twoodcc
Mar 5, 11:23 PM
Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
I've got it all running and installed, but it won't start computing! Really annoying Grr ill figure it out eventually.
post what's going on. just make a new thread, so if anyone else encounters the same issue it may help them
Unggoy Murderer
Apr 26, 01:17 PM
I think Apple deserves to trademark the word App or App Store. When I see App Store, I think Apple. Companies who effectively steal Apples hard work should be made to change their name because I believe Apple did make mainstream use of the word, I had never heard anyone say App before the App store.
marksman
Apr 21, 02:46 PM
Does anyone else really just not care about this? I could care less. It's not like the info is going to end up in China.
And what if it did end up in china? Is china going to pre-emptively place cheap toys where they predict me to go next?
This whole thing is massively overblown. There is no evidence this information is ending up anywhere... The information is there for a reason and serves a specific purpose. I am fine with it.
For someone to access it they would have to steal your phone. As others have mentioned if that was the case, for most people the information about cell tower locations you might have been near is the absolute least of your worries.
People have to realize this information is not private in the first place. Your location as you move from public place to public place is not some kind of protected right to privacy. Sometimes I wish it was, but it is not. We have no right or expectation of privacy as we move around the public world.
There are a myriad of ways our public movements are tracked hundreds of times every day as we move about. I really do wish people would spend more time investigating and understanding these issues then just knee jerk flipping out and "demanding" answers. Especially since they don't even understand the question, so how can they expect to understand the answer?
If this were Google or M$ you apologists would be foaming at the mouth. Nice fallacious argument - just because we can be tracked in our cars with traffic cams, or GPS devices, etc, doesn't mean this, or those instances are legal.
This is clearly in violation of EU law, for those of you who are interested:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm
We should at least be given the choice to opt-out, and the purposes and disclosure policies should be clearly stated, not buried in a 30-page ToS.
Europe has a law against a device you own tracking your movements from one public place to another? That must be tough not to be able to have any GPS devices.
Do you understand privacy? Do you understand what is actually happening with the iPhone and this information? Do you understand the European law you cited?
It seems you do not understand any of those three.
And what if it did end up in china? Is china going to pre-emptively place cheap toys where they predict me to go next?
This whole thing is massively overblown. There is no evidence this information is ending up anywhere... The information is there for a reason and serves a specific purpose. I am fine with it.
For someone to access it they would have to steal your phone. As others have mentioned if that was the case, for most people the information about cell tower locations you might have been near is the absolute least of your worries.
People have to realize this information is not private in the first place. Your location as you move from public place to public place is not some kind of protected right to privacy. Sometimes I wish it was, but it is not. We have no right or expectation of privacy as we move around the public world.
There are a myriad of ways our public movements are tracked hundreds of times every day as we move about. I really do wish people would spend more time investigating and understanding these issues then just knee jerk flipping out and "demanding" answers. Especially since they don't even understand the question, so how can they expect to understand the answer?
If this were Google or M$ you apologists would be foaming at the mouth. Nice fallacious argument - just because we can be tracked in our cars with traffic cams, or GPS devices, etc, doesn't mean this, or those instances are legal.
This is clearly in violation of EU law, for those of you who are interested:
http://europa.eu/legislation_summaries/information_society/l14012_en.htm
We should at least be given the choice to opt-out, and the purposes and disclosure policies should be clearly stated, not buried in a 30-page ToS.
Europe has a law against a device you own tracking your movements from one public place to another? That must be tough not to be able to have any GPS devices.
Do you understand privacy? Do you understand what is actually happening with the iPhone and this information? Do you understand the European law you cited?
It seems you do not understand any of those three.
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:08 PM
Wow, looks pretty awesome. Nothing about improved typography though? Booooo.
Or will there be a 'studio' anymore? Will motion and livetype just be part of the new FCX?
Or will there be a 'studio' anymore? Will motion and livetype just be part of the new FCX?
Miker2k
Jan 12, 11:53 AM
Brrrrr
Chris Bangle
Aug 25, 06:54 AM
Why does intel have to be soooo confusing, A year ago you could either have a G4 or a G5, Nowadays dyo want core solo, core duo, merom, the other one, or that other one, or the other one.( I can ony remeber conroe and merom)... Ok there more powerful but there are too many to decide from.
Built
Apr 3, 12:08 AM
That's funny. There was no bleed, blemishes, dents or scratches on my iPad 2 when I took it out of the box.
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
Name a bad Azerbaijan entry to
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
ell amp; nikki running scared
Tonight, the Azerbaijani
Are you sure that are not talking to people who are getting "returns" as "new"?
MCIowaRulz
Apr 12, 09:25 PM
The ancient "rendering video..." progress bar you get to watch, which locks you out of every other function.
Annoyed the crap out of me... I edited a 1hr documentary slide show and it was a 20 minutes render on my (former) Macbook Pro i7 with 8 GB RAM.
I'm waiting patently for the iMac 2011 SB and will order the day they are available
Annoyed the crap out of me... I edited a 1hr documentary slide show and it was a 20 minutes render on my (former) Macbook Pro i7 with 8 GB RAM.
I'm waiting patently for the iMac 2011 SB and will order the day they are available
dark knight
Apr 19, 12:12 PM
when apple refresh a line like this, is there a way of buying a current generation model (rather than the latest release), presumably slightly discounted?
if not, where does the stock go?
thanks
if not, where does the stock go?
thanks
RichP
Jan 1, 05:53 PM
Wow, only a week away...
nice post BlueVelvet Ive read it before, but it is always applicable
Here's hoping there is something completely new or unexpected released!
nice post BlueVelvet Ive read it before, but it is always applicable
Here's hoping there is something completely new or unexpected released!
eenu
Aug 16, 11:04 AM
The problem/concern would be you syncing w/ other iTunes libs (edit: and they're not just concerned about ITMS purchases.
Not hard for Apple to stop this with something like a digital signature allowing your pod to only sync with your library
As far as sharing in your range. Again a waste of battery to support this. I have what I wnat ton hear for the most part. I don't much care to drain my battery searching other users' libs (that will come and go as they wander around and in and out of range - oh great, I found a cool Streets video I don't have!! Oh wait he just left range!!!), it's short-lived enough already.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Not hard for Apple to stop this with something like a digital signature allowing your pod to only sync with your library
As far as sharing in your range. Again a waste of battery to support this. I have what I wnat ton hear for the most part. I don't much care to drain my battery searching other users' libs (that will come and go as they wander around and in and out of range - oh great, I found a cool Streets video I don't have!! Oh wait he just left range!!!), it's short-lived enough already.
Agreed but this feature could be used for you to listen to your friends ipod music if they have a song they want you to hear OR in the work place. You should be in range for at least 8 hrs of the day :p
Benjamins
Mar 23, 12:48 AM
Do people seriously have that many songs?!!! seriously?!!!
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I think the iPod classic looks beautiful.
220gb = 50,000 songs?!!!!! That is totally not necessary.
Apple discontinue that dinosaur! It makes you look bad to just have it on your website.
I think the iPod classic looks beautiful.
CalBoy
Mar 21, 12:32 AM
There are homeopathic apps in the AppStore. Those won't work any better than this 'pray the gay away' app, but they still are allowed in the store.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
Then I think Apple might be exposed to the same potential liabilities for homeopathic remedies too. Mind you I don't think (or know definitely) anyone has successfully maintained that companies that knowingly permit the propagation of dangerous materials should be held liable. I do, however, think that it would be a fair standard to apply if the company is going to trumpet it's own "protective" prowess.
Apple is being inconsistent with its policies on the App Store. Either any offensive or potentially dangerous app should be barred, or none of them should be. By trying to play the part of the micromanager, Apple is revealing its own limitations.
No-one could possibly be offended by homeopathy.
I disagree. The level of offense might be lower than this gay-be-gone app, but I'm sure many physicians, nurses, and skeptics are not too fond of junk science being spread.
Moreover, it isn't just about what offends; that is merely a measuring stick to figure out what Apple's priorities are. I'm sure there is an app to offend everyone in the app store (does the Auduban Society approve of Angry Birds?). The question is which of these apps represents a real problem for users? As much as I disagree with Jobs about porn in the app store, there is at least some minimal possibility of utility in leaving porn out of the app store in that parents will be better able to decide what their kids download (not that there aren't other means of doing so, or that the kids haven't already seen porn). Sure it isn't a fantastic reason, but at least there's plausibility.
I think something similar can be said for this gay-be-gone app or a homeopathic app. In these situations the dangers from app use are not only higher, but they also run contrary to what medical professionals the world over recommend. If Apple is so willing to ban something for its plausible dangers, why not ban something for its very real dangers?
I think that should be a more important metric over offense. An app that is offensive but which doesn't hurt anyone either directly on indirectly should be scrutinized much less than one that does. In this light, it becomes more clear that what Apple really wanted to do all along was keep porn out of the App Store. Not because it's offensive or dangerous, but because it would make their devices easier to sell even in the most conservative of markets.
iStudentUK
Mar 31, 03:27 PM
When the Nazis like practically conquered everyone in their path and are invading the UK, the Brits had to transfer a lot of technologies they made for the war to the US...where the US industrial might pretty much defined what we know today as "air dominance".
During the Battle of Britain the British Isles alone produced more aircraft than the Nazis. An impressive feat considering the resources available to the Germans. The Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, the lend-lease agreement with the US (which dramatically increased US supplies to the UK) was signed in 1941.
In 1944 more men landed on the beaches of Normandy fighting under a British flag than the stars and stripes. 1/3 of the airborne troops that landed were British. The Royal Navy accounted for around 75% of the ships used (remember in 1939 the Royal Navy was the world's largest, and remained significant throughout WWII). America and Britain had roughly equal numbers of aircraft available.
However, the D-day was a side show in Europe. Britain (and her empire) and America took some of the pressure off Russia but not much more. As my history teacher used to say- WWII was fought on three continents- Europe, Africa and Asia. The Soviets did the most for Europe, the British Empire for Africa and the US for Asia.
I'm not saying Britain won WWII, or that it would have been possible without the US. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to be under the impression that the US dominated WWII, maybe because in the 21st century the US has a much larger armed forces than Britain, and a better equipped on than Russia, but the situation was a bit different back then.
During the Battle of Britain the British Isles alone produced more aircraft than the Nazis. An impressive feat considering the resources available to the Germans. The Battle of Britain took place in the summer of 1940, the lend-lease agreement with the US (which dramatically increased US supplies to the UK) was signed in 1941.
In 1944 more men landed on the beaches of Normandy fighting under a British flag than the stars and stripes. 1/3 of the airborne troops that landed were British. The Royal Navy accounted for around 75% of the ships used (remember in 1939 the Royal Navy was the world's largest, and remained significant throughout WWII). America and Britain had roughly equal numbers of aircraft available.
However, the D-day was a side show in Europe. Britain (and her empire) and America took some of the pressure off Russia but not much more. As my history teacher used to say- WWII was fought on three continents- Europe, Africa and Asia. The Soviets did the most for Europe, the British Empire for Africa and the US for Asia.
I'm not saying Britain won WWII, or that it would have been possible without the US. I'm just pointing out that many people seem to be under the impression that the US dominated WWII, maybe because in the 21st century the US has a much larger armed forces than Britain, and a better equipped on than Russia, but the situation was a bit different back then.
Benguitar
Nov 25, 06:41 PM
I'm not going to give you **** for your last purchase, but wouldn't one of these do the job?
Anyways, I don't really care. Btw, why do you center your posts?
Well thanks for not giving me crap.
What I think people are failing to see, Is that the case that I purchased, ISN'T that big, I can fit it easily in my gym bag with all my change of clothing, But this way when I'm in a hurry or if I toss my bag or it falls off a table or any of the freak unexpected things that happen to your stuff when you least expect it.
That case will hold up to it.
Yeah, I know, It's a much bigger case than a simple eye glasses case, But a Ferrari is a much faster car than the speed limits on any high way in the US?
(not sure, if that's a perfectly accurate analogy but it made sense to me)
:rolleyes:
I was just centering my posts cause I thought it looked nice.
Anyways, I don't really care. Btw, why do you center your posts?
Well thanks for not giving me crap.
What I think people are failing to see, Is that the case that I purchased, ISN'T that big, I can fit it easily in my gym bag with all my change of clothing, But this way when I'm in a hurry or if I toss my bag or it falls off a table or any of the freak unexpected things that happen to your stuff when you least expect it.
That case will hold up to it.
Yeah, I know, It's a much bigger case than a simple eye glasses case, But a Ferrari is a much faster car than the speed limits on any high way in the US?
(not sure, if that's a perfectly accurate analogy but it made sense to me)
:rolleyes:
I was just centering my posts cause I thought it looked nice.
speedythecat
Oct 6, 01:23 PM
Thanks. That looks like a great case there too!
slu
Jul 18, 10:07 AM
Good. I want to be able to rent TV shows as well. You can really only watch The Daily Show once.
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
Let me sum it up for everyone:
Renting music = Bad
Renting video = Good
flopticalcube
Apr 22, 09:51 AM
Why would Apple release an iMac refresh a couple of months before a new OS debuts? Also, this would be the FASTEST REFRESH IN APPLE HISTORY at 9 months.
You all fell for the hype and made Bri@n T0ng (eat that SEO) and Sea-NET advertising revenue. :rolleyes:
Not correct. Since the launch of Intel iMacs there have been three occasions when refreshes are shorter than 9 months so it's not unprecedented. What would be unprecedented would be simultaneous release of hw and sw so that is unlikely.
You all fell for the hype and made Bri@n T0ng (eat that SEO) and Sea-NET advertising revenue. :rolleyes:
Not correct. Since the launch of Intel iMacs there have been three occasions when refreshes are shorter than 9 months so it's not unprecedented. What would be unprecedented would be simultaneous release of hw and sw so that is unlikely.
JackSYi
Jul 18, 02:14 AM
Too bad Steve couldn't cut a deal from the studios.
frankie
Sep 1, 03:02 PM
gah i love how mention of the merom rumor has to be thrown into every other rumor :(
There's a good and very simple reason Merom keeps showing up in speculation: Intel sells Merom at the same price as a Yonah of equal GHz. Do the math.
Any vendor still selling Yonahs (other than the Txx50 low-bus versions) after their current inventory runs out is ripping off their customers.
There's a good and very simple reason Merom keeps showing up in speculation: Intel sells Merom at the same price as a Yonah of equal GHz. Do the math.
Any vendor still selling Yonahs (other than the Txx50 low-bus versions) after their current inventory runs out is ripping off their customers.
SeaFox
Dec 28, 02:23 AM
Here is your quote SeaFox.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
You are an condescending individual and take my post out of context.
You can't please all of the people all of the time.
"I wouldn't hold my breath on the word processing and web surfing. WebTV showed surfing the internet on a TV sucked because trying to read normal-sized text from six feet away was hard, and bumping the text size up would goof up the page layout generally. Same reason word processing would be silly."
I stand by the statement. WebTV failed because at the time everyone had CRT TVs, which are much blurrier than a computer monitor. Even if you are using a new plasma screen set you have to account for how you use your device. One sits in front of their monitor by a couple feet. This makes 12 point text readable. Now, step back from this thread about six feet or so, however far you usually sit from your TV, and you'll see why. Even if you're viewing the screen at the real resolution of the HD set (1920x1080 for the real nice sets) you're still not going to be wanting to read long passages to text from your TV. Kinda like people don't like reading books in their entirety one screen at a time in Acrobat.
When you ask a home entertainment device to perform the functions of a regular computer you're adding all sorts of complexity and starting down a slippery slope. Let's say Apple added the ability to view Word files to the iTV. Someone would complain that they couldn't edit them. Same with iMovie files. Now you have to add that functionality. Then someone would say "well, what about image files? I can already watch my iPhoto library, why can't I do color and brightness/contrast correction?"
This is exactly the same thing that comes up about the iPod and the Apple Phone. Yeah, the iPod has no built-in FM tuner, no voice memo ability, no built in recording ability, built in FM transmitter for the car, ect. And adding these features would make the interface more complicated, when one of the things that makes the iPod such a hit is it's simplicity. Why do current music playing phones suck? Because the player functionality is hidden under a bunch of unintuitive menus, just like most of the other bells and whistles that may have influenced you to buy the phone to begin with. It's the current state of overly complicated interface design that gets people excited about Apple entering the cell phone market.
Edit: Also, one last point. If you put too much functionality into the iTV that is normally relegated to a regular Mac, then charge less for the iTV, you're going to eat into sales of the Mac Mini. Apple wouldn't do this, and this is the main reason I don't think you'll see the ability to open Word files or surf the Net with the iTV, that and it just sounds like a weird feature to have in a set top box.
If you've got your Mini hooked up to your TV and its working good for you I applaud you. The iTV is clearly not aiming for your type of consumer. I've read articles about setting up Minis as PVR's with HD sets, and invariably the indivdulal has some difficulty finding a monitor resolution and refresh rate the HD set will play along with at first, and actual use of the device is hobbled by needing a wireless keyboard or similar. Apple is aiming for the average TV watching consumer with the iTV, who I can tell you from personal experience are not nearly as smart.
kjr39
Oct 23, 06:52 AM
Sigh.
Okay fine, I guess I'll buy one of these new fancy MBP with a C2D processor instead of continuing to wait for the 12" G5 PB...
Okay fine, I guess I'll buy one of these new fancy MBP with a C2D processor instead of continuing to wait for the 12" G5 PB...
Seryph
Mar 31, 09:44 AM
Talking about new "features": have you noticed the Fuji wallpaper is different?
The new one has clouds at the base...
I'd like to see this too! The old one was pretty bland at the bottom so if this is true I'm glad they changed it.
The new one has clouds at the base...
I'd like to see this too! The old one was pretty bland at the bottom so if this is true I'm glad they changed it.
PBF
Mar 30, 09:18 PM
Full screens apps now have a transition-drop down menubar rather than one that covers up the top of the application now.
Care to upload a screenshot? (only and only if you feel comfortable)
P.S. Are we allowed to ask questions in this thread?
Care to upload a screenshot? (only and only if you feel comfortable)
P.S. Are we allowed to ask questions in this thread?
No comments:
Post a Comment