torbjoern
Apr 26, 06:02 AM
So if I go to Norway, stab someone because of some arbitrary reason. What would you want to happen when my defence is 'Well when someone disrespects me or my friends, we stab them, so in our culture, that's ok.'? Just let me carry on about my business? What if I killed your parents or someone close to you? Would you be ok with it because my defense is 'it's my culture to kill another person'.
I'm not saying that's the way it is, nor is it the way it should be. But that's the way it's going anyway because of lousy integration. Those who oppose multi-kulti in favour of a more structured and efficient integration policy are labeled as xenophobic racists who don't deserve to live anyway (thoughtcrime is death).
I'm not saying that's the way it is, nor is it the way it should be. But that's the way it's going anyway because of lousy integration. Those who oppose multi-kulti in favour of a more structured and efficient integration policy are labeled as xenophobic racists who don't deserve to live anyway (thoughtcrime is death).
citizenzen
Mar 10, 07:58 PM
So much of our budget problems are due our desire to rule the world through our military. No other solution makes as big an impact as drastically scaling back our "defense" spending.
Cocktail Drinks Invitation
Beach wedding invitation made
Modern Wedding Invitations
Wedding Invitations
Photo Wedding Invitations
wedding invitation background
wedding invitation background
wedding invitation background
With a ackground of wedding
Our wedding invitation suites
flower wedding invitations
tropical wedding invitation
Wedding Invitation
Wedding invitations with a
wedding invitations with
wedding invitation background
elegant wedding invitation
brepublican
Sep 22, 09:05 PM
I don't particularly believe this. I don't think Wal-Mart is ever threatened by anything except a union.
It's just like what happened to Music. Even if it takes off on the iTunes Store, I dont think that the sales of DVDs will be affected very much. So I dont see what the deal would be. Unless its a union :mad:
It's just like what happened to Music. Even if it takes off on the iTunes Store, I dont think that the sales of DVDs will be affected very much. So I dont see what the deal would be. Unless its a union :mad:
Piggie
Apr 2, 08:49 AM
Here we go again with the pixel complaints.
The ipad or for that matter iphone is NOT a camera.
If you want to take pictures of professional quality, buy a stand alone camera that does that.
Higher quality of anything initially costs more, until what was once high becomes the standard due to mass production.
It initially costs more, because production output is less, flaws needs to be ironed out, the production process refined etc.
How difficult is that to understand?.
So why not fit the Proven iPhone4 camers in the iPad then?
The cost had been ramped down due to the camera being out virtually a year, so it's all done and dusted and just needed fitting.
Price wise about $5 dollars more.
I can't see any real reason to hold it back apart from a deliberate ploy to fit something bad to give people a strong reason to upgrade to iPad3.
Unless there are negatives in doing so, Price, Weight etc? Why deliberately fit something bad?
The ipad or for that matter iphone is NOT a camera.
If you want to take pictures of professional quality, buy a stand alone camera that does that.
Higher quality of anything initially costs more, until what was once high becomes the standard due to mass production.
It initially costs more, because production output is less, flaws needs to be ironed out, the production process refined etc.
How difficult is that to understand?.
So why not fit the Proven iPhone4 camers in the iPad then?
The cost had been ramped down due to the camera being out virtually a year, so it's all done and dusted and just needed fitting.
Price wise about $5 dollars more.
I can't see any real reason to hold it back apart from a deliberate ploy to fit something bad to give people a strong reason to upgrade to iPad3.
Unless there are negatives in doing so, Price, Weight etc? Why deliberately fit something bad?
iliketyla
Mar 28, 02:00 PM
Feel good about yourself right? That's her choice to drive her family in, not yours. I can't stand smug people. I have no need for gas guzzler to haul kids and material around, but if I did I have the personal liberty to make that purchase. Kinda like apple products, the more choices and configurations that there are, the more ideal they become for the many different types of consumers.
Your point would be valid IF SHE HAD A FAMILY TO HAUL AROUND ANYMORE.
Both her children have their own vehicles and they no longer take long family vacations in the car anymore.
The wasting of a finite resource and pollution put out by a vehicle that large to drive 3 miles to and from the grocery store has no justification.
And yes, I do feel good about myself. I drive a vehicle that gets 95+ mpg.
Your point would be valid IF SHE HAD A FAMILY TO HAUL AROUND ANYMORE.
Both her children have their own vehicles and they no longer take long family vacations in the car anymore.
The wasting of a finite resource and pollution put out by a vehicle that large to drive 3 miles to and from the grocery store has no justification.
And yes, I do feel good about myself. I drive a vehicle that gets 95+ mpg.
toddybody
Apr 14, 10:38 AM
And all the Apple haters claim the "iToys" are responsible for the immense growth. Nah, people just want a PC that works and its called a Mac!
Totally, cause Windows doesnt work...users are just pretending :rolleyes:
Totally, cause Windows doesnt work...users are just pretending :rolleyes:
Retrograffica
Jan 11, 03:58 PM
Hmmmn... Digital TV "is" in the air, maybe it will be :apple:TiVo ;)
MisterK
Nov 24, 03:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I think it's kinda cool that iTunes reintroduced Beatles music to people who perhaps hadn't thought of them since they were young. I bought a few songs. I wasn't too into the Beatles when I was younger, but watching the documentary and remembering my dad singing Beatles tunes got me pumped. Who knows, maybe some kids who had never heard them before will like them.
So much ******** about musical tastes. You like what you like. I happen to like Lady Gaga also and appreciate that I may not be the audience for Justin Bieber and that does not make him garbage.
I think it's kinda cool that iTunes reintroduced Beatles music to people who perhaps hadn't thought of them since they were young. I bought a few songs. I wasn't too into the Beatles when I was younger, but watching the documentary and remembering my dad singing Beatles tunes got me pumped. Who knows, maybe some kids who had never heard them before will like them.
So much ******** about musical tastes. You like what you like. I happen to like Lady Gaga also and appreciate that I may not be the audience for Justin Bieber and that does not make him garbage.
RITZFit
Apr 17, 12:19 AM
Toys R' Us? I though they only sold video games and...toys!?
angrynstupid
Apr 11, 05:53 AM
Wouldn't be surprised if the high costs are due to the pirates ripping them off.
Apple should've bought Adobe a long time ago.
Apple should've bought Adobe a long time ago.
dime21
Mar 23, 09:58 PM
My new iPad was at the local FedEx distribution center, 2 miles from my house, only to be returned to Apple at Apples request. I provided them with my UPS Store PMB (Private Mail Box) number because I was out of town when it arrived. Someone had to sign. I couldn't leave it on my porch. I don't know my neighbors well enough. The folks at the UPS store could sign, right? Wrong. Because UPS has the ability to ship overseas, Apple refused to deliver.
I travel for my job. My wife does, as well. Apple's Shipping Restrictions web page states they will not ship to PO Boxes and APO's. No mention of PMB's.
So 21 days after announcement, my iPad was 2 miles from my hands. It's gone.
Apple said Sorry, you'll have to reorder. It's only another 5 weeks before I can get one. They would not expedite a new order. They would not hold the iPad at the FedEx distribution center. Too bad for me. I'm fuming. I'm pissed.
I reordered from AT&T. Wait time 25 business days. I won't give Apple all the profit they would have enjoyed. I know. Big deal. I'm not a profiteer. Not trying to subvert their ordering system. Too bad. I'm screwed.
I understand why they refused to deliver. But, no phone call, no alternative delivery option, no expedited order, no option.
Bad customer service. I've spent $6,000 with them over the last three years. So what? Who cares.
How bout the new Galaxy Tab 10.1? I don't own a tablet yet, and am leaning strongly in that direction. iPad had the market cornered for a while, but now there are real competitively spec'd and competitively priced Android tablets coming to market...
I travel for my job. My wife does, as well. Apple's Shipping Restrictions web page states they will not ship to PO Boxes and APO's. No mention of PMB's.
So 21 days after announcement, my iPad was 2 miles from my hands. It's gone.
Apple said Sorry, you'll have to reorder. It's only another 5 weeks before I can get one. They would not expedite a new order. They would not hold the iPad at the FedEx distribution center. Too bad for me. I'm fuming. I'm pissed.
I reordered from AT&T. Wait time 25 business days. I won't give Apple all the profit they would have enjoyed. I know. Big deal. I'm not a profiteer. Not trying to subvert their ordering system. Too bad. I'm screwed.
I understand why they refused to deliver. But, no phone call, no alternative delivery option, no expedited order, no option.
Bad customer service. I've spent $6,000 with them over the last three years. So what? Who cares.
How bout the new Galaxy Tab 10.1? I don't own a tablet yet, and am leaning strongly in that direction. iPad had the market cornered for a while, but now there are real competitively spec'd and competitively priced Android tablets coming to market...
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
Compile 'em all
Nov 11, 10:26 PM
wont miss him I think the Facebook app could be much better
Do you actually know anything about him? He is a high profile developer that worked on the original Firefox and the firebug extension. If he quits, it means something is VERY wrong with the Apple approval process.
I have a strong feeling Apple gave him a hard time with an update to the app so he was like **** that, it is not worth it.
Do you actually know anything about him? He is a high profile developer that worked on the original Firefox and the firebug extension. If he quits, it means something is VERY wrong with the Apple approval process.
I have a strong feeling Apple gave him a hard time with an update to the app so he was like **** that, it is not worth it.
Warbrain
Nov 7, 06:55 AM
the 12" PB had a full sized keyboard...and I'm holding on to my 1.33 version till a 12" MBP shows up.
You'll be waiting for a while!
You'll be waiting for a while!
cwh812
Sep 13, 01:30 PM
Whats the point in the 8 gig when you can get so much more capacity for only £20 more?!
Seems fairly bizarre really, you'd have to really like little black things to bother surely!
anyone getting one care to explain your rationale?
You can't be serious. Have you ever exercised? I personally exercise 5 times a week and I love listening to music when I do. The nano is so small that I can easily put it in any pocket and not even notice it. A 5G Ipod is a different story. That thing would constantly hit your leg and be annoying to work out with.
There is something to be said for the physical size of devices (especially PORTABLE devices), not just how much music or content it can hold. I also already have one big device- a Blackberry that I carry everyday. I don't need two things that size.
Seems fairly bizarre really, you'd have to really like little black things to bother surely!
anyone getting one care to explain your rationale?
You can't be serious. Have you ever exercised? I personally exercise 5 times a week and I love listening to music when I do. The nano is so small that I can easily put it in any pocket and not even notice it. A 5G Ipod is a different story. That thing would constantly hit your leg and be annoying to work out with.
There is something to be said for the physical size of devices (especially PORTABLE devices), not just how much music or content it can hold. I also already have one big device- a Blackberry that I carry everyday. I don't need two things that size.
kuebby
May 5, 07:43 AM
Over-the-air updates over the cellular network is a fine idea, but it's just not that important. That's not really a capability I value at all. Nice, but so what?
What Apple should have done a long time ago is made it possible to update and sync iDevices over WiFi. There is enough bandwidth on WiFi to do all of that just fine. And there is no technical reason it can't be done.
This. I could care less about wireless updating of iOS, it's not that frequent to be an issue. What I would like is to be able to sync up calendars, contacts, etc without having to plug into my iMac. What would really be nice is cloud syncing of my calendars (through iCal) but that would just be a plus.
What Apple should have done a long time ago is made it possible to update and sync iDevices over WiFi. There is enough bandwidth on WiFi to do all of that just fine. And there is no technical reason it can't be done.
This. I could care less about wireless updating of iOS, it's not that frequent to be an issue. What I would like is to be able to sync up calendars, contacts, etc without having to plug into my iMac. What would really be nice is cloud syncing of my calendars (through iCal) but that would just be a plus.
Stridder44
Nov 6, 10:47 PM
Now I wonder if this means other minor hardware changes or just simply a switch to C2D...
danvdr
Nov 7, 07:47 PM
I guess i was wrong with said niche markets.
what i mean is that as they expand their market share, they'll need to expand their product line, in order to entice customers toward their products. basically, if they have a product for every corner of their market, they'll likely increase their market share.
Good point.
what i mean is that as they expand their market share, they'll need to expand their product line, in order to entice customers toward their products. basically, if they have a product for every corner of their market, they'll likely increase their market share.
Good point.
benthewraith
Aug 2, 10:27 PM
Here (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/hijacking_a_macbook_in_60_seco.html).
I found it, though it was rather tricky. :S
This is shocking how? Who is going to use a third party usb key for wireless when the notebook has it built in? Meaning, yes, it can be done, but the circumstances are almost impossible. :rolleyes:
Even then, it's difficult to prove due to things such as Remote Desktop, etc.
I found it, though it was rather tricky. :S
This is shocking how? Who is going to use a third party usb key for wireless when the notebook has it built in? Meaning, yes, it can be done, but the circumstances are almost impossible. :rolleyes:
Even then, it's difficult to prove due to things such as Remote Desktop, etc.
Hisdem
Mar 9, 08:27 AM
Well spotted! Very good attempt! I really liked it.
Thanks! It's much appreciated! :D
Thanks! It's much appreciated! :D
Clydefrog
Sep 12, 04:51 PM
kind of weird how they changed the color of the itunes icon back to blue. But so far i like 7
MisterK
Nov 24, 03:04 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/532.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/4.0.5 Mobile/8B117 Safari/6531.22.7)
I think it's kinda cool that iTunes reintroduced Beatles music to people who perhaps hadn't thought of them since they were young. I bought a few songs. I wasn't too into the Beatles when I was younger, but watching the documentary and remembering my dad singing Beatles tunes got me pumped. Who knows, maybe some kids who had never heard them before will like them.
So much ******** about musical tastes. You like what you like. I happen to like Lady Gaga also and appreciate that I may not be the audience for Justin Bieber and that does not make him garbage.
I think it's kinda cool that iTunes reintroduced Beatles music to people who perhaps hadn't thought of them since they were young. I bought a few songs. I wasn't too into the Beatles when I was younger, but watching the documentary and remembering my dad singing Beatles tunes got me pumped. Who knows, maybe some kids who had never heard them before will like them.
So much ******** about musical tastes. You like what you like. I happen to like Lady Gaga also and appreciate that I may not be the audience for Justin Bieber and that does not make him garbage.
Passante
Aug 3, 04:01 PM
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
Well now I'm not as certain ha ha .....um himmmm
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060803094301394
Well now I'm not as certain ha ha .....um himmmm
http://www.macfixit.com/article.php?story=20060803094301394
MattyMac
Jul 22, 11:00 PM
man...I cant WAIT to see what they roll out with!!!
No comments:
Post a Comment