TimUSCA
Apr 25, 12:11 PM
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
roadbloc
Apr 9, 07:39 AM
From what I've heard of Windows 8 so far, I am impressed that Microsoft are back on the ball in terms of features that users want. A lot of the features coming in Windows 8 should either have been added ages ago, or are polished/expanded versions of something that existed in Windows for a long time, but was either poorly integrated or went stale due to no updates for it over the years. It will also be good to see a return of the Marketplace.
The idea of Live integration and the 'Ribbon' in explorer are the only things that put me off.
What disappoints me in Lion is the system requirements. It is massively bloated. Core2Duo and 2GB of RAM minimum is terrible. Even though my Mac is capable of running it, I'm still not impressed. Hopefully the Resume feature will kick ass so much that it will be worth it. Other than Resume and Versions, the rest of Lion's features are a big 'meh'.
The idea of Live integration and the 'Ribbon' in explorer are the only things that put me off.
What disappoints me in Lion is the system requirements. It is massively bloated. Core2Duo and 2GB of RAM minimum is terrible. Even though my Mac is capable of running it, I'm still not impressed. Hopefully the Resume feature will kick ass so much that it will be worth it. Other than Resume and Versions, the rest of Lion's features are a big 'meh'.
albusseverus
Jan 10, 05:41 PM
just goes to show, if your name is Think Secret and you have no corporate backing, Apple will hound you out of existence...
if you publish an unchecked story about the iPhone being delayed, causing a run on Apple's stock price...
or stuff up a trade show...
it's all just good fun... ??
it's hard to know the best way to treat this... ban them and give them MORE publicity? or boycott their site...
Kevin, can we have a negative Digg option... I want UnDigg
if you publish an unchecked story about the iPhone being delayed, causing a run on Apple's stock price...
or stuff up a trade show...
it's all just good fun... ??
it's hard to know the best way to treat this... ban them and give them MORE publicity? or boycott their site...
Kevin, can we have a negative Digg option... I want UnDigg
Torrijos
Jul 21, 04:55 PM
Even if Rim, Palm, etc. exhibit the same antenna problems as the iPhone 4, Apple is acting like a cry baby by trying to shift the discussion to include their competitors. �Teacher, the other kids are being bad too, don�t punish me alone�.
Actually it was the competitors that tried to use the antenna problems as a selling point and as propaganda.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2010/06/28/how-do-you-hold-your-nokia/
So the lot of them are fair game...
As for bloggers that just wanted to troll the issue to drive their numbers up the presentation (and answers that followed) were pretty much Jobs telling them to try and get a journalist degree and get their facts straight, and who could blame him?
Since the iPhone 4 as started shipping we've had the antenna problem that has being described as if the phone could simply not be used (numbers debunked that) without real investigation, fake Jobs e-mail, fake reports of an engineer warnings etc.
If it wasn't for anandtech this all would be a complete disaster. The way different technology sites reported the story is just pathetic.
Actually it was the competitors that tried to use the antenna problems as a selling point and as propaganda.
http://conversations.nokia.com/2010/06/28/how-do-you-hold-your-nokia/
So the lot of them are fair game...
As for bloggers that just wanted to troll the issue to drive their numbers up the presentation (and answers that followed) were pretty much Jobs telling them to try and get a journalist degree and get their facts straight, and who could blame him?
Since the iPhone 4 as started shipping we've had the antenna problem that has being described as if the phone could simply not be used (numbers debunked that) without real investigation, fake Jobs e-mail, fake reports of an engineer warnings etc.
If it wasn't for anandtech this all would be a complete disaster. The way different technology sites reported the story is just pathetic.
more...
Jay42
Jan 6, 08:26 AM
^^That would be excellent if someone could capture the stream.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070105150245.shtml
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
This was just what I was looking for, thanks arn. I like to get the full effect ;)
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070105150245.shtml
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
This was just what I was looking for, thanks arn. I like to get the full effect ;)
fyrefly
Apr 29, 02:39 PM
Whew!! They also brought Safari's "Drag Image to Desktop to save Image File" back in this Preview Build. :D
In previous Lion Builds, dragging an image to the desktop resulted in a Safari Link file to the Image's location on the web.
In previous Lion Builds, dragging an image to the desktop resulted in a Safari Link file to the Image's location on the web.
more...
NinjaHERO
Sep 28, 09:16 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
mubo
Apr 16, 09:50 AM
The silent button is wrong, wrong, wrong.
it comes to far forward, it would need to be level with the volume rocker which is also too far back,
I like the ipad version tho....
it comes to far forward, it would need to be level with the volume rocker which is also too far back,
I like the ipad version tho....
more...
JML42691
Dec 13, 10:42 AM
Dont underestimate the power of marketing. They might have this LTE/CDMA combo where the LTE is not all that functional but is there only for the publicity. Think about the splash of the FIRST 4G iPhone!
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
That would seem very un-Apple like, like somebody said earlier in this thread, they wouldn't allow homescreen background images on two of their phones because of performance issues (which can't be more than a fraction of a second), so why would they allow not fully-functioning LTE capabilities. Apple isn't a company that'll do something just so they can say they did it first, look at multitasking, Steve's quote when they announced it was something like, "we were certainly not the first to do it but we were the first to do it right." In Apple's eyes, if it isn't perfect they won't do it.
airforce1
May 2, 10:50 AM
Google's approach is completely different. When phones running the Google OS detect any wireless network, they beam its MAC address, signal strength and GPS coordinates to Google servers, along with the unique ID of the handset.
You can check if any androids have reported your home network to google by inputting your router's MAC here:
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
yup
Apple on the other hand decided to go above the law, after all it must feel powerful now that they have starving Chinese sweatshop workers sign suicide agreements after known they will be driven to the point of no return
You can check if any androids have reported your home network to google by inputting your router's MAC here:
http://samy.pl/androidmap/
yup
Apple on the other hand decided to go above the law, after all it must feel powerful now that they have starving Chinese sweatshop workers sign suicide agreements after known they will be driven to the point of no return
more...
twoodcc
May 16, 08:07 PM
Thanks I have it all configured now, I have been doing a3 units all along. Can't wait to complete my 10 units. Hopefully this should boost the ppd from my i7 as it currently is doing 850-900ppd.
nice! did you get your passkey?
nice! did you get your passkey?
Al Coholic
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
The version that doesn't nag for ratings is $1.00.
more...
zachlegomaniac
Apr 8, 09:33 PM
Roasted.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Yeah, I've gotta agree on this one too.
Glad to see not everyones an Apple sheep..
Yeah, I've gotta agree on this one too.
.jpg "themed irthday cake. Pink")
Verto
Sep 7, 09:54 PM
And he sucked.
more...
elsiedee
Aug 23, 01:06 AM
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model ... So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
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
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
lordonuthin
Apr 10, 11:39 PM
yeah that's true, but now what's the excuse? the processors are out now!
I know!! Last year they had the Mac Pro out before the cpu's were even announced by Intel!
I know!! Last year they had the Mac Pro out before the cpu's were even announced by Intel!
more...
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.
hob
Jan 9, 01:52 PM
Very nice, my friend. But if you will allow me to improve your idea...
Ha-ha. Mine's actually set to 10, but I thought I'd extend it so I didn't single-handedly cause the site to crash!
Ha-ha. Mine's actually set to 10, but I thought I'd extend it so I didn't single-handedly cause the site to crash!
ciTiger
Apr 25, 01:19 PM
The phone is always to big and the screen is never big enough... LOL
I'd rather have them trim the non screen edges than to increase the screen size... But hey, that's just me... And trim a little on the top and bottom also :)
I'd rather have them trim the non screen edges than to increase the screen size... But hey, that's just me... And trim a little on the top and bottom also :)
prady16
Oct 17, 10:15 AM
I had already posted this on my blog a couple of months back:
Analysis of the pros and cons of Blue-ray vs HD-DVD reveals that Blue-Ray disks have higher capacity (about 50GB), are more expensive, and blue-ray players can burn disks. On the other hand HD-DVD is comparitively cheaper, little less capacity (about 40GB), but cannot be burnt by commercial players.
Hence, I belive that the cheaper HD-DVD disks would be used instead of the traditional DVDs for distributing movies, games, music and other such applications. Whereas the Blue-Ray disks would be used majorly for storing data off a computer in a home or office setting. So, in the future laptops would come equipped with Blue-Ray drives and home theater systems would come equipped with HD-DVD players.
Analysis of the pros and cons of Blue-ray vs HD-DVD reveals that Blue-Ray disks have higher capacity (about 50GB), are more expensive, and blue-ray players can burn disks. On the other hand HD-DVD is comparitively cheaper, little less capacity (about 40GB), but cannot be burnt by commercial players.
Hence, I belive that the cheaper HD-DVD disks would be used instead of the traditional DVDs for distributing movies, games, music and other such applications. Whereas the Blue-Ray disks would be used majorly for storing data off a computer in a home or office setting. So, in the future laptops would come equipped with Blue-Ray drives and home theater systems would come equipped with HD-DVD players.
KingYaba
Apr 22, 05:03 PM
I had suggested to one of your moderators that MR should disable the tagging feature in the PRSI. I think you should disable this up/down voting thing as well.
MisterK
May 4, 06:05 PM
I think Apple really got it right with the iPad. The main focus won't be USB, SD card slot, HDMI or anything else like that. They have solutions for "connectivity" already. Even if it isn't your preferred solution, they won't go back and do it in a way they don't figure is the ideal way. If they eventually want to allow the additions of mice, printers, cameras, Apple would much rather all that stuff is done through Bluetooth, RFID, or WiFi.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
AP_piano295
Apr 25, 04:17 PM
I didn't watch the whole video, but from what I watched, they were standing around and laughing.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I hope that if I'm ever being attacked by two people your not the person who I need to rely on, it takes very little time for a person to be seriously injured waiting for the cops is hardly the best option.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I hope that if I'm ever being attacked by two people your not the person who I need to rely on, it takes very little time for a person to be seriously injured waiting for the cops is hardly the best option.
aparker813
Apr 4, 05:13 PM
yeah i'm from tallahassee also and the police seem to not really give a crap about college kids places being broken into, had it happen to a few friends and they did basically nothing...what area you living in?
0 comments:
Post a Comment