MrCrowbar
Jul 27, 06:50 PM
Ok, here goes. (Quick pass)
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/3350/macminidblwidepk4.jpg
Eeek. Not so sure I like that.
Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4436/macminidblwideunislotvr9.jpg
A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.
Actually I like the one with 2 slots. Perfect for all those people wanting 2 drives. :-)
http://img161.imageshack.us/img161/3350/macminidblwidepk4.jpg
Eeek. Not so sure I like that.
Hmmm... maybe with just one slot?
http://img54.imageshack.us/img54/4436/macminidblwideunislotvr9.jpg
A little better. I personally prefer the taller narrower one, though.
Actually I like the one with 2 slots. Perfect for all those people wanting 2 drives. :-)
leekohler
Feb 28, 09:45 PM
Correct I have no idea what causes homosexuality, neither do scientists.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
I wanted to know what he expected from me, he doesn't necessarily have to know the cause(s). I don't remember saying you could not live with the person you love. Also one can not infer what "that" means from your paragraph.
I seem to recall you agreeing with this post:
A same-sex attracted person is living a "gay lifestyle" when he or she dates people of the same sex, "marries" people of the same sex, has same-sex sex, or does any combination of these things. I think that if same-sex attracted people are going to live together, they need to do that as though they were siblings, not as sex partners. In my opinion, they should have purely platonic, nonsexual relationships with one another.
Heterosexual couples need to reserve sex for opposite-sex monogamous marriage. If I had a girlfriend, I might kiss her. But I wouldn't do that to deliberately arouse either of us. If either of us felt tempted to have sex with each other, the kissing would stop right away. I know of a woman who gave an excellent answer when men asked her why saved sex for marriage. She said, "I"m worth waiting for." She lived by her Catholic convictions, and she wouldn't risk letting any man use her as a mere object, as a mere tool.
Some may say, "I have sex with my girlfriend to show her that I love her." If I had a girlfriend, I would hope I would love her enough to protect her from the physical and psychological risks that come with non-marital sex. The best way for me to do that is for my hypothetical girlfriend and me to be celibate before marriage.
Sacramentally same-sex "marriage" isn't marriage. Neither is merely civil marriage of any sort. If I understand what the Catholic Church's teachings about marriage merely civil, it teaches non-sacramental marriage, whether same-sex or opposite-sex, is legal fornication.
And by "living with" I mean having sex and having a family as well.
kev0476
Jul 20, 09:28 AM
New MacPro rev2.
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
8 cores = 24Ghz
(with Free fire extinguisher and ear plugs) :p
you need to do your math better, extra core = 1.5x - 1.8x speed increase. but still the same power usage as a normal core!
Michaelgtrusa
Apr 8, 01:59 AM
It depends on the store your at, some BestBuy's have poor management, some don't.
Luph67
Apr 6, 12:21 PM
Yes. I need to see the keyboard. And in a dark room it's critical.
I guess I just assumed that anyone who has used a computer for more than two weeks would be capable of typing without staring at the keyboard.
I guess I just assumed that anyone who has used a computer for more than two weeks would be capable of typing without staring at the keyboard.
Eraserhead
Mar 1, 04:27 PM
Fascinating as this insight into a mediaeval mind is, please do remember to use the multi-quote.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
http://images.macrumors.com/vb/images/buttons/multiquote_off.gif
Well it certainly isn't the Renaissance mind, as Leonardo and Michelangelo were pretty clearly raving homosexuals.
Antares
Sep 13, 11:55 AM
and this got negative votes because...??????????
Yeesh!
One reason this is negative is because there were no performance numbers given.
Yeesh!
One reason this is negative is because there were no performance numbers given.
SeaFox
Nov 28, 08:37 PM
The rationale is that iPods are used only for stolen music (which they aren't) and this will help offset the losses (which it won't).
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
What's also interesting is that if this fee is added they have now unwittingly legimized the stolen music. They wouldn't be able to sue people for having stolen music on their iPods if this fee is supposed to cover losses from piracy.
skunk
Mar 23, 05:34 PM
I keep seeing these pointless ad hominems popping up in your posts. It really is getting tiresome.Isn't that an ad feminam?
miketcool
Nov 28, 08:36 PM
Something is fishy, very very fishy.
Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.
Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL
So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.
Anyone remember the MS Zune being compared to a 4G iPod on the Today show? Matt Lauer said NBC and MS were business partners as a kind of disclaimer and Roker praised the iPod.
Watch Conan O'Brien. Chuck Norris lever is the giveaway here! NBC owns Universal, right? NBC-UNIVERSAL
So Microsoft says, hey, well pay you "wink wink" and then Universal pulls the rus out from Apple because Microsoft thinks it is in a position to topple Apple by denying them content. There is much more at stake here and someone is realizing Apple's angle.
fastlane1588
Jul 27, 12:19 PM
thats a pretty cool concept i must say
azzurri000
Sep 18, 11:32 PM
All I have to say is:
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
"what the hell is taking them so frigging long?"
This update better be bitchin!
princealfie
Nov 29, 01:22 AM
You my friend, sound like a socialist...
I'm a Poststructuralistmarxist so perhaps that will help you guys out :cool:
I'm a Poststructuralistmarxist so perhaps that will help you guys out :cool:
Orange-DE
Jul 21, 07:10 AM
Will it be possible to plug-in any PC graphics cards into an Intel Mac Pro?
Since Apple uses Intel�s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don�t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
Since Apple uses Intel�s chipsets and bords, including PCI-bound hardware devices such as ethernet and sound, controllers and so on - i don�t belive that intel changed the specifications of f.e. an 945i-chipset just for burning in firmwares instead of BIOSes!?!
Apple - bring the iHome and make us happy :)
wmmk
Aug 16, 10:42 PM
Was there any doubt it wouldn't be a lot faster? I mean, I know it was already plenty fast, but come on...
Well, not all gigahertz are created equally, and not apps are universal.
Well, not all gigahertz are created equally, and not apps are universal.
flopticalcube
Apr 27, 10:37 AM
I believe the 'long form' is rearranging the deck chairs. :)
At least they made it up on deck.
At least they made it up on deck.
Peace
Aug 5, 04:55 PM
Can someone confirm my calculations?
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
6PM London time..
Use the dashboard clock widget if you're in the UK and open a clock then set it to Cupertino..
The keynote will start 8PM UK time?
6PM London time..
Use the dashboard clock widget if you're in the UK and open a clock then set it to Cupertino..
KnightWRX
Apr 20, 01:46 PM
They don't need to amend. This is a federal pleading so the standard is whether it puts Samsung on notice. This is a different standard than state courts, where they would have to be much more specific. Eventually they will have to prove which models are accused. Looks to me like the complaint is fine.
So all that is left is to discuss the actual merit of the trade dress claim, of course, something that will in the end be up to the judge.
We can use pictures all we want, something tells me Samsung is just going to bring in devices into the courtroom. Pictures can be misleading as certain angles/shots might make ressemblances show up that aren't quite there.
Also, it remains to be seen how much the judge will accept generic things like "rounded corner", since I don't think I've ever had a phone without rounded corners and how much in the end, he decides that the devices to ressemble or not each other.
Do you know of someone that looked up the icon trademarks on the USPTO site ? Did Apple even register them (I know you don't have to, unless you want punitive damages) ?
So all that is left is to discuss the actual merit of the trade dress claim, of course, something that will in the end be up to the judge.
We can use pictures all we want, something tells me Samsung is just going to bring in devices into the courtroom. Pictures can be misleading as certain angles/shots might make ressemblances show up that aren't quite there.
Also, it remains to be seen how much the judge will accept generic things like "rounded corner", since I don't think I've ever had a phone without rounded corners and how much in the end, he decides that the devices to ressemble or not each other.
Do you know of someone that looked up the icon trademarks on the USPTO site ? Did Apple even register them (I know you don't have to, unless you want punitive damages) ?
HyperZboy
Apr 7, 01:52 PM
lol... You really think Intel is the reason Apple laptops cost what they do? Really?
I never said I considered it overpriced.
I was making a point that it's now underpowered for some users and less powerful than the previous model.
And another point... I'm not really blaming Apple. Obviously, it's Intel's fault for forcing the Intel graphics on Apple, among other companies that plan to use the new CPUs and Intel logic boards.
For many people with the current model, the new Macbook Air will be a downgrade unless you really need some of the other new features.
I never said I considered it overpriced.
I was making a point that it's now underpowered for some users and less powerful than the previous model.
And another point... I'm not really blaming Apple. Obviously, it's Intel's fault for forcing the Intel graphics on Apple, among other companies that plan to use the new CPUs and Intel logic boards.
For many people with the current model, the new Macbook Air will be a downgrade unless you really need some of the other new features.
Virtualball
Apr 19, 02:13 PM
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
Please stop spreading FUD. If you knew anything about the history of the iPhone, you would know that it was announced and previewed at MacWorld 2007. That means they showed the world the interface, the phone, and most of the features in January 2007.
Also, http://gizmodo.com/#!234901/samsung-f700-smartphone-looks-awfully-familiar
"Samsung is also trying to one up its competitor [link leads to Apple] with one specific feature... a slide out full-QWERTY keyboard."
Seriously, this is all FUD.
GoodWatch
Apr 6, 02:16 PM
Topics like this one are just a showcase for Apple's dominating brilliance (but they don't need this) and a watering hole for Apple fanboys. Buzzwords: Apple great, competition crappy and MS :p
anush3
Apr 25, 03:17 PM
somebody named Adam posted on http://www.9to5mac.com/63593/steve-jobs-takes-to-email-to-set-record-straight-on-location/#more-63593
Folks, this is all in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The government way back then made it mandatory for all cel phones to track and record users. They also force all carriers to have back doors built into all devices to spy and steal your data. Look into it, this is pure evil and absolutely shreds the 4th Amendment.
The fact Senators are "demanding answers" is a joke. They were the ones who wrote the stinking bill. Why is Al Franken so clueless to this fact? Maybe they should investigate themselves first.
Want to get rid of this? Get rid of the nasty parts of the '96 Act and get your 4th Amendment back.
Wondering no-one knew about
Folks, this is all in the 1996 Telecommunications Act. The government way back then made it mandatory for all cel phones to track and record users. They also force all carriers to have back doors built into all devices to spy and steal your data. Look into it, this is pure evil and absolutely shreds the 4th Amendment.
The fact Senators are "demanding answers" is a joke. They were the ones who wrote the stinking bill. Why is Al Franken so clueless to this fact? Maybe they should investigate themselves first.
Want to get rid of this? Get rid of the nasty parts of the '96 Act and get your 4th Amendment back.
Wondering no-one knew about
shawnce
Jul 20, 11:43 AM
Strike:
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
- release date of 10.5 revealed - possibly more stuff revealed
Insert:
-release of 10.5
Sorry I don't see that happening... Apple has basically always given developers a few months (to several months) lead time with the next major version of Mac OS X. That has taken place yet... so I don't see it being released at WWDC 2006.
whatever
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
So they say.... :rolleyes:
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
Yes, Microsoft went to Universal, because Universal refused to allow their music to be added to the Microsoft Marketplace. Microsoft then offered the dollar to other companies.
Boycotting Universal and these companies is not the answer.
I recommend that we buy more music from the iTunes Music store and when it comes time for the new iTunes contract, Jobs will be able to present the numbers and then threaten to walk away from the table (I hate to call this the Walmart model, but when you selling more product than anyone else, you'll have to play ball). The industry will not risk losing a growing revenue strain.
There are currently over 67 million iPods out there. The music industry's accountants (notice that I specify their accountants) are not that stupid. They now that if 10% of those people buy one .99 song from iTunes a year, they'll make more money than they would if they imposed a $1.00 tax on every new media device sold.
And those are the numbers that Apple will present to them.
No comments:
Post a Comment