alphaone
Mar 10, 04:07 AM
nice! what speed are you running at now? still 4.4 ghz?
4.5 now. Higher than that it starts to become less and less efficient. I can run at full load at minimal increased heat and power consumption over the stock 3.8 turbo. 4.6 and up on this chip starts to require more juice.
4.5 now. Higher than that it starts to become less and less efficient. I can run at full load at minimal increased heat and power consumption over the stock 3.8 turbo. 4.6 and up on this chip starts to require more juice.
Max(IT)
Apr 21, 04:59 AM
I'm sure this data will be coming to a Keynote near you.
The trend is your friend, and unless Apple can turn it around, the trend is clearly moving toward a marginalization of iOS.
Lol, reading your post is always hilarious ...
The Crusader against Apple fight his Holy War :D
The trend is your friend, and unless Apple can turn it around, the trend is clearly moving toward a marginalization of iOS.
Lol, reading your post is always hilarious ...
The Crusader against Apple fight his Holy War :D
skorpien
Apr 25, 10:59 AM
You can connect an external USB HDD to the Time Capsule and use that for new backups. This keeps the backups currently on the TC intact and allows room for expansion.
steveedge
Nov 3, 06:33 PM
Loaded fine for me. maybe they fixed the site. Try emptying your browser cache.
Good luck,
Good luck,
more...
DrumApple
Apr 28, 11:47 AM
What, did Apple think that Verizon customers would warmly welcome someone who shunned them for 4 years? The customer is most important, shouldn'thave signed that exclusive contract with AT&T... relly stunted their growth in the CDMA market, people move on too...
Loge
Nov 1, 05:10 PM
LaTex is just about my favourite free app for producing professional looking technical documents. I use the front end TeXShop (http://www.uoregon.edu/~koch/texshop/texshop.html).
more...
NoExpectations
Apr 13, 09:44 AM
Maybe most of the parts for the iPhone 5 are identical as the iPhone 4? I predict that 5 will just have an upgraded processor and more memory.
Chip NoVaMac
Sep 26, 11:46 AM
You may not have been but I was perfectly able to make adult decisions about my life before I was 18years old.
At 18 the law recognised that I should be capable of behaving like an adult. It is the job of parents (and society) to make sure that there children are ready to be adults by 18years, which means they should've been preparing them for these sort of decisions for years. A parent shouldn't treat a son like a child until they're 18years and then from their 18th birthday treat them as an adult.
Except if you want to have a drink!
But right you are.
As an early teen I was in the room next to mine and had to endure a night of their role-playing passion. (They�re normally quite straight laced).
Then a couple of years later when I was maybe 16/17years old I walked in on them at around 11pm in the living room. Mum sat in the arm-chair with a leg over each arm and Dad kneeling going down on her.
***shudders***
Embarrassed? Yes, all of us. Disgusted? No, couldn�t see a reason to be. Ever sat in that chair again? No ***king way! Eww.
I am still thinking that I was found under a cabbage leaf here. :D
It is hard for me to imagine my parents having sex. Though I find comfort in that my parents sent i=us to relative in our pre-teen and teen years, so they might have had some "fun".
At 18 the law recognised that I should be capable of behaving like an adult. It is the job of parents (and society) to make sure that there children are ready to be adults by 18years, which means they should've been preparing them for these sort of decisions for years. A parent shouldn't treat a son like a child until they're 18years and then from their 18th birthday treat them as an adult.
Except if you want to have a drink!
But right you are.
As an early teen I was in the room next to mine and had to endure a night of their role-playing passion. (They�re normally quite straight laced).
Then a couple of years later when I was maybe 16/17years old I walked in on them at around 11pm in the living room. Mum sat in the arm-chair with a leg over each arm and Dad kneeling going down on her.
***shudders***
Embarrassed? Yes, all of us. Disgusted? No, couldn�t see a reason to be. Ever sat in that chair again? No ***king way! Eww.
I am still thinking that I was found under a cabbage leaf here. :D
It is hard for me to imagine my parents having sex. Though I find comfort in that my parents sent i=us to relative in our pre-teen and teen years, so they might have had some "fun".
more...
poobear
Apr 15, 09:04 AM
No problem with Starcraft 2 over here.
Mexbearpig
Dec 25, 01:07 PM
I got...
Inception
Toy story 3
Some little headphones
Targus iPad case and stylus
Black leather vans
$125
Famous stars and straps shirt
Mini RC helicopter (Best gift)
10foot iPod sync cable(much needed for charging)
Great day so far :). Merry Christmas everyone.
Inception
Toy story 3
Some little headphones
Targus iPad case and stylus
Black leather vans
$125
Famous stars and straps shirt
Mini RC helicopter (Best gift)
10foot iPod sync cable(much needed for charging)
Great day so far :). Merry Christmas everyone.
more...
manu chao
Apr 4, 06:08 PM
You're right. Ideally they wouldn't need my info. In the grand scheme of things, I personally trust Apple more than I trust most other companies. I also expect to have a continuing long-term relationship with them, that includes person-to-person services in addition to sale of products. I also prefer to have a single point-of-contact I can use to sever any relationships I don't want to continue.
So for me it comes down to "who do you trust?" Apple has, historically, been very good about not subscribing me to mailings I don't want. They also never have sold my info (I know this because I use a different email address in a domain I own for every on-line business I do business with. From this I know who, exactly, sells my info. I just look at who my spam is addressed to).
There are quite a number of companies I trust in addition to Apple (a lot of local ones). I cannot remember to ever having received spam from Google (not that I trust them in everything but in this regard they have been good).
So for me it comes down to "who do you trust?" Apple has, historically, been very good about not subscribing me to mailings I don't want. They also never have sold my info (I know this because I use a different email address in a domain I own for every on-line business I do business with. From this I know who, exactly, sells my info. I just look at who my spam is addressed to).
There are quite a number of companies I trust in addition to Apple (a lot of local ones). I cannot remember to ever having received spam from Google (not that I trust them in everything but in this regard they have been good).
swindmill
Mar 25, 08:29 PM
yes, it is 1.5. I'm fairly new to Mac's so I don't have much insight into why this is happening, but basically the 3 apps affected are menu bar items that aren't on the menu bar by default, so I imagine that's the root of the issue
more...
Charlie03
Dec 1, 12:56 PM
Here is mine for December..Nothing like a little fight club..
Mudbug
Jan 14, 03:15 PM
it's not just you. ;)
more...
res1233
Apr 4, 10:55 PM
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
I like you.
Ecodisk
Dec 15, 07:17 PM
Other then the standard on board sound.
more...
skiltrip
Oct 6, 07:46 AM
I'm looking at the Belkin website, and I'm thinking of getting the black Grip Vue (tint). Does anyone know if these watermark? Or is the inside rough/frosted so it doesn't do that?
r.j.s
May 4, 02:02 PM
If you closed it and clicked Don't Save, then it is gone forever.
AppleCode
Oct 9, 11:00 AM
Mine :)
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1536/screenshot20101009at115.png
http://img294.imageshack.us/img294/1536/screenshot20101009at115.png
Sonny bro
May 6, 02:08 AM
Wirelessly posted (Ipod touch 4g 4.2.1: Mozilla/5.0 (Sonny Bro!; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Settings>wallpaper. It should come up with your wallpaper
Settings>wallpaper. It should come up with your wallpaper
Maui
Mar 2, 03:21 PM
The solutions are clear: borrow trillions so we can cut taxes on the rich and invade a few more countries.
boko
Aug 1, 10:52 PM
My current desktop :D
Link to the original: click me (http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/107/tokyo_at_night.html)
Link to the original: click me (http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/107/tokyo_at_night.html)
Mr. Chewbacca
Mar 23, 09:25 AM
Is it just me or does his right eye look odd? Is it a fake eye?
Jimmy James
Apr 26, 12:04 PM
The available answers to the poll seem to imply that I want a white iPhone in the first place.
I don't. It looks terrible.
I don't. It looks terrible.
No comments:
Post a Comment