MacMan86
Apr 27, 07:00 PM
educating people as an industry? Who does jobs think he is? Most of the population may be below average to his economical standards... but what the f was that? People know more than he thinks... It is simple for Apple to track anyone on a cellular network and using an iPhone... but it isn't worth the legal risk is it, if the person's' being tracked isn't worth it... but if Apple or anyone really wanted to... there is nothing to stop it with the infrastructure of iOS and cellular networks today...
What proportion of iPhone users do you think understand what a cache is? How about what cell tower triangulation is? How about the Core Location framework? Most people don't understand the finer points of how their phone works. The vast majority don't care and just want it to work and not do anything nefarious. As phones get smarter, there are only going to be more things that people don't understand - I think he makes a fair point.
What proportion of iPhone users do you think understand what a cache is? How about what cell tower triangulation is? How about the Core Location framework? Most people don't understand the finer points of how their phone works. The vast majority don't care and just want it to work and not do anything nefarious. As phones get smarter, there are only going to be more things that people don't understand - I think he makes a fair point.
chosenkill6
May 3, 06:56 PM
by cable image do you mean recovery mode screen?
room271
Apr 28, 07:22 AM
If you would like an informative take on the issue read:
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/04/28/the-unedifying-arrogance-of-apple/
It is clear that Apple has been at best disingenuous on the issue, and at worst downright dishonest.
Not only does the data collected fully amount to tracking, but Apple also apparently patented this in 2009 - so to claim it was a 'bug' seems questionable.
Not saying other OSs do better (I don't know), but Apple can't simply say 'others do bad stuff, so that justifies us doing it'. But the dishonesty is the bigger issue.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2011/04/28/the-unedifying-arrogance-of-apple/
It is clear that Apple has been at best disingenuous on the issue, and at worst downright dishonest.
Not only does the data collected fully amount to tracking, but Apple also apparently patented this in 2009 - so to claim it was a 'bug' seems questionable.
Not saying other OSs do better (I don't know), but Apple can't simply say 'others do bad stuff, so that justifies us doing it'. But the dishonesty is the bigger issue.
Much Ado
Nov 20, 11:43 AM
To be honest, it's only another iPhone rumor to add to the mix. The idea that Apple is ploughing ahead with new models is nice, but let's wait for v1.0 first before we start speculating about 'new' features.
more...
SchneiderMan
Aug 10, 07:47 PM
I'd also love a link to the original wall :)
Here you go (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/goro_alt_noise%20free%20by%20estudio%20gor%20creativos%20%20macthemes.png?pictureId=6214971).
Here you go (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/goro_alt_noise%20free%20by%20estudio%20gor%20creativos%20%20macthemes.png?pictureId=6214971).
macAllen
Aug 13, 05:00 PM
Here's the original.
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/2279/fresh_day.html
I'm guessing the poster photoshopped the man on the bike out and thus explains your question. :) By the way, would anyone be able to do the same and re-post this wallpaper? I would appreciate it.
Sorry guys went away for awhile, yeah theres no vanishing point but I think its awesome how it lines up to the water line... anyways
Here you go (http://i38.tinypic.com/muisd4.jpg)
http://interfacelift.com/wallpaper_beta/details/2279/fresh_day.html
I'm guessing the poster photoshopped the man on the bike out and thus explains your question. :) By the way, would anyone be able to do the same and re-post this wallpaper? I would appreciate it.
Sorry guys went away for awhile, yeah theres no vanishing point but I think its awesome how it lines up to the water line... anyways
Here you go (http://i38.tinypic.com/muisd4.jpg)
more...
NoSmokingBandit
Oct 10, 08:55 AM
I havent posted mine here in a while.
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/Desktops/Screenshot2010-10-10at95439AM.jpg
http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a93/canada2113/Desktops/Screenshot2010-10-10at95439AM.jpg
FX4568
Apr 4, 09:27 PM
I dont even know why people are complaining about the AT&T mobile merge.
Seriously, VZ stocks actually had a higher yield because of the merging than ATT.
The deal will pass, you know why? It actually somehow benefits more Verizon rather than ATT. Also, ATT is a private company, they have all the right to acquire another company.
Now if ATT acquired VZ (hahah which might be never) that would cause a monopoly but seriously monopolies arent that bad.
Everyone that lives in the "free world" is so entrenched in the idea that monopolies have the right to blow prices out of the water but they cant... and it is a fact.
Anyways, ATT will spend more money trying to merge differences between staff and other stuff, deciding how to merge the different cultures (since ones a German the other is American), and spending up to 8 billion dollars just in switching to the Tmobile towers. (good luck with that)
Verizon could equal the size of AT Tmobile if 1/8 people switched out from the merge. Which probably 1/16 will. I mean, why wouldnt they?
Only reason why ATT has managed to live for the past 3 years is because of the iphone.
In conclusion: ATT sucked, sucks, and will suck.
Seriously, VZ stocks actually had a higher yield because of the merging than ATT.
The deal will pass, you know why? It actually somehow benefits more Verizon rather than ATT. Also, ATT is a private company, they have all the right to acquire another company.
Now if ATT acquired VZ (hahah which might be never) that would cause a monopoly but seriously monopolies arent that bad.
Everyone that lives in the "free world" is so entrenched in the idea that monopolies have the right to blow prices out of the water but they cant... and it is a fact.
Anyways, ATT will spend more money trying to merge differences between staff and other stuff, deciding how to merge the different cultures (since ones a German the other is American), and spending up to 8 billion dollars just in switching to the Tmobile towers. (good luck with that)
Verizon could equal the size of AT Tmobile if 1/8 people switched out from the merge. Which probably 1/16 will. I mean, why wouldnt they?
Only reason why ATT has managed to live for the past 3 years is because of the iphone.
In conclusion: ATT sucked, sucks, and will suck.
more...
rainman::|:|
Sep 18, 10:34 AM
well, i'd just pop Photoshop open for the task. but free programs? not sure...
What you maybe could do with GraphicConverter (I haven't used it in forever, so i'm not sure what it can do) is make your whole photo grayscale, then bring in parts of the photo (a copy, rather) in color and paste them over top...
What you maybe could do with GraphicConverter (I haven't used it in forever, so i'm not sure what it can do) is make your whole photo grayscale, then bring in parts of the photo (a copy, rather) in color and paste them over top...
MarkCollette
Nov 2, 03:42 PM
Yay!! My Shuffle got delivered this morning too. I left it charging while I've gone to work. Can't wait to get home tonight and give it a whirl.
/My first iPod!
/My first iPod!
more...
imoguy789
Aug 3, 11:41 PM
http://browse.deviantart.com/customization/?qh=§ion=&q=pixar#/d2d663t
Consultant
Mar 21, 01:30 AM
Not worth it.
Charge more so you won't have these type of "clients."
Not sure about design, but for photography, when you charge over $1000 (I charge more) per day, you only deal with professionals. ;)
Charge more so you won't have these type of "clients."
Not sure about design, but for photography, when you charge over $1000 (I charge more) per day, you only deal with professionals. ;)
more...
spatterfree
Apr 27, 06:07 PM
lol, yaa, i thought so, no reply means nobody, right?
dizastor
Oct 15, 02:29 PM
that's a really cool idea. I'll have to try it out.
more...
dmr727
Oct 8, 09:25 PM
Even if the caps are bad, you won't hurt anything by giving it a try. Fire her up and see what happens.
bobobenobi
Apr 7, 08:39 AM
I wonder how many of these posts are trolls? I haven't had any issues whatsoever with 4.3.1. I also didn't have any problems with 4.3; battery life has been absolutely stellar and call performance actually improved in 4.3.1.
Battery life was atrocious for me on 4.3, but 4.3.1 completely fixed it. I get the "Call Failed" message sometimes too, but only about 5% of the time.
Battery life was atrocious for me on 4.3, but 4.3.1 completely fixed it. I get the "Call Failed" message sometimes too, but only about 5% of the time.
more...
rmwebs
May 1, 04:20 AM
How can anyone see this as great news?
its an UPGRADE...not a transfer, not a conversion, not a migration...an UPGRADE.
For Apple Upgrade = $$$. Simply put, we're probably once again going to be shafted by an idiotic $100 /year fee for a slow iDisk replacement...think I'll stick with S3 for now! :eek:
its an UPGRADE...not a transfer, not a conversion, not a migration...an UPGRADE.
For Apple Upgrade = $$$. Simply put, we're probably once again going to be shafted by an idiotic $100 /year fee for a slow iDisk replacement...think I'll stick with S3 for now! :eek:
lamerlizer
Oct 25, 10:11 PM
hey! i'm going to buy leopard too! :)
kdarling
Apr 27, 09:19 PM
Well, it looks like it wasn't a bug after all. It was coded as per the patent application. :D
Unfortunately not :)
The patent includes optional implementations where:
Reacent Post
Unfortunately not :)
The patent includes optional implementations where:
Dave H
Mar 31, 03:39 PM
Oh, I didn't know that. On which ones exactly?
I was thinking that only G5s had it enabled automatically.
I don't know exactly, but on my G4 Digital Audio it's enabled by default.
This page (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MDD_CHUD_feedback.html#storytop) has information about it in MDDs.
I was thinking that only G5s had it enabled automatically.
I don't know exactly, but on my G4 Digital Audio it's enabled by default.
This page (http://www.xlr8yourmac.com/feedback/MDD_CHUD_feedback.html#storytop) has information about it in MDDs.
samywamy10
Apr 8, 07:11 AM
Has anyone seen those bright blue iPhone cases? You know the ones that it seems like every single woman in Australia encloses their iPhone in?
Am I the only one who finds these incredibly detrimental to the iPhone's aesthetics?
Just my daily rant.
Am I the only one who finds these incredibly detrimental to the iPhone's aesthetics?
Just my daily rant.
Tadros86
Apr 13, 09:36 AM
There honestly is no need to update the iPhone line EVERY year at this point. iPhone 4 was the biggest jump and I don't see a reason to jump again so soon, especially after Verizon customers JUST recived access to the phone. I can understand updating the models to include 4G, but at this point 4G IMHO is not needed. It's not a mature enough standard to expect iPhone owners to have smooth service with Verizon and AT&Ts 4G networks. I see them both being great next year, but it'd be a forced move on Apples part to update so soon.
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 03:10 PM
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
yoppie
Oct 9, 06:17 PM
Just purchased it from the app store. :)
0 comments:
Post a Comment