SkippyThorson
Apr 15, 12:41 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
You're entirely right, it does. It makes sense that the awkward image is the oldest too, since that was the earliest image. The other ones are a bit better because they obviously took time. The angles however on the back of the device, going from the middle out to the corners, are just awkward though.
I don't see how they would go back to angles after touting the more curved and comfortable 3G / 3GS back. There was a big focus on how much more comfortable the new iPhone was to hold compared to the first.
Regardless of the validity, I personally think the chances are very high for a unibody type iPhone, it only makes sense. Apple did a unibody macbook (plastic). Its Apple, everything standardizes and is consistent, otherwise Steve's head will explode.
You could be right too, especially that last line. Things are almost always uniform. However, when the iPod Classic went to metal, and the iPhone went to plastic, that was an unexpected switch. The iPhone has never really been "in line".
nagromme
Aug 7, 03:57 PM
There were updates. (http://guides.macrumors.com/Apple_Cinema_Displays) Better brightness and contrast ratio on the 20" and 23".
Someone said those brightness updates happened weeks ago. True?
Nice either way!
I too am holding out for a true next generation... maybe with new larger sizes, iSight, or new connectivity. But if I needed a display now, it's not as easy to choose a Dell anymore :)
Someone said those brightness updates happened weeks ago. True?
Nice either way!
I too am holding out for a true next generation... maybe with new larger sizes, iSight, or new connectivity. But if I needed a display now, it's not as easy to choose a Dell anymore :)
JoeG4
Mar 18, 09:34 PM
I admit, I do get sick of my iPhone-loving friends saying ew every time I bring out/mention my phone. Maybe they're jealous when we're in the same building they've got no signal and I've got some EDGE still. XD
quagmire
May 4, 06:00 PM
Sorry, but whether I have guns in my house with my kids is not anyones business but my own.
Is asking if the gun is locked up and out of the kids reach really crossing the line?
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
Is asking if the gun is locked up and out of the kids reach really crossing the line?
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
more...
relativist
Apr 9, 05:25 PM
I checked next weeks circular on slickdeals.net and no mention of iPad2. I'm starting to think it would be better to buy it anywhere else. From what I remember it took about 2-3 months at most after the iPad 1 was announced that it became readily available.
topmounter
Apr 29, 03:47 PM
Wow, if they don't get those changes implemented immediately Lion is going to be the Mac's Vista!!1! :p
more...
coder12
May 4, 06:53 AM
:.) It's so beautiful, like a double raaaaiinnboow!!
msb3079
Apr 25, 03:45 PM
I'd much rather have a slightly bigger screen (mostly for less "dead" space) than performance improvements, when I'm happy with current performance. WTF do you people do on your phones anyway...??
more...
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
BOY MEETS WORLD
more...
from Boy Meets World in
BOY MEETS WORLD.
more...
Boy Meets World
Topanga From Boy Meets World.
more...
doing on Boy Meets World,
Boy Meets World-Fami
more...
oy meets world wasdevon
from Boy Meets World:
from Boy Meets World – she
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
linked.account
Apr 29, 04:28 PM
Please also replace those crappy black white icons with colored ones.What is wrong with colors? Is lion color-alergic??
more...
Bonte
Oct 29, 02:24 PM
They will take "because it'll kill Apple's hardware business, which is where Apple makes most of their money" as an answer, however.
Apple's interests lie in selling high-margin solutions, not bottom-of-the-market extremely low margin PCs.
Think of Dell as Ford, and Apple as BMW.
The computer - car analogy has to stop, it makes no sense at all. The most reliable car is the Toyota Corolla because it is the longest in production and has the errors worked out a long time ago, worst reliable cars are short production but expensive models like the Ferrari. Ford has less luxury options but may well be more reliable than BMW, price and luxury isn't the key factor here.
As for the "high-margin solutions" Apple has a good position at the moment, price is competitive and high standard. It looks like Apple wants to keep a firm grip on the top end models but losing it on the low end, there is no sub $500 Mac! (except maybe the "iTV") Licensing an OS has a typical $80 price point and that is more than they make on a Mac Mini (hard- and software together) so it makes sense to me.
A few years back Steve said that Apple would focus more on software than on hardware (and brought the iPod on the market :) ), the release of 10.5 may well be the turning point for the OS. If Mac sales go the way of the iPod then i agree there is no need to license but if not i see no other option. Its not if but when.
Apple's interests lie in selling high-margin solutions, not bottom-of-the-market extremely low margin PCs.
Think of Dell as Ford, and Apple as BMW.
The computer - car analogy has to stop, it makes no sense at all. The most reliable car is the Toyota Corolla because it is the longest in production and has the errors worked out a long time ago, worst reliable cars are short production but expensive models like the Ferrari. Ford has less luxury options but may well be more reliable than BMW, price and luxury isn't the key factor here.
As for the "high-margin solutions" Apple has a good position at the moment, price is competitive and high standard. It looks like Apple wants to keep a firm grip on the top end models but losing it on the low end, there is no sub $500 Mac! (except maybe the "iTV") Licensing an OS has a typical $80 price point and that is more than they make on a Mac Mini (hard- and software together) so it makes sense to me.
A few years back Steve said that Apple would focus more on software than on hardware (and brought the iPod on the market :) ), the release of 10.5 may well be the turning point for the OS. If Mac sales go the way of the iPod then i agree there is no need to license but if not i see no other option. Its not if but when.
rdowns
Apr 21, 11:01 AM
I don't see this ending well. See ratings for front page articles.
more...
Eidorian
Apr 5, 03:04 PM
I wonder if the McRib is still on sale around here...
I still have to try those new Turkey Burgers at Hardee's.
I still have to try those new Turkey Burgers at Hardee's.
benbow
Nov 24, 01:04 AM
I'm ready to order a second iMac 17" 2.0 from the Apple on-line store after midnight.
Besides the estimated US$100 discount on Black Friday the retail stores and the on-line store should provide a coupon giving one access to Apple's low profile recycling program. One can recycle up to 140 pounds (less shipping boxes) of old computer junk by obtaining from Apple two Fed-Ex shipping labels. Drop two boxes off at Fed-Ex and Apple will pay for the shipping to their recycling center. Supposedly good equipment gets directed to worthy organizations and the toxic stuff gets recycled properly. If you buy a Mac elsewhere you can't participate in Apple's recycling program.
My 1989 LaserWriter II still prints fine but will not work with any of my current Macs. A 1994 Sony 17" CRT monitor and a Power Mac 6100 are likewise ready to recycle. Where I live it would cost me $75 at the dump and over $100 to ship them to a responsible computer recycler.
Besides the estimated US$100 discount on Black Friday the retail stores and the on-line store should provide a coupon giving one access to Apple's low profile recycling program. One can recycle up to 140 pounds (less shipping boxes) of old computer junk by obtaining from Apple two Fed-Ex shipping labels. Drop two boxes off at Fed-Ex and Apple will pay for the shipping to their recycling center. Supposedly good equipment gets directed to worthy organizations and the toxic stuff gets recycled properly. If you buy a Mac elsewhere you can't participate in Apple's recycling program.
My 1989 LaserWriter II still prints fine but will not work with any of my current Macs. A 1994 Sony 17" CRT monitor and a Power Mac 6100 are likewise ready to recycle. Where I live it would cost me $75 at the dump and over $100 to ship them to a responsible computer recycler.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
May 2, 04:12 PM
Here is why gestures are great and will win out over mouse and keyboard use for almost all uses: they are a direct action and not an indirect action.
Believe what you will. I have a MBP with gestures and I find some useful and some annoying. I can do fine artwork with a mouse and Photoshop (stylus is even more useful), but I can't do it with a piddly trackpad. I would not want to play 3D shooter games with a trackpad either. In other words, trackpads have their uses and are getting better for some tasks with gestures, but they're not the answer to life, the universe and everything either. Every task has its ideal tool. You don't throw out hand tools because air tools are available. They're unsuited for many tasks (particularly delicate ones).
Believe what you will. I have a MBP with gestures and I find some useful and some annoying. I can do fine artwork with a mouse and Photoshop (stylus is even more useful), but I can't do it with a piddly trackpad. I would not want to play 3D shooter games with a trackpad either. In other words, trackpads have their uses and are getting better for some tasks with gestures, but they're not the answer to life, the universe and everything either. Every task has its ideal tool. You don't throw out hand tools because air tools are available. They're unsuited for many tasks (particularly delicate ones).
Links
Aug 23, 01:22 AM
The following was posted on www.barefeats.com last Friday:
"August 18th, 2006 -- New Apple 23" Cinema impresses. We ordered a new 23" Cinema display for our Mac Pro 3GHz. This new model (numbers starting with 2A6281 or higher) is brighter with better contrast than the previous model. Best of all, the pink hue on grey screens is gone."
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
Guess they got lucky.
Gus, at Apple's Cinema Displays (Mid 2004) forum, wasn't and his is also a "newer" version than the one barefeats got.
"I ordered my ACD 23'' online, on August 14th, and I got a display serial number 2A6290, with serious backlight leakage, and a magenta cast on the left side. I am going to the store to exchange it or return it."
"August 18th, 2006 -- New Apple 23" Cinema impresses. We ordered a new 23" Cinema display for our Mac Pro 3GHz. This new model (numbers starting with 2A6281 or higher) is brighter with better contrast than the previous model. Best of all, the pink hue on grey screens is gone."
http://www.barefeats.com/quick.html
Guess they got lucky.
Gus, at Apple's Cinema Displays (Mid 2004) forum, wasn't and his is also a "newer" version than the one barefeats got.
"I ordered my ACD 23'' online, on August 14th, and I got a display serial number 2A6290, with serious backlight leakage, and a magenta cast on the left side. I am going to the store to exchange it or return it."
more...
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 02:58 PM
Okay. I don't know when the keynote will update but I'll do what I usually do. Now that I already know the products, I'll go to apple.com and check the site and then watch the keynote later to see them "in action". This is what I usually do, anyway.
lostprophet894
Apr 15, 04:01 PM
In the second picture, it seems like whoever was doing the editing couldn't quite get the text in the right position. It looks completely off, kinda in a downward slant to the right.
I would assume the big gap on the side is supposed to be an SD slot.
I would assume the big gap on the side is supposed to be an SD slot.
Chundles
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
yeah, the iTunes videos are definitely referencing movies I'd say. I mean we all know it was happening. The surprise is the non-disney titles, since we'd all assumed that that would be all Jobs was able to pull. But then again I don't see why studios would sign up with Amazon video, relatively unproven in digital content delivery, without signing up with iTMS, a very much proven system. I'm sure that's a huge part of Jobs negotiations, not ever once asking for anything exclusive. (That would be what his disney connections might be able to get him). If they're worried about being locked in to the iTMS, then they're free to allow whoever they want to to sell their stuff. The pricing scheme right now as rumored is at least two tiered, one for new releases and one for old, so yes, Mr. Movie Studio, you can make more money off your hot newest thing.
The links from that iTunes Videos thing DO NOT point to any movies. They point to iPod versions of movie trailers. It's just a consolidation of the current content.
But saying that doesn't matter because people aren't reading the thread.
The links from that iTunes Videos thing DO NOT point to any movies. They point to iPod versions of movie trailers. It's just a consolidation of the current content.
But saying that doesn't matter because people aren't reading the thread.
odedia
Jan 5, 06:00 PM
This is really excellent.
I, too, was luring the apple keynotes page all the time, then finally broke cause I knew SOMETHING was up already. This is a great way to get the stream as soon as possible.
I, too, was luring the apple keynotes page all the time, then finally broke cause I knew SOMETHING was up already. This is a great way to get the stream as soon as possible.
Music-Man
Sep 12, 07:33 AM
For those who a little confused about Disney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney#Motion_pictures
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disney#Motion_pictures
Haol
Apr 29, 04:51 PM
I can't believe there are over 60 comments actually commenting the post !
I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change :D
I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change :D
Eraserhead
Mar 4, 05:47 PM
It does not.
To expand.
According to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Only 18 teachers have been sacked in the UK for incompetence over the past 40 years. You could increase that figure by 500x or something and even at that level it would be extremely difficult for the unions to get public sympathy for teachers being treated badly. Given there are half a million teachers in the UK, even with 500x more of them being fired for incompetence that would still only be 225 a year or 0.05% of them a year.
There is no way that the unions have that kind of power - I think its far more likely to be down to too much bureaucracy.
Teachers on average make more than private sector employees. The average in Ohio is $50,314, source
But you of course have to take education levels into account, so that isn't even true.
The two economists work out the fraction of American workers� pay that cannot be explained by factors such as differences in education and experience. This �wage premium� reflects the extent to which workers have been able to extract more pay than is merited by their qualifications. Those who believe that America�s state workers are vastly overpaid will be surprised to learn that this premium is in fact higher in the private sector than in the public sector in many American states. But states where the opposite is true are ones like California, Florida and New York
http://www.economist.com/node/18285587?story_id=18285587
To expand.
According to:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10464617
Only 18 teachers have been sacked in the UK for incompetence over the past 40 years. You could increase that figure by 500x or something and even at that level it would be extremely difficult for the unions to get public sympathy for teachers being treated badly. Given there are half a million teachers in the UK, even with 500x more of them being fired for incompetence that would still only be 225 a year or 0.05% of them a year.
There is no way that the unions have that kind of power - I think its far more likely to be down to too much bureaucracy.
Teachers on average make more than private sector employees. The average in Ohio is $50,314, source
But you of course have to take education levels into account, so that isn't even true.
The two economists work out the fraction of American workers� pay that cannot be explained by factors such as differences in education and experience. This �wage premium� reflects the extent to which workers have been able to extract more pay than is merited by their qualifications. Those who believe that America�s state workers are vastly overpaid will be surprised to learn that this premium is in fact higher in the private sector than in the public sector in many American states. But states where the opposite is true are ones like California, Florida and New York
http://www.economist.com/node/18285587?story_id=18285587
WildCowboy
Jan 5, 09:35 AM
There is also no guarantee that the link will be active during the keynote (aka live) .
Oh, no...I don't think much of anyone expects there to be live coverage. They did away with that some time ago. But the QT archived video should be up within a few hours after the keynote ends.
Oh, no...I don't think much of anyone expects there to be live coverage. They did away with that some time ago. But the QT archived video should be up within a few hours after the keynote ends.
No comments:
Post a Comment