Mac.World
Apr 17, 03:16 AM
And please explain, with evidence, how people learning about the struggles of gay people throughout history psychologically damages anyone. Your assertions get more ridiculous with every post.
More to the point, where do you draw the line? Should every school curiculum include the struggles of Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Muslims, Hispanics, Christians, Women, etc... gonna be kinda tough to fit all that in. Or does your plan draw the line somewhere? I mean are gay people more important than Native Americans? In terms of history, whom do you believe got screwed over more and whose struggles should be taught in school?
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
More to the point, where do you draw the line? Should every school curiculum include the struggles of Jews, Blacks, Native Americans, Chinese, Muslims, Hispanics, Christians, Women, etc... gonna be kinda tough to fit all that in. Or does your plan draw the line somewhere? I mean are gay people more important than Native Americans? In terms of history, whom do you believe got screwed over more and whose struggles should be taught in school?
If you were to walk onto the street and ask 100 people which group of people were persecuted the most out of blacks, Native Americans, Jews, women or gays, I'm pretty sure the majority of people would place gays last, out of those groups. Now a liberal state like New York, Hawaii or California may add gay history to their school programs, but don't expect to see it in the majority of the US States. It's simply not important to single out a persons sexuality to highlight their importance in history. Was Oppenheimer's religion put before his contributions to the bomb? I mean is there a little star next to his name with an annotation listing his religion?
Maybe its just me. But I simply don't care if someone was black, blue, brown, Jewish, the Egyptian god Ra, whatever... its the persons contributions, not their ethnicity, sexual pref or religious affiliation that define(d) them. Treat people equally, not with preference.
twoodcc
May 11, 10:23 AM
got a big one going now.
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
iBug2
Apr 30, 06:48 PM
Is there? They're already controlling what can and cannot be sold on the iOS platform (and it is an entire platform now with full-fledged computers in the form of the iPad). They've proven themselves beyond contempt by insisting that in-app subscriptions be the same or lower on the App store than direct, despite the fact that they demand 1/3 of all the selling price. They've added an 'App' store for OSX proper and have the same 30% "grab" for everything on there. They're advertising and bragging about bringing iOS features back to OSX. I'm just doing simple math here. You can make 1+1 = 1 if you say it's a bigger one, but in my world, 2 is still the more likely answer.
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
Remember what Steve said. PC's as we use today will be like trucks. Yes they will be around but nobody, not you nor me are going to use them.
And no. Are you currently using a 64 core workstation? I bet not. But they are available. So no, we don't need the fastest even today. In 15 years, an iPad will be more powerful than our 12 core Mac Pro's. And nobody will pick anything up. All computer industry will go post pc devices, because it makes much more sense. They are much easier to use, we hate them now because we can use actual PC's, but most of the population can't. Not just old people, most of the young people have tons of issues with regular PC's as well.
And don't worry, we won't be too down about it when it finally happens, since it'll happen very slowly.
Like I said, that's not even the weird part. We won't even have CPU's in our computers, just inputs. :)
And you are the ones using the words "foolish". I think it's quite possibly a business-savvy solution to ensuring profits stay high into the future. What you or I may want in OSX is irrelevant to both Apple and Steve Jobs. Steve has essentially said that consumers don't know what's best for them and that it takes a visionary to move forward. We know Steve's 'vision' is smaller/thinner/more mobile at almost any cost. So I'm not saying it will happen like that, but that it's looking more likely every day. Only time will tell for sure. But I know if it does happen, I'll no longer have an interest in OSX. I don't want Apple deciding for me what I can or cannot buy or watching developers get 1/3 their gross taken from them (same % as a typical injury lawyer BTW. You don't get paid until they get paid FIRST and your bills 2nd and you last; in this case it would be taxes instead of bills). You can think it's good/fair/right. I don't agree and I don't want Apple telling me I have to use Safari because they don't want Firefox or Chrome competing with them.
I don't know about that. There will always be a market for faster/more powerful (i.e. most people may drive a Ford Focus or Chevy Impala or Toyota Corrola and hybrids may capture larger and larger market penetration in the future, but that doesn't mean there isn't a market for the WRX, Mustang, Corvette, etc. even if it shrinks over time) and so even if Apple AND Microsoft bail out of traditional computing, that just means someone else will likely take over. They can't make Linux go away, for example. And if people didn't BUY it, the lines would stop. Newton didn't exactly go over so well the first time around....
Remember what Steve said. PC's as we use today will be like trucks. Yes they will be around but nobody, not you nor me are going to use them.
And no. Are you currently using a 64 core workstation? I bet not. But they are available. So no, we don't need the fastest even today. In 15 years, an iPad will be more powerful than our 12 core Mac Pro's. And nobody will pick anything up. All computer industry will go post pc devices, because it makes much more sense. They are much easier to use, we hate them now because we can use actual PC's, but most of the population can't. Not just old people, most of the young people have tons of issues with regular PC's as well.
And don't worry, we won't be too down about it when it finally happens, since it'll happen very slowly.
Like I said, that's not even the weird part. We won't even have CPU's in our computers, just inputs. :)
html
Apr 15, 10:57 PM
Seeing as that it doesn't have any place for the antenna (like the black area towards the top of the 3G iPad), i'm very skeptical with this picture.
First thing that occurred to me, too. These are fake.:(
First thing that occurred to me, too. These are fake.:(
more...
zep1977
Mar 24, 03:24 PM
Time really flies.
I remember walking into the local CompUSA and picking up my copy. They had them stuffed in the back corner along with one G4 that wasn't even working along with it's broken CD drive cover.
Amazing how the times have changed since then.
Looking forward to the next 10 years of the Mac OS.
:apple:
I remember walking into the local CompUSA and picking up my copy. They had them stuffed in the back corner along with one G4 that wasn't even working along with it's broken CD drive cover.
Amazing how the times have changed since then.
Looking forward to the next 10 years of the Mac OS.
:apple:
katanna
Jan 5, 10:30 AM
Oh, no...I don't think much of anyone expects there to be live coverage. They did away with that some time ago. But the QT archived video should be up within a few hours after the keynote ends.
Right... I am talking about the "archive" video that they host after the event... I SO miss the live feeds (I remember when they canceled them)!!!
The reason for the post here was in hopes that there would be others like me... enough to warrant a page, link, RSS, e-mail, something of the sort. Guess not. No biggie.
Matthew
Right... I am talking about the "archive" video that they host after the event... I SO miss the live feeds (I remember when they canceled them)!!!
The reason for the post here was in hopes that there would be others like me... enough to warrant a page, link, RSS, e-mail, something of the sort. Guess not. No biggie.
Matthew
more...
jayducharme
Apr 29, 06:49 PM
The main problem with the "slider" idea is that it wasn't intuitive which selection was active (since we're so used to a depressed icon indicating selection). I like the concept of a slider; it reminds me of the old tile games. Perhaps a compromise would have been to have the selected item's text glow, as if a little LED were behind it. That would have made it really clear which item was active.
davepoint
Aug 8, 01:33 PM
By the way - the apple uk store lists the 23" as �779 - yet earlier in this thread people were saying that the prices had not yet dropped..I was under the impression that 779 was the reduced price..is it going down further or are the wrong?
more...
tbobmccoy
Mar 24, 04:16 PM
Personally, I liked OS X 10.4 the best. My first Mac OS and I'll always have a special place in my heart for Tiger :cool:
Mord
Apr 27, 01:19 PM
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
more...
tigress666
Apr 16, 10:30 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
snberk103
Apr 13, 09:22 AM
The 9/11 hijackers did not bring anything on the plane that was banned. No amount of groping or searching by airport security would've prevented 9/11.
9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
I thought box cutters were banned? Can you provide a link to support your statement?
9/11 was a failure of intelligence, not a failure of airport security.
I thought box cutters were banned? Can you provide a link to support your statement?
more...
SiliconAddict
Oct 3, 03:27 PM
All I can say is whatever "top secret" features Leopard has better blow me out of my socks, threw the wall, and across my yard. As it stands. Meh.
iTV will be mine though as long as I can hook up an external HD to it to store video. If not. Pass.
iTV will be mine though as long as I can hook up an external HD to it to store video. If not. Pass.
Timepass
Aug 1, 12:54 PM
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are just about the happiest countries in the world. Taking the iTMS away from them ought to knock them down a few pegs!
Problem is Demark, Norway and Sweden are just the first countries to really crack down on DRM like this but they will not be the last. Pulling iTMS away from them might work right now but think long term. The 3 counties will not be the last to do it. Other will follow suit with the DRM. France will at some point get the laws passed since they are pretty close to DRM set up like that with ones that went though so it would not be much of a surpise to see France force DRM to open up there as well. I could see most of the EU at some point forcing the issue.
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
Problem is Demark, Norway and Sweden are just the first countries to really crack down on DRM like this but they will not be the last. Pulling iTMS away from them might work right now but think long term. The 3 counties will not be the last to do it. Other will follow suit with the DRM. France will at some point get the laws passed since they are pretty close to DRM set up like that with ones that went though so it would not be much of a surpise to see France force DRM to open up there as well. I could see most of the EU at some point forcing the issue.
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
more...
Yakuza
Apr 18, 07:51 AM
Anyone to comment on the iPhone pics at engadget.com
what??? On this one you can change the battery? lol
iiii don't know, hard to tell. even though it's a full assembled mobile, it just doesn't has that Apple touch!
I like most of the first early photos
what??? On this one you can change the battery? lol
iiii don't know, hard to tell. even though it's a full assembled mobile, it just doesn't has that Apple touch!
I like most of the first early photos
GSMiller
Jan 15, 09:22 PM
I don't know what is more lame...
The fact that Gizmodo actually pulled such a stunt or that Motorola used a presenter with a British accent.
The fact that Gizmodo actually pulled such a stunt or that Motorola used a presenter with a British accent.
more...
SilentPanda
Apr 24, 11:02 AM
Has there been any word from the higher-ups on why this feature was implemented now after years of asking and for seemingly no good reason?
Doctor Q addressed some of this in post 149 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12442007&postcount=149).
Doctor Q addressed some of this in post 149 (http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=12442007&postcount=149).
flopticalcube
Apr 21, 12:30 PM
Not the case, as I can reverse it at will.
Only because no one else has voted or the net vote is the same, thus showing you an accurate representation at the time you place your vote.
It seems to add a whole new layer of "so what". People don't pay much attention to thread positive/negative (usually) so I can't see this system adding anything but noise.
Only because no one else has voted or the net vote is the same, thus showing you an accurate representation at the time you place your vote.
It seems to add a whole new layer of "so what". People don't pay much attention to thread positive/negative (usually) so I can't see this system adding anything but noise.
ghostlyorb
Apr 16, 07:03 AM
I feel like Apple will be in the lead for quite sometime!
wlh99
Apr 26, 08:59 PM
After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)
So, my goal is to use 1 start button and 1 cancel button.. and just do their actions. I have set up a the start button to start both timers, obviously both start their countdown at the same time which is not good.
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
Some people have suggested to use Booleans like true or false, or conditions. What do you think?
What if after pressing the start button, you create a timer and start it. Then pressing the cancel button invalidates and releases it. Then pressing the start button would create another timer, using the same pointer.
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
So, my goal is to use 1 start button and 1 cancel button.. and just do their actions. I have set up a the start button to start both timers, obviously both start their countdown at the same time which is not good.
I want to tell one timer to start and if I press cancel, invalidate it. Then If I press start again, call the second timer. (I do this because I read that you can't reuse a timer after you invalidate it).
Some people have suggested to use Booleans like true or false, or conditions. What do you think?
What if after pressing the start button, you create a timer and start it. Then pressing the cancel button invalidates and releases it. Then pressing the start button would create another timer, using the same pointer.
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
triceretops
Apr 25, 12:23 PM
I am perfectly happy with the iPhone 4 I have.
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
BTW, what is that extra little rectangle above the speaker? My phone doesn't have that.:confused:
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 09:50 PM
if it looks like this, has 16GB, A5, 512MB Ram, a good 5MP camera, the same facetime camera as before I'll upgrade from my 3GS. This is likely to happen anyway. When will it be out? Any guesses in the absence of data?
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:47 AM
Agreed. AMD has traditionally been significantly faster and cheaper than Intel.
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
Popeye206
May 3, 02:15 PM
Just like communism!
Love your screen name! Reminds me of someone else here. :p
As for this article. I'm sure it's here so we can see whats going on in e industry. Looks to me, Androids free-for-all is about to end for the average user.
Of course, on the iPhone and Android devices, the people who want around the system will find a way.
Love your screen name! Reminds me of someone else here. :p
As for this article. I'm sure it's here so we can see whats going on in e industry. Looks to me, Androids free-for-all is about to end for the average user.
Of course, on the iPhone and Android devices, the people who want around the system will find a way.