iMikeT
Jul 24, 08:08 PM
After seeing the update along with the photos, I'm really going to have to fight the urge to get one of these.
What makes it worse is that I will have to purchase a Bluetooth dongle.
What makes it worse is that I will have to purchase a Bluetooth dongle.
diamond.g
Apr 11, 02:43 PM
...snip...
All I can say is, "Thank God." Near term I get rid of tons of cables -- I have seven attached to my MBP on my desktop right now (external monitor, FW800 for external drive, Ethernet, FW400 for scanner, USB for keyboard, USB for printer, and audio out to external speakers). Long-term it is possible Thunderbolt will enable changes we can't envision right now.
My only issue is the name "Thunderbolt" and the weird lightening bolt (that to date has always meant "touch this an you die from electrocution"). Light Peak was nearly perfect IMHO. Oh well, I'm guessing some committee group came up with this.
How are you going to reduce the number of cables? It seems like you would still need the same number of cables.
All I can say is, "Thank God." Near term I get rid of tons of cables -- I have seven attached to my MBP on my desktop right now (external monitor, FW800 for external drive, Ethernet, FW400 for scanner, USB for keyboard, USB for printer, and audio out to external speakers). Long-term it is possible Thunderbolt will enable changes we can't envision right now.
My only issue is the name "Thunderbolt" and the weird lightening bolt (that to date has always meant "touch this an you die from electrocution"). Light Peak was nearly perfect IMHO. Oh well, I'm guessing some committee group came up with this.
How are you going to reduce the number of cables? It seems like you would still need the same number of cables.
Heilage
May 2, 02:30 AM
He was supposedly thrown overboard at sea.
Why?
Why?
PlipPlop
May 4, 01:56 AM
Dont worry release a white iphone and people will buy it instead :rolleyes:
Jtut10
Apr 14, 12:35 PM
Yawn....Boring...Youre gonna put a case on it anyhow...How about a new iPhone?! I dont want to wait until the end of the year
ChrisGonzales90
Jun 6, 08:43 PM
Sorry, Shaniqwa was the first name I could think of when I thought of 8 kids and irresponsible parenting. My apologies.
Well there is always this woman
http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/nadya-suleman-grin.jpg
Well there is always this woman
http://poponthepop.com/images/gallery/nadya-suleman-grin.jpg
R.Perez
Apr 27, 12:42 PM
Nice metric you have there, $some people on the internet have said it, thus it must be true.
:rolleyes:
I know right? We all know that everything that is said on the internet is inherently fact :rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
I know right? We all know that everything that is said on the internet is inherently fact :rolleyes:
bbplayer5
Nov 11, 06:59 AM
why would anyone care if it does sever side encoding for porn? Do you think they are keeping track of your fetishes lol.
ForzaJuve
Apr 22, 04:22 PM
They will probably name it the iPhone Razor. Wait, where have I heard that before?
Darkroom
Jun 6, 09:14 AM
sure. apple has no problem giving a refund, as they keep their 30% that the developer now has to pay. that's a cool $300 that apple just ripped off from the developer all to protect their mistake and their idiot customers.
eastercat
Apr 24, 01:13 AM
There are people who think ignorance is acceptable. :rolleyes:
Now, all they need is to unlock the phone and we'll know the exclusivity contract is broken.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
Now, all they need is to unlock the phone and we'll know the exclusivity contract is broken.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
commander.data
May 3, 08:48 AM
Not sure if anyone noticed this but while trying to price one, I noticed that the 21" model can't be maxed to 16gb as their page says.... :mad:
That was the case for the previous 21.5" too. The smaller enclosure can only fit 2 DIMM slots while the larger 27" can fit 4 DIMM slots.
That was the case for the previous 21.5" too. The smaller enclosure can only fit 2 DIMM slots while the larger 27" can fit 4 DIMM slots.
NATO
Jul 25, 08:06 AM
Seemingly the US Store is the only one to feature the Wireless Mighty Mouse so far, my Credit Card is quivering in fear of the UK Store being updated :p
SingaporeStu
Jan 31, 10:32 PM
His character on "Two & A Half Men" is based loosely on his life. He's been this way for the longest time. He's been through enough rehab to know what the alternatives are (the "healthy" lifestyle), and he obviously doesn't want that. He enjoys living as he does, so who can begrudge him that?
I'd rather have a short, enjoyable and colourful life than a long, boring one. Cheers to Charlie, I say. Damn that guys pulls some nice chicks��
I'd rather have a short, enjoyable and colourful life than a long, boring one. Cheers to Charlie, I say. Damn that guys pulls some nice chicks��
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
solafide
Apr 29, 02:48 PM
I wonder if this new pricing scheme is being enabled by the record labels with lower wholesale pricing to Amazon (to try, yet again, to take power out of Apple's hands), or if Amazon is simply doing this at a loss?
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Why would Amazon want to take a loss - to support non-Apple mp3 players?
For Apple, they are not making much, if any money - they always planned it as a break-even business - the real value was the content eco-system tied to their products (= value for customers).
Eldiablojoe
Apr 28, 10:26 PM
Opps, my mistake. That would have made the story go very wrong had your part not ended prematurely.Hmmm, Nies was going to be a dancer at Moyank's strip club, and Appleguy123 was her pimp-daddy?
rjfiske
Aug 15, 05:09 PM
Call me crazy, but I'd not be surprised if Leopard was a free update for Tiger owners - if not all Mac owners.
You're crazy. :) But one thing I would like to see is a free upgrade to iLife for everyone who upgrades Leopard. Or else some kind of Leopard / iLife buy-together discount. That would be most welcome.
rjf
You're crazy. :) But one thing I would like to see is a free upgrade to iLife for everyone who upgrades Leopard. Or else some kind of Leopard / iLife buy-together discount. That would be most welcome.
rjf
RaggieSoft
Apr 13, 10:23 PM
Meh, my 3G S works fine for now.
When Apple starts talking about the 64 GB (or better yet, 128 GB - though I'm not holding my breath) iPhone 5, then we'll talk.
Besides, when my contract is up in July, iPhone 5 talks should hopefully be out. I can wait.
White iPhone 5 64 GB LTE + white iPad 3 128 GB (Wi-Fi + LTE) - I can dream, can I not? :D
When Apple starts talking about the 64 GB (or better yet, 128 GB - though I'm not holding my breath) iPhone 5, then we'll talk.
Besides, when my contract is up in July, iPhone 5 talks should hopefully be out. I can wait.
White iPhone 5 64 GB LTE + white iPad 3 128 GB (Wi-Fi + LTE) - I can dream, can I not? :D
WeegieMac
Apr 14, 02:32 PM
I just updated mine and there is a noticeable difference in speed with this update. It is much faster in opening applications and text messages.
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
I'm noticing a little quicker general UI navigation, but the third party apps still don't show their launch animation unless opened first, exited, and then launched again. Only once loaded into the memory can you go from app to home screen to app and see the full animation.
Yet, oddly, Apple's stock apps are entirely unaffected.
PtMD
Dec 1, 05:11 PM
I know I'm going to get labeled as a mac zealot and linux apologist for asking this, but isn't it weird how the project spent ALMOST ALL OF ITS TIME looking for ways to crucify OS X/Linux, but they avoided MS like the plague, as if they were afraid to make them look bad?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
"I didn't have much time left for working on Microsoft Windows but I've received the most helpful feedback from the MSRC"
Riiiight. :p
Couldn't that be just because Windows security (or lack thereof) has already been thoroughly examined by the industry at large and therefore wasn't as high a priority?
nefan65
Apr 12, 09:35 AM
Also, Apple is Evil and you are living in Steve Job's RTF.
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Okay, now you're just antagonizing people...lol
Widgets? Blah...waste of time/space IMO. 4G? No carrier yet has true 4G. Sprint I guess? They're the closest. Most the others are all 3.5G
and... and... 4G.
and... widgets.
Okay, now you're just antagonizing people...lol
Widgets? Blah...waste of time/space IMO. 4G? No carrier yet has true 4G. Sprint I guess? They're the closest. Most the others are all 3.5G
Snowy_River
Jul 12, 11:08 AM
That's more or less what I've done. The issue is this. If you envision a twenty page booklet, it will consist of five pieces of paper. On the front of the first piece of paper, the left panel will be page 20 and the right panel will be page 1. On the back, the left panel will be page 2 and the right panel will be page 19. And so on. It is this non-sequential printing of the pages that I'm struggling with. How do you tell it to print pages 20 and 1 on the first piece of paper, other than having it print page 1, then putting the paper back into the printer and having it print page 20.
(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)
(A big reason that I'm trying to get away from the manual solution is that I want to save this as a PDF so I can hand it to a copy shop to print out multiple copies for me. But, unfortunately, you can't print to a PDF page twice. :) Oh, and I've tried using the Layout option in the print dialog, but it reduces that page image dramatically, so 10pt font becomes 6pt font. So that wasn't a good solution...)
ptysell
Apr 28, 04:07 PM
I love how so many fanboys love it when Apple makes money from expensive products. When your company rips you off you don't turn around and say good job keep it up. Why do you get mad a gas companies for charging you to much but not Apple.
Where did I say that I am upset with the oil industry?
Where did I say that I am upset with the oil industry?
No comments:
Post a Comment