Hilmi Hamidi
Aug 8, 12:19 PM
http://img131.imagevenue.com/loc199/th_87833_Untitled_122_199lo.jpg (http://img131.imagevenue.com/img.php?image=87833_Untitled_122_199lo.jpg)
Art Nouveau Border Royalty
Free Art Deco and Art Nouveau
Art Nouveau patterns with
more...
Art Nouveau Patterns Free.
Some art nouveau
more...
Art Nouveau Pattern Texture
Art Nouveau Floral Design
more...
art deco patterns. Free Art
from art nouveau and art
more...
Learn about Art Nouveau lace
Art Nouveau Flowers - machine
more...
art nouveau patterns free. art
stock vector : art nouveau
more...
Free art nouveau vector
Seamless pattern grass in
more...
Seamless pattern from a
Art Nouveau Pattern 1
Art Nouveau floral pattern
Reacent Post
Dreadnought
Feb 7, 04:11 PM
If I am not mistaken, the Macross should be (or already did) finishing a -bigadv unit bringing me into the 1 Million point range... *FINALLY*
Nope, not yet, you still have to do 26,000 points, so a little over 2 days :D
Nope, not yet, you still have to do 26,000 points, so a little over 2 days :D
FFTT
Oct 21, 04:37 PM
It might be interesting if Lotus Notes messenging client could be used along with
iSight for professional video conferencing rather than just IM's
Even more so if those IM's could be encrypted to PGP standards.
iSight for professional video conferencing rather than just IM's
Even more so if those IM's could be encrypted to PGP standards.
Mechcozmo
Nov 6, 06:31 PM
Added a bit to the Style Guide...
Grammar is a good thing.
Grammar is a good thing.
more...
andi242
May 1, 07:04 AM
I'm the one who found it. It's the following file:
System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/AOSNotification.framework/Resources/English.lprog/Localizable.strings
thanks, it might have been good to point that out in the first place :)
anyone else to confirm?
System/Library/PrivateFrameworks/AOSNotification.framework/Resources/English.lprog/Localizable.strings
thanks, it might have been good to point that out in the first place :)
anyone else to confirm?
Popeye206
Apr 7, 09:01 AM
Are you calling jailbreaking a "kid" activity?
No... not at all. But I think it's a choice and it's silly to complain about it when you know updates may or will break the JB. Patches and updates are needed and common. So why complain every time a patch comes out and make silly acquisitions that Apple is just messing with the JB community.
No... not at all. But I think it's a choice and it's silly to complain about it when you know updates may or will break the JB. Patches and updates are needed and common. So why complain every time a patch comes out and make silly acquisitions that Apple is just messing with the JB community.
more...
mrfoof82
Nov 19, 02:14 PM
TJ Maxx isn't selling them at a loss. TJ Maxx however is diluting the perceived value of the iPad. That's something all manufacturers -- not just Apple -- look to protect.
It's exactly why Amazon forces you to put some things in your cart to see the price. Amazon can't advertise a product below Price X, according to their agreement with the manufacturer. If they did, Amazon would be diluting the perceived market value of the product, which would force other resellers to follow suit. This forces the market price lower, and then resellers start putting pressure on the manufacturer to lower THEIR price (to resellers) so the retailers/resellers can maintain healthier margins.
It turns into a race towards the bottom, where a product gets commoditized. Manufacturers try to avoid that at all costs, because they only have a few products where they can sell at a high-margin or premium, for so long, before competition creates a pressure to drive the price down.
It's exactly why Amazon forces you to put some things in your cart to see the price. Amazon can't advertise a product below Price X, according to their agreement with the manufacturer. If they did, Amazon would be diluting the perceived market value of the product, which would force other resellers to follow suit. This forces the market price lower, and then resellers start putting pressure on the manufacturer to lower THEIR price (to resellers) so the retailers/resellers can maintain healthier margins.
It turns into a race towards the bottom, where a product gets commoditized. Manufacturers try to avoid that at all costs, because they only have a few products where they can sell at a high-margin or premium, for so long, before competition creates a pressure to drive the price down.
Neolithium
Apr 8, 05:55 PM
Nothing special this month.
more...
Huntermac
Jan 16, 01:29 AM
It is just some software that lets you transfer waypoints, tracks, and routes between your Mac and Garmin units...
Pretty cool but I thought it might be some great new hardware.. maybe even for Iphone. :(
http://www.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=3885
Pretty cool but I thought it might be some great new hardware.. maybe even for Iphone. :(
http://www.garmin.com/support/download_details.jsp?id=3885
evil_santa
Aug 20, 05:26 PM
This one is called spinning cat! :D
more...
longofest
Oct 31, 08:55 AM
In other news, ThinkSecret was totally off the mark
Nicolasdec
Mar 24, 12:49 PM
ahh ok, i whould love if there was Connect 360
more...
Ha ze
Nov 20, 09:03 PM
i don't see why so many people think iChat on a phone is so crazy or why it would need to be wifi.
i have a button on my Razr that is a direct connection to AIM so instant messaging from a phone isn't crazy, two of the people on my buddy list are on mobile phones.
iChat would be faster then texting and just cause this "second phone" would be very iChat based doesn't mean it wont be a phone. It sounds very sidekick like and the sidekick of course has AIM on it.
If they make a phone that will beat the Sidekick (shouldn't be too hard) then i'm in, i'd prefer that then just a a regular candy bar phone
i have a button on my Razr that is a direct connection to AIM so instant messaging from a phone isn't crazy, two of the people on my buddy list are on mobile phones.
iChat would be faster then texting and just cause this "second phone" would be very iChat based doesn't mean it wont be a phone. It sounds very sidekick like and the sidekick of course has AIM on it.
If they make a phone that will beat the Sidekick (shouldn't be too hard) then i'm in, i'd prefer that then just a a regular candy bar phone
8)~
Apr 23, 12:40 AM
The phone wont display the normal screen. It zooms into the current view and I cant scroll anywhere.
Any ideas?
I tried a restore, but it didnt help!
:confused:
Any ideas?
I tried a restore, but it didnt help!
:confused:
more...
calzon65
Apr 27, 04:19 PM
Don't worry somebody's already working on an app to block the tracking. You can bet on that:D
and watch, Apple will ban that app.
and watch, Apple will ban that app.
leetlamer
Apr 4, 10:02 AM
This is why carrier competition is important. The T-Mobile deal needs to be struck down by regulators.
more...
JAT
Apr 28, 11:41 AM
i've got to agree with others and say unless you were desperate it would be silly at this point to want a CDMA iP4.
With the next revision so close, the benefit of waiting could be immense and I be a lot of other people see that too.
What benefit? You don't know what the next iPhone will offer, neither do I. I couldn't see anything important that would come up. 4 is fast, decent camera, great screen. Other than the bizarre chant of "4G", I don't see anything it can add to sway me. Guess I'm silly, but I upgraded from a 1G iPod Touch, essentially. That was much slower, and missing iOS4 features, but I still made great use of it every day.
Why buy a 3G iPhone, when there are 4G phones available ?
There is only one 4G phone available (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-4g-fastest-att-sprint-verizon.html), and it is a beast. You may as well carry a laptop as a Thunderbolt phone. (please don't say anything about Sprint :rolleyes:)
I think Apple waited too long to bring the iPhone to Verizon. By the time they did many diehard Verizon customers had just bought Android alternatives. I think Apple got a little too sucked in by the exclusive money from AT&T, but in the end it might end up hurting them.
I don't think you understand the nature of big business contracts. Apple clearly put out a ViPhone asap. That's why it was Feb 14 or whatever. What kind of silly date is that? It was as soon as they could, dependent on whatever ATT contract there was, and then production/marketing time after that.
I stopped reading right there b/c I don't believe that.
We were on Tmobile for over a decade. I can count on one hand how many dropped calls I had, and ALL of them were with a dying phone that had given great service for over 2 years. (or due to the other side of the call) Maybe you aren't used to a provider that cares about this point.
To the topic:
I think Apple overestimated demand mainly due to contracts. This country's SOP of 2 year contracts is a huge issue to people. And all the providers are increasing ETFs, making it worse every year. The only company (Tmob) attempting to make changes to this scheme is now planned to go away with the ATT purchase.
With the next revision so close, the benefit of waiting could be immense and I be a lot of other people see that too.
What benefit? You don't know what the next iPhone will offer, neither do I. I couldn't see anything important that would come up. 4 is fast, decent camera, great screen. Other than the bizarre chant of "4G", I don't see anything it can add to sway me. Guess I'm silly, but I upgraded from a 1G iPod Touch, essentially. That was much slower, and missing iOS4 features, but I still made great use of it every day.
Why buy a 3G iPhone, when there are 4G phones available ?
There is only one 4G phone available (http://www.physorg.com/news/2011-03-4g-fastest-att-sprint-verizon.html), and it is a beast. You may as well carry a laptop as a Thunderbolt phone. (please don't say anything about Sprint :rolleyes:)
I think Apple waited too long to bring the iPhone to Verizon. By the time they did many diehard Verizon customers had just bought Android alternatives. I think Apple got a little too sucked in by the exclusive money from AT&T, but in the end it might end up hurting them.
I don't think you understand the nature of big business contracts. Apple clearly put out a ViPhone asap. That's why it was Feb 14 or whatever. What kind of silly date is that? It was as soon as they could, dependent on whatever ATT contract there was, and then production/marketing time after that.
I stopped reading right there b/c I don't believe that.
We were on Tmobile for over a decade. I can count on one hand how many dropped calls I had, and ALL of them were with a dying phone that had given great service for over 2 years. (or due to the other side of the call) Maybe you aren't used to a provider that cares about this point.
To the topic:
I think Apple overestimated demand mainly due to contracts. This country's SOP of 2 year contracts is a huge issue to people. And all the providers are increasing ETFs, making it worse every year. The only company (Tmob) attempting to make changes to this scheme is now planned to go away with the ATT purchase.
8CoreWhore
Apr 21, 03:55 AM
...I can't wait that long!
MacBytes
Sep 13, 04:05 PM
http://www.macbytes.com/images/bytessig.gif (http://www.macbytes.com)
Category: Photos
Link: iPad cutting board (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20100913170554)
Description:: none
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
Category: Photos
Link: iPad cutting board (http://www.macbytes.com/link.php?sid=20100913170554)
Description:: none
Posted on MacBytes.com (http://www.macbytes.com)
Approved by Mudbug
psimac
Apr 4, 02:43 PM
They have no relationship with me, because their subscription costs for the iPad app are so out of line. Maybe they should get with the program. And if you subscribe to the paper version, there's no incentive to get the iOS version.
These companies should be trying to get their content out to as many people as possible and sell advertising, so that they can survive. What if Netflix just sold thru their own system and charged high fees? They'd be Blockbusted now.
Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that gets it.
These companies should be trying to get their content out to as many people as possible and sell advertising, so that they can survive. What if Netflix just sold thru their own system and charged high fees? They'd be Blockbusted now.
Wall Street Journal seems to be the only one that gets it.
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.
JackT06
Feb 21, 03:52 AM
Hello,
Does anyone know a way that i can make a gap in the border...
I want to create a 3px gap in top and bottom of the Right Nav Left Border line..
This is so that it won't touch the other borders.
How do i do that in CSS?
Does anyone know a way that i can make a gap in the border...
I want to create a 3px gap in top and bottom of the Right Nav Left Border line..
This is so that it won't touch the other borders.
How do i do that in CSS?
Applejuiced
May 1, 10:02 AM
Only if you JB.
toddybody
Apr 27, 01:30 PM
dude....give it up...please sell your iPhone and 3g iPad and ANY apple device you have and LEAVE MACrumors for good. its for the better
Really, youre beating him up for his perspective? Yes, FullofWin is critical of Apple; but this is a discussion forum with varying opinions (which I appreciate).
Perhaps you should start posting your own comments in a private Word Document...at least theyd be valued by one person.
Really, youre beating him up for his perspective? Yes, FullofWin is critical of Apple; but this is a discussion forum with varying opinions (which I appreciate).
Perhaps you should start posting your own comments in a private Word Document...at least theyd be valued by one person.
0 comments:
Post a Comment