Stellarola
Mar 31, 11:23 PM
Heinous. Absolutely hideous.
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I'm calling B.S. on this photo. That image isn't from Apple. Prove me wrong, please.
-Stell
And I'm a fan of eye candy.
The faux leather is almost as bad as this "Marble" OS X mockup, from back in the day:
http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3392/3333642840_d905e48e47_o.jpg
I'm calling B.S. on this photo. That image isn't from Apple. Prove me wrong, please.
-Stell
d4rkc4sm
Apr 23, 03:40 PM
seizure looks fake
Chupa Chupa
Apr 11, 01:23 PM
What time is the new FCP being shown? Will there be a live or after event stream? I was able to use the current version in a school class two years ago and I'm interested to see how it's going to change... Can't afford it today, but someday I'd like to replace iMovie with it.
I have a feeling the next version of FCP will be more affordable, something a bit more expensive than FCE is. And then Apple will K.O. FCE.
Haven't heard of any official live streams but maybe a rouge one will pop up on Justin.tv or ustream or wait for something official on Apple's site.
I have a feeling the next version of FCP will be more affordable, something a bit more expensive than FCE is. And then Apple will K.O. FCE.
Haven't heard of any official live streams but maybe a rouge one will pop up on Justin.tv or ustream or wait for something official on Apple's site.
Hertog
Oct 24, 08:17 AM
Since I couldn't find it posted yet: not only does the 15" model come with 1 GB standard now, it's also in an 'upgrade friendly' way: 1 x 1 GB instead of 2 x 512. So, if you want to upgrade your memory later, you can do it fully and are not stuck with an extra module.
more...
rxse7en
Jul 28, 09:07 AM
So what? That doesn't make it an HD-DVD player. And if you think the Xbox 360 is the only piece of hardware that can upscale standard DVDs to 720p, think again.
The only thing helping the Xbox 360 right now is the fact that it's the only next-gen console on the market right now.
I clearly state it's not an HD-DVD player, nor do I say it's the only upscaling "player" out there. It IS the only game console that upscales standard DVDs at this point though.
The only thing helping the Xbox 360 right now is the fact that it's the only next-gen console on the market right now.
I clearly state it's not an HD-DVD player, nor do I say it's the only upscaling "player" out there. It IS the only game console that upscales standard DVDs at this point though.
Abstract
Oct 21, 07:47 AM
I kind of have everything I want, so I guess I want me and my girlfriend to be happy for another year?
Forget that.
I want backyard lawn furniture for the coming summer months, and a Dell Streak once it gets a newer version of Android. :D
I'll probably get the lawn furniture, but I definitely won't get a Dell Streak with 1 year left on a 2 year iPhone contract.
Forget that.
I want backyard lawn furniture for the coming summer months, and a Dell Streak once it gets a newer version of Android. :D
I'll probably get the lawn furniture, but I definitely won't get a Dell Streak with 1 year left on a 2 year iPhone contract.
more...
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
In 1984, Oprah Winfrey moved
more...
“Oprah Winfrey Network”
OWN: THE OPRAH WINFREY NETWORK
more...
*Oprah Winfrey has nabbed the
Oprah Winfrey fires #39;hard
more...
and highly paid women in America, will end her iconic chat show on Sep 9, 2011, after 25 seasons, and focus on quot;The Oprah Winfrey Networkquot; (OWN).
Oprah Winfrey Network.
more...
the Oprah Winfrey Network,
OWN: Oprah Winfrey Network
more...
Oprah+winfrey+network+wiki
Her new network, OWN(Oprah
oprah-winfrey-own-network-
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
ezekielrage_99
Jul 30, 07:55 AM
MS Natural Keyboard is also good.
Apple mouse is beautiful and using one is not very stressful for your hand. Scroll ball in the Mighty Mouse is the best I've used and there's no comparison.
The only bad Apple mice were the hockey pucks.
Yeah the MS Natural Keyboard is good, but sorry the Mighty Mouse just plain is a mighty sucky product. The ergonomics sucks, the scroller thingy gets dirty and hardly work and ithe Mighty Mouse is by far too expensive compared with other better products on the market.
Apple mouse is beautiful and using one is not very stressful for your hand. Scroll ball in the Mighty Mouse is the best I've used and there's no comparison.
The only bad Apple mice were the hockey pucks.
Yeah the MS Natural Keyboard is good, but sorry the Mighty Mouse just plain is a mighty sucky product. The ergonomics sucks, the scroller thingy gets dirty and hardly work and ithe Mighty Mouse is by far too expensive compared with other better products on the market.
more...
Chris Blount
May 3, 07:52 AM
Still only 500GB hard drive on the low end. Ug! Hasn't apple realized it's 2011 and 1TB should now be the minimum?
UniPro
Mar 11, 12:37 PM
I'll check out the lines around 4. I'm not waiting for more than an hour. If I can't get one today I'll be putting off my purchase for awhile.
more...
abhimat.gautam
Mar 31, 04:50 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8G4)
I think this would have worked fine for just the full screen mode. But for the window I think it is just too distracting. Having a brown window in a sea of uniform gray windows, even in the background, will be continually distracting.
I think this would have worked fine for just the full screen mode. But for the window I think it is just too distracting. Having a brown window in a sea of uniform gray windows, even in the background, will be continually distracting.
Heavy Fluid
Nov 30, 03:51 PM
http://www.brucesspeed.com/images/products/detail/Go_Pro_Digital_Motorsports_Hero_Wide_Angle.jpg
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
I got the HD Naked, a helmet mount and the handlebar mount for my birthday. It really is a nice piece of equipment. Video quality is very nice.
more...
martingc
Apr 14, 01:46 PM
Why did you buy XCode, all you needed to have done was go to developers.apple.com and sign up for a free Dev account, once there, just download the older version (3.2.5) and install. The older version works fine and will enable the Gestures.
Yes I do have Xcode installed and also I hace an Apple dev account, but I've had it for long and gestures were not enabled on the previous updates to my iPad. If nobody else can confirm gestures on their iPads then what you say might be the case, but I still cant understand why they were not enabled on the previous updates.
Yes I do have Xcode installed and also I hace an Apple dev account, but I've had it for long and gestures were not enabled on the previous updates to my iPad. If nobody else can confirm gestures on their iPads then what you say might be the case, but I still cant understand why they were not enabled on the previous updates.
samcolak
Apr 22, 12:05 PM
Stop it please, you're hurting me... OpenStep is a specification of which GNUStep is a GPL licensed implementation released by the GNU project. Foundation and Cocoa are the NeXTSTEP acquired implementations that Apple is using.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
Lastly - yes you are correct re POSIX - my bad.
OpenSTEP is not licensed under a GNU project license at all...
POSIX is not a kernel. It's a standard programming interface that UNIX systems used to make sure that one program written for a UNIX system would compile another as long as the standard was followed.
Minix, while being a POSIX compliant OS, was a complete implementation done by Andrew Tannenbaum for a book he was writing.
Your grasp of all of this history is quite muddied. Seriously, who are you trying to convince here ? You've gotten about every fact wrong about this whole thing. The plain fact remains, I was right all along, your correction was quite wrong when you said :
You completely misunderstood my post when I said Bash was part of the GNU project. Bash has always been GNU, always will be. The GPL is very much "GNU licensing".
Enjoy easter yourself and use the days off to work on your grasp of the whole UNIX and open source histories.
From GNU.org (http://www.gnu.org/) :
Again, the Foundation is called the FSF, from their site, FSF.org (http://www.fsf.org/) :
Stop getting it wrong, we're on the Internet, the sites are there to correct you.
Lastly - yes you are correct re POSIX - my bad.
more...
OdduWon
Jul 21, 04:11 PM
looks like he's love'n the bunny:D
gkarris
Apr 24, 12:10 AM
Is this just a European iPhone on T-Mobile there?
Sound more and more like a rumor - AT&T and Verizon are exclusives to the iPhone here...
Sound more and more like a rumor - AT&T and Verizon are exclusives to the iPhone here...
more...
funwithamar
Apr 14, 05:23 AM
Duh, I can't believe some of the comments there...
Edit: Some here speculate in an iOS + OS X merge, and I guess that *could* happen. That could be compatible with iOS 3.0 and fit that list. Perhaps it's the biggest surprise Apple is holding back for OS X Lion. .
yes yes ....and they bring out a new magic mouse with the accelerometer and gyroscope so it can be used as a remote :D
Edit: Some here speculate in an iOS + OS X merge, and I guess that *could* happen. That could be compatible with iOS 3.0 and fit that list. Perhaps it's the biggest surprise Apple is holding back for OS X Lion. .
yes yes ....and they bring out a new magic mouse with the accelerometer and gyroscope so it can be used as a remote :D
KnightWRX
Apr 22, 12:07 PM
4. Per Bash, i never said it wasnt part of GPL/GNU - it is - I agree.
Look, I'll just ignore you. Your knowledge of all of this is lacking and now you're backtracking. To answer that specific point. Yes, you did say Bash wasn't part of the GNU licensing, quite clearly showing you have no understanding of the situation :
Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU
Look, I'll just ignore you. Your knowledge of all of this is lacking and now you're backtracking. To answer that specific point. Yes, you did say Bash wasn't part of the GNU licensing, quite clearly showing you have no understanding of the situation :
Bash is under the GPL license - not GNU. Never has been GNU
appleguy123
May 1, 08:32 PM
I think me and jav6454 are tied at one vote each.
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
The 24 hour day started @ 4:21 yesterday. You reached one vote first. I don't think that this has ever happened before...
toniv
Dec 2, 01:50 AM
Hi, you all!
This iAdware thing is old news and has been already fixed in latest security update by Apple.
Greetings from Finland,
Toni
Installer
CVE-ID: CVE-2006-4404
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS X v10.4.8, Mac OS X Server v10.4.8
Impact: When installing software as an Admin user, system privileges may be used without explicit authorization
Description: Admin users are normally required to authenticate before executing commands with system privileges. However, the Installer allows system privileges to be used by Admin users when installing certain packages without requiring authentication. This update addresses the issue by requiring authentication before installing software with system privileges.
This iAdware thing is old news and has been already fixed in latest security update by Apple.
Greetings from Finland,
Toni
Installer
CVE-ID: CVE-2006-4404
Available for: Mac OS X v10.3.9, Mac OS X Server v10.3.9, Mac OS X v10.4.8, Mac OS X Server v10.4.8
Impact: When installing software as an Admin user, system privileges may be used without explicit authorization
Description: Admin users are normally required to authenticate before executing commands with system privileges. However, the Installer allows system privileges to be used by Admin users when installing certain packages without requiring authentication. This update addresses the issue by requiring authentication before installing software with system privileges.
Pandaboots
Jan 26, 03:29 AM
I've lost a bit. :( actually quite a lot. I bought at around 170ish a while ago in prepare for the surge of macworld like last year but am at a bit of a loss right now. I think my avatar shows my recent mood.
You haven't lost anything until you actually sell. Maybe this story will help:
Apple was the last stock I bought back during the dot com days of the late 90's/early 2000's. I got burned trying to buy and sell all the dot coms on a daily basis, so I decided that I'd "invest" what I had left in Apple. Anyway, I bought Apple at $49/share in the year 2000. I thought it was a great price for whatever reason. Guess what? The price fell to around $7 within a very short period of time. Go look at a chart and you will see the cliff in which I speak of. However, I didn't lose my cool. I was in it for the long haul, so I maintained my position. I think patience is key to investing. Long story short, I did sell at $200 recently because I wanted to diversify those earnings and made a 720% return on my investment. So essentially, my original investment more than doubled itself each year I owned the stock. Why $200? I don't know, they had been so close to it for a while that it just sounded like a good round number. Anyway, I've had my fair share of doubts throughout my 7 year stint with Apple. I never dreamed Apple would be at $200/share. I've seen huge dips in their price in short periods of time, and I've also seen huge gains too. I've also had the stock split on me too. I've also felt it was doomed and there's no way it could ever do this or ever do that....
Think about what all has happened with Apple since 2000: I've seen OS X launched, the iPod launched, iTunes launched, the switch to flat screens, all the computers they've launched, iLife, iWork, iPhone, :apple:TV, addition of movies and tv shows, etc. etc. So here's why I invested in Apple in 2000:
1) I loved the company
2) I loved their products
3) I got excited about their products
4) I was a proud customer
5) I actually kept up with what was going on with the company (mainly through appleinsider and then macrumors shortly thereafter)
6) I knew Apple was innovative and had good leadership
7) I read all of the magazines related to Apple and talked everyones ear off about Apple
However, I didn't choose Apple because of the iPod (it didn't exist then), or whether or not they expected their 2nd qtr to be better than their all time greatest qtr in history. In a nutshell I chose Apple because I believed in their products/their management team/and their ability to produce a quality product that excites people.
So, I guess what you have to ask yourself is, in the next 7 years where will Apple be as far as products and innovation? Only thing I know is since re-investing in them in December at $182, they've released :apple:TV 2, movie rentals, Macbook Air, Time Capsule, an 8 core mac pro and a pink nano (lol). I think Apple is poised and ready to dominate other markets now..pfft iPod, that's so 5 years ago, blah blah blah, Apple owns the market and will maintain their dominance, now it's time for them to dominate in the movies and the phones and hopefully in computers.
If you think they are done, then I'd be worried and sell your shares as soon as you can. If you still believe in Apple, like I do, average down your shares while you can and hold on. At these prices right now, Apple can easily double in value again. They are better positioned than ever to take on their competition. All my 7 reasons above are as true today as they were 7 years ago and 7 years prior to that. :)
You haven't lost anything until you actually sell. Maybe this story will help:
Apple was the last stock I bought back during the dot com days of the late 90's/early 2000's. I got burned trying to buy and sell all the dot coms on a daily basis, so I decided that I'd "invest" what I had left in Apple. Anyway, I bought Apple at $49/share in the year 2000. I thought it was a great price for whatever reason. Guess what? The price fell to around $7 within a very short period of time. Go look at a chart and you will see the cliff in which I speak of. However, I didn't lose my cool. I was in it for the long haul, so I maintained my position. I think patience is key to investing. Long story short, I did sell at $200 recently because I wanted to diversify those earnings and made a 720% return on my investment. So essentially, my original investment more than doubled itself each year I owned the stock. Why $200? I don't know, they had been so close to it for a while that it just sounded like a good round number. Anyway, I've had my fair share of doubts throughout my 7 year stint with Apple. I never dreamed Apple would be at $200/share. I've seen huge dips in their price in short periods of time, and I've also seen huge gains too. I've also had the stock split on me too. I've also felt it was doomed and there's no way it could ever do this or ever do that....
Think about what all has happened with Apple since 2000: I've seen OS X launched, the iPod launched, iTunes launched, the switch to flat screens, all the computers they've launched, iLife, iWork, iPhone, :apple:TV, addition of movies and tv shows, etc. etc. So here's why I invested in Apple in 2000:
1) I loved the company
2) I loved their products
3) I got excited about their products
4) I was a proud customer
5) I actually kept up with what was going on with the company (mainly through appleinsider and then macrumors shortly thereafter)
6) I knew Apple was innovative and had good leadership
7) I read all of the magazines related to Apple and talked everyones ear off about Apple
However, I didn't choose Apple because of the iPod (it didn't exist then), or whether or not they expected their 2nd qtr to be better than their all time greatest qtr in history. In a nutshell I chose Apple because I believed in their products/their management team/and their ability to produce a quality product that excites people.
So, I guess what you have to ask yourself is, in the next 7 years where will Apple be as far as products and innovation? Only thing I know is since re-investing in them in December at $182, they've released :apple:TV 2, movie rentals, Macbook Air, Time Capsule, an 8 core mac pro and a pink nano (lol). I think Apple is poised and ready to dominate other markets now..pfft iPod, that's so 5 years ago, blah blah blah, Apple owns the market and will maintain their dominance, now it's time for them to dominate in the movies and the phones and hopefully in computers.
If you think they are done, then I'd be worried and sell your shares as soon as you can. If you still believe in Apple, like I do, average down your shares while you can and hold on. At these prices right now, Apple can easily double in value again. They are better positioned than ever to take on their competition. All my 7 reasons above are as true today as they were 7 years ago and 7 years prior to that. :)
vincenz
Apr 14, 01:13 PM
Great, another useless update :rolleyes:
hofer
Apr 25, 08:27 AM
"The T-Mobile US network uses different frequencies than AT&T's, requiring different hardware to support."
It surprises me that it would need different hardware. I know that it is possible to jailbreak a AT&T phone to work with T-mobile. so apparently it can be done with software.
It surprises me that it would need different hardware. I know that it is possible to jailbreak a AT&T phone to work with T-mobile. so apparently it can be done with software.
joeshell383
Oct 19, 06:03 AM
Apple has got some MAJOR work to do. I know plenty of people who will only buy PCs (AND SPECIFICALLY NOT BUY MACS, OR EVEN, APPLE PRODUCTS) because they are unaware of what the LATEST Macs can do. The pre-OSX era hurt Apple's reputation. People still believe Macs are incompatible with everything; Internet sites, Word, etc. Some people thinks Macs crash MORE than PCs. People associate Macs with being slow and using out-of-date tech (I don't recall Intel in the "Get A Mac" ads, even though it sure would help considering that everyone and there dog trusts Intel because Intel Inside has been plastered on every computer they've seen). And of course, people hate the ONE-BUTTON MOUSE (especially if they associate Apple mice with the hockey puck mouse), because Apple has not advertised Mighty Mouse, universal USB mouse compatibility, contextual menu support, etc. Seems minor, but quite a number of people are held back by one or more of these things. Plus, as far as the mouse goes, it should be two-click enabled by default! Macs are far more desirable, powerful, capable, and compatible than they have ever been before (and they weren't always these things before). Apple needs to show it. In addition, they definitely need a headless tower, and more professional looking systems. The BlackBook and Pro systems are wonderful: sleek, stylish, and professional, but try bringing a white MacBook or iMac, Apple's only offerings at those price points) into a corporate office meeting... Finally they need more advertising to not only the people mentioned above, but to people who don't use the computer that much and think buying a computer is the same all around.
P.S. I think Boot Camp should be emphasized much more, and we all know once someone is on board Mac OS X does the rest o' the work.
P.S. I think Boot Camp should be emphasized much more, and we all know once someone is on board Mac OS X does the rest o' the work.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий