is no way the new Verizon's iPhone could be introduced successfully without top notch V+D functionality. CDMA is a no go, even with the latest upgrade.
On the other hand, this could be a false rumor slipped by the competition to hurt Christmas time sales of the iPhone 4.
twoodcc
May 2, 10:16 PM
well i think i finally got my home built system running at 4.0 ghz. it has been a long journey, to say the least. but it's folding away a bigadv unit and 2 GPUs. hopefully this will last all week since i'll be away
KnightWRX
May 1, 06:22 PM
Interesting...there are 3 files called "MobileTestIPhone.html", "MobileTestIPhoneRetina.html", and MobileTestIPad.html with accompanying Javascript and CSS files in Safari's Resources folder:
Typing an address into the address field doesn't do anything but perhaps something is forthcoming.
The "missing plug-in" is "application/x-mobile-test"
In when Steve introduced the iPhone, he told us how "web applications" were going to be the future for the device. This is probably just a way to test those web applications you can write for iOS devices (the capability is still there, just not used very much in favor of native applications).
Typing an address into the address field doesn't do anything but perhaps something is forthcoming.
The "missing plug-in" is "application/x-mobile-test"
In when Steve introduced the iPhone, he told us how "web applications" were going to be the future for the device. This is probably just a way to test those web applications you can write for iOS devices (the capability is still there, just not used very much in favor of native applications).
pudrums
Apr 8, 03:30 AM
@SPEEDwithJJ: Watch the Family Guy episode "New Kidney in Town" and you'll know :D
bedifferent
Apr 29, 06:50 PM
Like this? :p
Odd, I don't have that option in "System Preferences"
Odd, I don't have that option in "System Preferences"
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 02:39 PM
Yes, you'll get a great idea by the votes. :D
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
haha. Well yeah you will get a highly biased perspective of course. That's a given. But the tendency will be for things that are good for Apple as a company. As long as you understand the bias you can base your own opinions off of the biased opinion. :p
mcmadhatter
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
If you click check for itunes updates you get a message The Itunes update server could not be contacted, try again later
No comments:
Post a Comment