Best Trend Tattoos Design

People who complain that your service provider is going to make you follow the ru:eek:les unnerve me with their uncanny ability to disregard all that stands to reason with the sustainability of your "toys." They are like little sissies on the playground crying after a Barbie Doll has been taken from them. Those people should man up and start paying for the footprint they leave on the network.
WOW in plain English......... If you use a lot you should pay for it.

OK I agree

but AT&T are the ones who advertise Unlimited Data

Should they not "Man UP"? and stop this hiding behind definitions of nonsense in a contract.

Essentially the point many and I make is

we pay for Data that is contracted as unlimited,
At&t then has a contract that says its unlimited Data with us and then says they can decide when its abused.

OK using 5gb or less is not considered abuse by them, OK

But tethering 100mb of that 5gb is abuse even though it does not go over the usage and it makes no network difference to At&t

the problem is the contract itself is contradictory in how it is written and the enforcement of this issue is in huge suspect, At&t truly may not have one kb of proof that you tethered.

I see many problems with this.

Lawsuits? Class action maybe not individuals.

and it would have to be those paying for tethering and or charged a fine for doing so or forced into a tethering contract.

Not I, I have no emails nothing, = No harm.

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

I love how people are comparing an iOS device with a PS3 or Xbox..

Classic Chalk or Pen post.

It's a bit rich calling people delusional and then coming out with with wish list statements as if they're bound in volumes of 'The Future History of Smartphones vol ll'

The Android market has potential, but only for as long as lazy phone manufacturers, who have never learned how to do operating systems and software, are happy to grab a freebie. This situation is the same as you or me going to a fair and picking up a free dev copy of some new software... and then running a business off its capabilities. No license fee! That's the attraction.

The saved costs derived from having much lower in-house dev costs and shorter route to market make Android a gift. But not without major issues. CylonGlitch [above] makes this very valid point:

"... as many as 40 models of Android devices will ship, . . . "

"How the heck is a developer supposed to support that many different devices? Even if there were 5 different screen resolutions, it would be hard to optimize your app for each. Now different RAM configurations, different CPU's, different everything, OUCH."

It's a ludicrous state of affairs. A wet dream for the armchair geek maybe, but for the non geek buyer, the proposition is entirely different. It already gives me a headache just thinking about it.

With the iPhone, Apple have demonstrated one of the oldest marketing principles still holds true in the 21st Century. If you give people three models to choose from with two colour options, you make the proposition simpler.

But all other manufacturers are still depending on the old marketing model of offering a bewildering array of models to try and catch the entire market. Now, that model has failed already - because it doesn't work. The market is automatically diluted. So why are they still using it?

speedriff [also above] has decided Steve Jobs is a "douche" because he's being "hardheaded" over Flash, while "Other manufacturers are giving AMOLED screens and are getting better and better."

Apple make more profit from all their products than anyone else. One way they do this is by waiting until they can demand a very high proportion of a large enough production of a component [NAND flash memory, screens etc] at the most competitive price, or can manufacture in-house [CPUs]. That's not just good business, it's vital for long term survival.

Wait until June this year and we'll see the new iPhone with a longer [HD aspect ratio] OLED screen. And HTML5 is the future. in reality, Adobe are better candidates for the 'douche' epithet here. If Flash had fewer issues, maybe Apple would add it.

What you need to understand is that Apple is better at seeing, predicting and exploiting the WHOLE picture, than any other company in this game. And anyone who seriously thinks a disparate group of not for profit developers and a market full of lazy manufacturers with a 19th Century sales mentality are going to win this one, is simply not even looking at it properly.

You obviously have no formal education when it comes to the world of finance, so I'm not sure why you're even making comments about such things.

The simple fact that Apple has to make $23 billion more in revenue compared to Google, just so they can have $2.7 billion more in gross profit is nothing to brag about.

Go do more homework.

A sentence is also a phrase: all sentences are phrases, but not all phrases are sentences. However, frater, my Latin does not include either subcribo or of. You could try Id est signum contradictionis, which might make slightly more sense, even in the Vatican.
I suppose you're right about the word "phrase," skunk, especially when you write a recursive real, rather than a nominal, definition of the word "sentence." ;) Ciaociao's Latin was imperfect, but I think I comprehended what it meant.

Go and read.
my 5-10 year predictions are actually quite funny.

You obviously have no idea how this works and no matter what stuff those little toys bring they will still be just fillers for masses not real PCs

http://www.computerworld.com.au/article/332337/how_do_they_do_it_avatar_special_effects/

4352 servers during the peak of production of the Avatar blockbuster. / 34,816 processor cores, 104,448GB of memory in total. Now you get the idea what is a PC that you work with? They needed warehouses of them to get the job done and you put a little tablet in the same category as those PCs.

Right, because in order for it to be "work" it has to involve 3D rendering or working on the (crappy) movie Avatar.

The rest of the 300 million people in the USA who don't do 3D rendering or making digital movie effects - we all just surf the web and play games.

Oh, and by the way, for 30 years now - there have been lots of "real PCs" which were not used for 3D rendering or making movies. In fact, until the recent advances in parallel processing, most of that 3D work and rendering was done on servers and workstations that were specifically designed for the task and cost tens of thousands of dollars each (not including software). So your "real PCs" up until maybe the last 5 or 10 years couldn't even do as much as current iPads do now - let alone what you are calling "real work".

My current iPhone has more processing power, more memory and "disk" space, and better bandwidth than my Office computers from 1995 to 2005.

You might need a massive computer for your work, but I know a LOT of industries that are moving to iPads because they better meet the needs of the user. The medical industry, and the logistics industry are moving that way. The auto sales industry is moving that way. Whether it is iOS or not is yet to be seen, but having a small inexpensive portable computer system with a 10 hour battery that can do 95% of the workload in a business is very attractive. I know realtors and home contractors who have become excited about the iPad as well. Even auto mechanics are using iPads in their business.

I invite you to demonstrate how Islam is a threat to freedom and democracy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_Pakistan

This is fun..

Any software for a Mac that says "MAC" in the title or in any documentation would already be suspect to me. Pretty much every person I have run across that thinks it is spelled in all caps as "MAC" has been a moron.

And just simply in general anti-virus software is useless on Mac, so why would anyone download and install any anti-virus, defender or scanner is above me.

If Apple could include at least a DVD burner and ideally a DVR hard disk as well, then I could actually start replacing the other machines I have rather than just adding to them and cluttering up my living room.

Er, that's what your Mac is for.

All these calls for adding tuners, hard drives and burners are missing the point. Those functions belong in the host computer. iTV is just a method of getting the content from your Mac/PC to your stereo or TV.

In Microsoft terms, it's a media center extender, nothing more, albeit a pretty one.

If it's got a hard disk in it that's used for anything more than caching your iTunes Library file and thumbnails, I'd be very surprised.

That was with the flicker filter on max, and a minor color corection using the color corrector.

Maybe the drives couldn't feed the CPUs fast enough. This is going to be a problem going forward unless Apple gets hardware RAID in there,

Huntn, please show me some evidence for what you're saying. Then I'll tell you what I think of it. Meanwhile, I should admit that the Bible's original manuscripts no longer exist, and there are copyists' mistakes in the existing copies. There are mistranslations in at least some Bible translations. Take Matthew 24:24 in the King James Version. It's ungrammatical (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Matthew%2024:24&version=KJV). But I still need you to give us some evidence that, for example, some tendentious ancient people tampered with Bible passages.

I think you misunderstand what I am saying. While translations are very susceptible to being tampered with especially when a church hierarchy with an agenda is involved, that is not my primary focus. The focus is what validity do ancient scripts have as truth just because they exist? I may be able to give a possible example. Jesus is central to the New Testament, but according to a History Channel Show, there are no city records in the Middle East that confirm the existence of Christ. Is this fact or fiction? I don't know, but I have reason to wonder about it.

I saw the Lourdes video and have to ask, has there been verified in any meaningful way? If so, there should be a substantial evidence, maybe a list of those who have been healed, hopefully with some documentation.

As I said elsewhere there is no moral equivalence. It took Augustine's and Aquinas' great rambling treatises to justify warfare, for instance.

In the Qur'an and the Hadith war is encouraged and its virtues extolled.

I wish people would stop trying to equate the wars of Christianity (and of that mainly Western Christianity) with Islam's modern terrorism and calls for warfare against the infidel.

In Islamic Law non-muslims are considered najiss, that means ritually impure, down to our souls, our essences. Christians are reviled especially because they practice "shirk", a law forbidding the joining of others to allah. Jews are designated as apes and pigs in the Qur'an.

there is no equivalence between Islam and Christianity.

I agree that today's radial Islam is dissimilar to modern Christianity, but Christianity has blood on his hands and is still involved in power and control although not to extent of blatantly murdering those with different views.

It isnt absolutley 100% false. There is an extreme amount of people on this planet. Look at that rathole of a place China. And in america, the immigrants. There are a hell of a lot of people and my solution: Nuke the middle-east.
and he said 40 years ago not 30 go back to 66 from NOW


What an intelligent statement.:rolleyes:

Why do these "tree-huggers" have to interfere with business?

Apple does what they can to have more "enviornmentally-friendly" ways of processing their products. But 4th worst?

As a business professional, there most certainly is a capitalistic argument for environmentally friendly businesses.

I will provide the link this time:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tragedy_of_the_commons


This is something Apple can improve. So why not go for it?

There could be many other reasons as well, for example the average age of posters on here is likely to be less than in the population at large.

I polled that, too. You're right. Here are the results. http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=758819&highlight=

Anyone notice that Apple also released Logic Express & Pro 7.2.3 updates both now supporting 4 cores Wednesday as well as iTunes update 7.0.1?

Apple releases Logic Pro, Logic Express updates (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2089)

"Apple also noted that Logic Pro 7.2.3 is optimized for PowerPC G4, G5 and Intel based Macs with up to 2 dual-core processors." Same is true for Logic Express.

This is a very big evolutionary multicore support step for the Logic gang. Finally gives me incentive to want to buy Logic Pro.

Moderators: Looks Like MacRumors dropped the ball on this one - eclipsed by the ever omnipresent 7.0.1 iTunes update. :rolleyes:I find it was posted here on page 2 yesterday.

When someone uses the word "belief" they are really saying "to the best of my knowledge, experience and understanding, I conclude this to be true". The same would go for disbelief. Since humans are not perfect, not even remotely, we can never be 100% sure. Even that tree you see in front of you has a small probability of being an illusion or a figment of your imagination.

Ask yourself what you do with your phone.

Not the occasional "I've got to reprogram my companies IT network on the fly" (yeah right), but what you really do day in and day out. Think of the ease of getting apps that you need when you need and think of them, and think of the stability of those apps.

Now think of your parents and what they do with their phone. What they really need, and how many times they call you with tech questions.

Apple has thought these issues through pretty hard. Has Google with Android? Has Microsoft with WM7?

For the advanced techie 0.05% of the population (the kind of guys who post on this board), it probably doesn't make a difference, and the ability to customize and probe the system may be more important.

By focusing on controlling and optimizing the user experience of the individual for the average person over focusing on "spec wars," Apple is cleaning their competitor's clocks. They will continue to do so, since this is a corporate ethos of Apple from the very beginning.

MS was great for the era of the centralized IT professional, which is now ending, as is MS dominance. Google is the world's greatest information aggregator, for which they will reap trillions into the future.

Apple, however, will continue to dominate as it gets better and better at Steve Jobs 30 year old vision of optimizing the user experience of computing to the maximum extent.

Nokia, Google, Blackberry (yes, screw you, arrogant Basille) etc should just throw in the towel at this point. They ain't catching up, and resistance is futile.

I agree with your pro-nuclear, pro energy independence stance, Fivepoint.

This is interesing...

To a great extent, the US military distorts the free market. It's possible to argue the the >$700bn (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_cost_of_the_Iraq_War) spent on the Iraq war is a direct government investment in oil.

Even as a small-government advocate, I'm assuming that you see defence as something that should remain the role of the state? How then to create a level marketplace where foreign oil benefits from such a massive indirect government subsidy?

Perhaps it would be appropriate to have domestic nuclear reactors built, as a security measure and as part of the defence budget?

I agree it distorts the free market, this is a automatic result of government. It needs to be limited as much as possible, but it can't (by definition) be eliminated. I see where you're going with the defense budget used to create power plants, and I understand the appeal. I think that would be a better use of money than say having hundreds of thousands of troops stationed in places like Germany, South Korea, etc. but the problem is that then the government would own it, and then the government would be in the business of energy production, and would be competing with private business. It's hardly constitutional, and it's hardly common sense.



Fourth, since climate change is simply a myth cooked up by liberals to control the world, we don't have to worry about the impact these fossil fuels will have on our atmosphere.

I would add the word 'some' in front of Liberal, but yes... pretty much. Most climate change religion members honestly believe it, but most honestly believed global cooling in the 70's too. There are those that are only doing what they do for the betterment of society, there are others who are after power, money, and the growth of government. Absolutely.




The free market is the part where your point goes off track. (edit - I reread what I posted and laughed coffee out of my nose... actually, to be honest, your point went off track before that, but for my purposes, I'm going to just address this one issue). If the free market were free, the decision would be made by the consumer and the consumer's money. Right?

Then, can you explain why there are multi-national oil. gas and coal companies that are responsible for almost 100% of our energy supply? Where is the "choice" for consumers? Where there is choice, we consumers choose by price, and we have shown we are willing to pay a premium for investment in renewable and/or less polluting energy. Where we don't have a choice, you find oil/gas/coal forced on us by big-oil (aka Republican) policies.

Personally, I'd love energy that was renewable, reliable and clean. I don't have the financial resources or education to develop that myself, so I and other consumers turn to our government to do things that benefit our society.

Why on earth do you support the big-oil (Republican) policies that stifle competition in the free market and prevent the development of types of energy that would beat big oil/coal/gas in a competitive free market?

Seems anti-free-market... doesn't it?

What in the hell are you talking about? What do you mean consumers don't have a choice? What do you mean it's being forced on you? Please clarify, because I'm pretty sure you have plenty of choices and I'm pretty sure oil, gas, etc. has been so successful because consumers have chosen it. Because it is cheaper, more efficient, etc. than anything else available. If tomorrow cars could be powered by air just driving down the road, every car company would build them, every consumer would buy them. You're going to have to explain yourself.

I don't support any subsidies, etc. for big oil any more than I support subsidies for any other technology. In my eyes, if a technology has real potential, if it has real opportunity for growth there will be PLENTY of private sector investors interested in taking it on. What in the world are you talking about when you say my position is anti-free market? :confused:


Few things
1. Oil independence and refining the electricity portfolio to become cleaner are two separate issues. Other than marginal uses like powering operations fleet and being burnt in OLD stations, oil does not have a big role in electricity generation.
2. Renewable energy is not cost effective at all. If we relied on the free market to drive renewable technology, they'd refuse to do so because they'd be losing money and we'd be stuck on coal for a long time. Then when coal runs out, we'd have no alternatives in place. This is why you need the government to subsidize and legislate. It's like putting solar panels on your roof. A capitalist is not going to spend $100K out of pocket to retrofit their house with an alternative energy source that will be generating at a loss. But with government subsidizing half of it and creating a break even point or allowing a profit through technologies like net metering (which is also subsidized), he just might.
3. Despite the fact it's not intrinsically profitable, greening the portfolio is still a worthy issue because environmentalism is an ethical issue, not a business decision. Environmentalsim doesn't care about profits like capitalism does. It cares about carbon footprints and long term sustainability of our planet.

1. No, they are intertwined. If electricity tomorrow was all of a sudden 1/4th the price it is today due to expansion of nuclear, natural gas, coal production, wouldn't interest in electric cars necessarily skyrocket? Natural gas can be used as a straight-up alternative to gasoline for powering automobiles. Better and more efficient techniques for ethanol and bio-diesel are also promising alternatives to foriegn oil. Expansion of any energy production will have a positive effect on our energy independence.
2. You're right, change would take longer, but when it happened it would be out of necessity and better solutions would be found faster and cheaper than otherwise. The internal combustion engine was not created because of a government subsidy, it was created out of a demand for a more efficient means of travel. The best and most successful invesntions come from necessity, from demand. The best solutions stem from the biggest problems. The government just creates a bunch of waste. It's an inefficient bureaucracy controlled by politics and not the free market.
3. You've bought the talking points hook, line, and sinker. Meanwhile, the real working men of America have created clean coal, efficient and clean natural gas power, nuclear power, etc. Things that will ACTUALLY make a difference. How many years have we been sinking billions of dollars into solar? Wind? Where has that gotten us? How much did it cost? You liberals are so afraid of PROFIT for what reason I'll never understand. Profit = people getting what they want and a willingness to pay for it. It equals demand being met. How hideous! Then again, i guess if what they want isn't what you want... well then it doesn't matter, eh?

Things I miss from Windows:

Select an item, push shift, and select another to select those two items and everything between them.

Start Menu where you can find all of the installed programs easily and a bunch of recent or favorite programs as well (Apple's Menu Bar and the Dock try to accomplish this with recent items and stacks but it's just not as good.)

Being able to easily theme the OS.

Many applications don't quit when you push close a window on Mac. On Windows the program quits. It was a lot easier than having to go up to the menu for the application and hit quit.

When you click maximize on Windows the application takes up all of the available screen space (excluding taskbar) instead of just fitting to what the application is displaying. While I do like what OS X does I wish it wasn't the only option available.

The "Add/Remove programs" thing was also really nice. I know that all you have to do is drag and drop to the trash on Mac but sometimes not all of my applications are in my Applications folder and it's a pain to hunt for something.

I could go on and on but I think that's enough lol.


1. As far as the whole shift thing, it works the exact same way.

2. Dragging your Applications folder to the right hand side of the Dock as a stack shows every single application you have installed on the computer, just like the Start Menu.

3. Themeing is a bit more difficult, but you can use things like Geektool (http://projects.tynsoe.org/en/geektool/) and Liteicon (http://www.freemacsoft.net/LiteIcon/) and DockLibrary (http://www.dativestudios.com/docklibrary/), just to name a few things. You just have to do some googling to find more themeing stuff.

4. Quitting applications. CMD+Q. Easy.

5. I haven't figured out a fix for the maximising. That is my only complaint, but they're gonna change it in OS X Lion.

6. Add/Remove Programs - an application called AppCleaner (http://www.freemacsoft.net/AppCleaner/)

I hope that cleared up all the issues you had... If you have any more, lay 'em on me!

Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; 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)

Was the MacNN headline "Apple Poaching Gaming PR Execs from Activision and Nintendo?" the true story? It would give a very different impression if the headline had been "PR Execs Abandoning Activision and Nintendo for Apple?" And in fact the article says that Grange "jumped ship".

Were they pushed or pulled?

That's why I don't bother ever going to appleinsider. Their headlines are sensationalized BS.

It's quite obvious what Apple are doing.

They're not going to make a console as such because it's a cumbersome solution. What they'll do is continue to improve and expand their current iOS platform and the games involved.

The "console" solution they're working on is quite simple. Airplay. If the rumours are true about Apple trying to licence the tech and if we go by the relatively cheap Apple TV iteration the future is staring you in the face.

Your iPhone, iPod or iPad will become the console or the controller in the tradition console sense. Games will be sent wirelessly without lag to the TV where others can join in with their own iOS devices. The devices can change depending on the game and the flexibility of the touch screen. Once you've finished you take your iOS device with you and carry on playing on the go.

Apple will never make a traditional games console. It isn't in their DNA to make something so vulgar. They'll simply integrate experiences into a whole. Airplay is the way they'll do it in regards to the TV.

---

---

---