ritmomundo
Mar 18, 04:53 PM
This is what I "love" about MacRumors, it's the only Apple fansite where Apple fans, rightly proud of their products, can log on and be TOLD what their opinions should be by rabid fans of other devices, who in turn use the fanboy card to back up their point of view, therefore rendering any reply by an Apple user pointless.
The Android fans are as bad, if not in fact worse, than the iPhone fans on here. The very notion you come to an Apple site to stress your point of view and borderline enforce it to the point of it being accepted as fact, proves as much.
I'm all for people loving their apple products. I love my iPhone too. But unlike some of these apple fans, I don't consider my iPhone to be the holy grail of smartphones.
The Android fans are as bad, if not in fact worse, than the iPhone fans on here. The very notion you come to an Apple site to stress your point of view and borderline enforce it to the point of it being accepted as fact, proves as much.
I'm all for people loving their apple products. I love my iPhone too. But unlike some of these apple fans, I don't consider my iPhone to be the holy grail of smartphones.
skunk
Apr 16, 05:49 PM
It's a common complaint.
JTR7
Oct 2, 02:30 PM
Maybe that's not an axiom for "degree of caring" for some people. To the contrary, and considering that Jobs seems to have an affinity to some Japanese aesthetic sensibilities, the "eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing" imperative for family space presumes some degree of sharing of such spaces with no negative notion of "lesser". To make all such facilities that private makes them isolated, stifling the family-oriented intimacy of the desired imperative. Perhaps more so, the extra bedrooms get only part-time use, so there is no need to commit extensive resources full-time to serving each of them individually (see prior comments on why no library/gym/sauna/screening-room/etc.).
I don't have a problem with your philosophy. In my own home, only the master has its own bath (moreso because the house was built prior to the fad of private baths for individual bedrooms). However, I do not believe that comments such as "Some people obviously want their homes to feel like a home rather than a hotel." are fair. If true777 wants to have a large home, its his/her prerogative. Maybe you all should stop judging how others spend their money. Many of you seem to think that luxuries cannot be used for family time. As if you can't watch a movie with another person.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
I don't know why you're applying this to me. I did say that my comments were speculation. I'm only providing a speculative reason for why people give individual bedrooms individual baths.
Right, we wouldn't want any little princelings to have to share a baath, would we? After all, doing so might compromise their senses of entitlement and privilege. :rolleyes:
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
I don't have a problem with your philosophy. In my own home, only the master has its own bath (moreso because the house was built prior to the fad of private baths for individual bedrooms). However, I do not believe that comments such as "Some people obviously want their homes to feel like a home rather than a hotel." are fair. If true777 wants to have a large home, its his/her prerogative. Maybe you all should stop judging how others spend their money. Many of you seem to think that luxuries cannot be used for family time. As if you can't watch a movie with another person.
"Deserve" is a loaded term here.
It's his home. You're a guest therein. Yes, the homeowner gets the best facilities therein, and only the snooty see that as a snub. If nothing else, he's there and using some areas full-time/daily, while guests are occasional.
Of late I'm more struck by how many people presume everyone else must think like them, and impute malice where others don't. Whither celebrating diversity?
I don't know why you're applying this to me. I did say that my comments were speculation. I'm only providing a speculative reason for why people give individual bedrooms individual baths.
Right, we wouldn't want any little princelings to have to share a baath, would we? After all, doing so might compromise their senses of entitlement and privilege. :rolleyes:
Who are you to judge how I'd raise my kids? I earned my money, and I'll spend it however I damn well please.
cayley
Apr 4, 06:54 PM
but B&E is B&E no matter how you look at it and is illegal.
Yea... but with all that dog **** everywhere, I bet the cops won't want to stay very long gathering evidence :)
Yea... but with all that dog **** everywhere, I bet the cops won't want to stay very long gathering evidence :)
lordonuthin
May 9, 10:06 PM
Now my Mac Pro is only getting normal wu's not bigadv units. It was interesting watching the MP and i7980x running side by side, I'll try to get a screenshot later when I get home, they were very close in time per frame at about 3 minutes... hope they get some more bigadv units out for us to run :rolleyes:
SevenInchScrew
Nov 28, 05:16 PM
But think of it this way. The average amount of kills you get per napalm strike, mortar team and valkyrie rockets are get on average same amount of kills as rc-xd.
I disagree. At least in the many games I've played so far, getting multi-kills with the RC-XD is pretty rare, whereas the Napalm and Valkyrie are pretty much a 2-3 kill, at least.
Getting 3 kills per rc car is also nothing rare in a domination or hq game.
Then my previous statement is given more credence. If 3-4 people on a team are still standing around, all huddled up, even AFTER the call-out for the RC-XD, then they deserve to get multi'd.
....and how it guarantees kills
They can be stopped, in many ways, whereas most other killstreaks can't. Plus, there really isn't any other offensive Killstreaks in the lower kill range, as they are mostly only defensive. If they made it a 4-5 killstreak, people who aren't as good at the game would never get to do anything fun like that. And then, as well, only the people who ARE good at the game would get to possibly add kills to their total.
I think it all really boils down to how people play the game. Despite the size of the maps, you can't just run around on the offensive all the time. Listen for the call-outs from the other teams killstreaks, and respond defensively when appropriate. Spy planes or choppers coming? Shoot them down. RC, Napalm, Mortar, Dogs or Valkyrie Rockets? Get indoors and hide, and defend your position for a few seconds.
The only killstreak with a limited counter is the SR71. If someone has a Counter Spy Plane, they can jam the Blackbird, otherwise nothing can stop it. But really, that person has already killed your team 7-8 times, so you've sort of brought it upon yourself.if we are talking about killstreaks: the huey chopper gunner red highlighting needs to go
Make a Custom Class with Ghost, problem solved. Hell, equip that same class with the Strela, and not only will the various Choppers not shoot you, but you can then bring it down so it stops killing your team as well.
I disagree. At least in the many games I've played so far, getting multi-kills with the RC-XD is pretty rare, whereas the Napalm and Valkyrie are pretty much a 2-3 kill, at least.
Getting 3 kills per rc car is also nothing rare in a domination or hq game.
Then my previous statement is given more credence. If 3-4 people on a team are still standing around, all huddled up, even AFTER the call-out for the RC-XD, then they deserve to get multi'd.
....and how it guarantees kills
They can be stopped, in many ways, whereas most other killstreaks can't. Plus, there really isn't any other offensive Killstreaks in the lower kill range, as they are mostly only defensive. If they made it a 4-5 killstreak, people who aren't as good at the game would never get to do anything fun like that. And then, as well, only the people who ARE good at the game would get to possibly add kills to their total.
I think it all really boils down to how people play the game. Despite the size of the maps, you can't just run around on the offensive all the time. Listen for the call-outs from the other teams killstreaks, and respond defensively when appropriate. Spy planes or choppers coming? Shoot them down. RC, Napalm, Mortar, Dogs or Valkyrie Rockets? Get indoors and hide, and defend your position for a few seconds.
The only killstreak with a limited counter is the SR71. If someone has a Counter Spy Plane, they can jam the Blackbird, otherwise nothing can stop it. But really, that person has already killed your team 7-8 times, so you've sort of brought it upon yourself.if we are talking about killstreaks: the huey chopper gunner red highlighting needs to go
Make a Custom Class with Ghost, problem solved. Hell, equip that same class with the Strela, and not only will the various Choppers not shoot you, but you can then bring it down so it stops killing your team as well.
jayducharme
May 3, 01:52 PM
Maybe to let us know they're not just cracking down on iPhone owners?
And also maybe to suggest that "open" isn't all it's cracked up to be. The promise of an open system doesn't always play out in the real world. It works well for geeks who know what they're doing, but for the average consumer it can create a big headache (inadvertently installing a rogue program, for instance). It's a trade-off: more freedom vx. more stability.
And also maybe to suggest that "open" isn't all it's cracked up to be. The promise of an open system doesn't always play out in the real world. It works well for geeks who know what they're doing, but for the average consumer it can create a big headache (inadvertently installing a rogue program, for instance). It's a trade-off: more freedom vx. more stability.
wlh99
Apr 26, 07:41 PM
...
wlh99, I'll step back when ever I want to, this is a public Forum and people are here to discuss and learn new stuff.
Any way.. if you guys can't help me, just go to another thread.
I'm more than happy to help, which is why I asked what you meant by "ON" and "OFF" and what exactly you want to do. Because I don't know. Timers are not "ON" or "OFF" so I need to know what you mean.
I was referring to the "if" statement, not the comment. How and where do you declare myTimer and newTimer? Where are they assigned a value? Post that code. My assumption was (possibly incorrect) that they were assigned as the return value from when you created the timers.
In which case, they are pointers. If you declared them as a primitive type and assigned them a value not related to the timer objects, then they are not pointers. If that is the case, I am even more confused as to what you want the program to do.
Post your code, and let us know what you are trying to accomplish.
wlh99, I'll step back when ever I want to, this is a public Forum and people are here to discuss and learn new stuff.
Any way.. if you guys can't help me, just go to another thread.
I'm more than happy to help, which is why I asked what you meant by "ON" and "OFF" and what exactly you want to do. Because I don't know. Timers are not "ON" or "OFF" so I need to know what you mean.
I was referring to the "if" statement, not the comment. How and where do you declare myTimer and newTimer? Where are they assigned a value? Post that code. My assumption was (possibly incorrect) that they were assigned as the return value from when you created the timers.
In which case, they are pointers. If you declared them as a primitive type and assigned them a value not related to the timer objects, then they are not pointers. If that is the case, I am even more confused as to what you want the program to do.
Post your code, and let us know what you are trying to accomplish.
JAT
Apr 16, 09:07 AM
When Apple releases their new HD TV the networks will have complete control on pricing with Apple getting it's cut. Apple will provide a complete hardware delivery system for them that operates seamlessly with a click, and has a magical (could not resist) effect on the end user.
No needing to try all this crap streaming through Amazon and such BS. Could even give Netflix a run.
Tivo already did this, over a decade ago. And look at the mess that has existed for them. First with DirecTV, and now Comcast. Uh, and now with DirecTV again.
No needing to try all this crap streaming through Amazon and such BS. Could even give Netflix a run.
Tivo already did this, over a decade ago. And look at the mess that has existed for them. First with DirecTV, and now Comcast. Uh, and now with DirecTV again.
.jpg "sad love quotes for him from")
samiwas
Mar 4, 03:57 PM
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Holy effin' Shizzle batman! You don't believe this. Come on. Fo' reals? I mean really...come on. I know it, and you know it...you're trolling. There is no way you actually believe that stuff.
Minimum wages = employer must pay at the very least a human wage...not a slave wage. If the employer cannot afford to pay people fairly, their business should fail. Isn't that what the free market is all about? You produce or you fail?
Child Labor Laws = really??? Limits free will?? Opportunities for youngsters? Do you really think that if child labor laws were done away with in this country that some warehouse wouldn't have the 6-year-old kid of some nearly-homeless family out running a meat slicer for $4 a day? Do you REALLY think that kind of thing wouldn't happen? And that something like that is an opportunity for that 6-year-old? You are truly a piece of work. Oh right, I keep forgetting...you're a troll.
Max hours per week does not limit free will. An employer is certainly allowed to let an employee work 100 hours a week if they so want to. I know because I've done it on many occasions. I had a 140-hour week a while back. It's perfectly legal. But you have to PAY OVERTIME. If you want to exploit your workers, you pay them for it. You have the free will to work them overtime, they have the free will to accept that overtime, and then you pay them for it. Don't like it, don't do it...free will, baby.
Workplace safety should not be required? Bwaahahaha. Now, I most certainly do not follow most safety rules in my line of work, because a lot of them are pretty silly. But to do away with required safety procedures for many occupations is just an amazing concept. That you actually believe that employers will willingly pay more if they are not required to in order to keep their employees safe is one of the more laughable things ever.
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
So being paid overtime for working crazy hours is a HAND OUT? Really?
Cutting wages and pay requirements and removing safety requirements means more wealth and safety for ALL? OK. Hold on, let me comprehend that. Wait, I can't because it's the stupidest thing ever uttered.
Yes. it has been decided. He's a <censored>swell guy</censored>. There is no one who actually thinks like this.
*edit - while I meant what I said, it's not worth getting banned over.
cdallen
Mar 19, 06:36 AM
Today I've had some pretty interesting exchanges with other smart phone owners. I personally have an iPhone 4, I've had it for ages and love it. Pretty much everyone else I know has an Android phone of some kind. Now, people are always so damn keen to try and compete with my iPhone! I mean seriously, these people just come out of nowhere! I don't even show it off either, people just see me use it and start coming out with stuff.
For instance, one guy comes out with - "Oh so you have an iPhone 4, my HTC Desire is way better". When we ran some comparisons he was obliterated but refused to accept it lol. All I got was, "well you paid �500 for an overpaid Apple product that you need a case to use". Personally I've never had any antenna problems so anyway, moving on.
Another guy comes out with "You don't have a removable battery so if your phone crashes then you're screwed". Anyone here had their iPhone crash? If yes were you unable to get it sorted at an Apple store? This explanation didn't bode well with said Apple hater. :p
Some one else came out with "iPhone 4 is a brick". At first I thought he was joking but he soon turned serious, saying that the phone literally is shaped like a brick and has sharp edges which hurt your hand.
Another guy claimed that iPhones are awful because they don't have flash. To be honest, I don't really care for flash. The only thing I need flash for is Youtube which has its own app, and most shopping sites have their own dedicated apps anyway. Flash is a resource hog that would kill the battery. This of course was nonsense to the nexus owner.
I could go on but the shots people took just kept getting cheaper and cheaper, most reverting to "well you paid �500 for a phone, you must be crazy". I don't understand this. It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4. Its pretty sad, at the end of the day its just a phone. But people actually seem to hate Apple because they can't afford their products. Most of them admitted that had the iPhone been cheaper they'd buy one, hence they can't afford it so they are bitter.
Anyone else experienced this? I get similar problems when people see my Macbook Pro lol.
I've never, ever had a conversation about my phone with a random person in the street - let alone conduct comparison tests.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
For instance, one guy comes out with - "Oh so you have an iPhone 4, my HTC Desire is way better". When we ran some comparisons he was obliterated but refused to accept it lol. All I got was, "well you paid �500 for an overpaid Apple product that you need a case to use". Personally I've never had any antenna problems so anyway, moving on.
Another guy comes out with "You don't have a removable battery so if your phone crashes then you're screwed". Anyone here had their iPhone crash? If yes were you unable to get it sorted at an Apple store? This explanation didn't bode well with said Apple hater. :p
Some one else came out with "iPhone 4 is a brick". At first I thought he was joking but he soon turned serious, saying that the phone literally is shaped like a brick and has sharp edges which hurt your hand.
Another guy claimed that iPhones are awful because they don't have flash. To be honest, I don't really care for flash. The only thing I need flash for is Youtube which has its own app, and most shopping sites have their own dedicated apps anyway. Flash is a resource hog that would kill the battery. This of course was nonsense to the nexus owner.
I could go on but the shots people took just kept getting cheaper and cheaper, most reverting to "well you paid �500 for a phone, you must be crazy". I don't understand this. It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4. Its pretty sad, at the end of the day its just a phone. But people actually seem to hate Apple because they can't afford their products. Most of them admitted that had the iPhone been cheaper they'd buy one, hence they can't afford it so they are bitter.
Anyone else experienced this? I get similar problems when people see my Macbook Pro lol.
I've never, ever had a conversation about my phone with a random person in the street - let alone conduct comparison tests.
I'm guessing from your thread that you porbably love the iphone a bit too much... Get out and enjoy the world. Perhaps leave the phone at home!
tofagerl
Apr 29, 01:18 PM
Can I possible take the power, and switch the magic with something else? Like pizzazz, or awesomeness or something?
zenio
Mar 7, 01:32 AM
It's Apple's philosophy. It comes down to building priorities around it and executing on them.
Yes, it's Apples highly erratic priorities that are puzzling.
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
What a crock.
They can't or won't even build a cool running MBP, after years on the market.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1105643
Yes, it's Apples highly erratic priorities that are puzzling.
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
What a crock.
They can't or won't even build a cool running MBP, after years on the market.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1105643
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 19, 11:42 AM
Split twice so that's 1600 shares now. $125K - you got him beat ;)
So you only payed $1600 for them, and now they're worth $125,000. You legend!! Good luck..
So you only payed $1600 for them, and now they're worth $125,000. You legend!! Good luck..
ctdonath
Oct 1, 08:59 AM
Local people and conservation societies defended the building as a unique witness of the region's architectural development. It's not a particularly pretty building but it's certainly one with some history around it. ... But leaving the building to the elements with no maintenance is in my opinion wrong, immoral and a disregard of what property ownership should be about. ... If Jobs wanted a modern building ... then he should have got his rich ass moved to another large plot and built his modern glassbox there, after he sold Jackling House to somebody who wanted to live in that and respect local conservationist's and planning authorities' wishes.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
I appreciate the sentiment. Anything which has outlived its owner[s] should be given some consideration & deference for historical value. One should treat antiques with respect the spirit of its creation and prior ownership, not just abusing/mangling/destroying it out of a sense of "it's mine so I can do what I want with it." Problem is: where to draw the line, and drawing the line is the prerogative of the current owner.
Are the locals & conservators doing so out of genuine concern for the Jackling House? Is it in fact a worthy part of history, or a notable example? or are they closer to naysaying for the self-serving benefits thereof (striving for relevance, trying to keep a billionaire off the street, whatever)? I'm guessing somewhere in the middle: yeah, a mansion of a distinct style is worth consideration for preservation, and those insisting thereon need something to insist thereon lest their relevance evaporate.
Leaving it to rot shows poor character, either by not caring for what one owns (disrespectful of one's own efforts and possessions) or as a tactic against busybodies (a nasty you-can't-make-me tone). It's his, it should at least be in nice enough shape to have lunch or spend a mundane night there. FWIW, I've owned a remote home, so appreciate the annoyance of long-distance maintenance.
Comes down to the fact that it's located in a high-price-tag area, and the value of the land alone exceeds the building's historical value. We don't know if anyone would have paid the millions to live there, and can be sure nobody would have paid the millions to preserve it for its own sake. The only reason AFAIK anybody is taking an interest in it (ex.: we're talking about it here) is that Steve ***** Jobs is about to destroy it. That a tiny number of people may have genuine interest in preserving either Spanish Revival or Jackling artifacts IMHO just does not give enough weight to overrule the house's owner. If they can't come up with enough of their own money (NOT coerced taxpayer-confiscated funds) to buy it outright or at least relocate it, and there isn't any other broad compelling reason (we're talking Jackling here, not Tesla, and Spanish Revival, not F.L.Wright), then fire up the bulldozers. Fact is, there just isn't that much desirable acreage in that region suitable for a billionaire's estate; "go somewhere else" holds little traction when proximity to Apple's campus is vital and there isn't much else suitable.
As I start to peek "over the hill", my perspective of preserving works is changing. Much has sentimental value, but little warrants outright indefinite preservation. Jackling was one man, long gone; time for his spiritual successor in business success and industrial influence to take his place and leave a new mark.
Eidorian
Sep 12, 08:27 AM
I hope we can get 10.4.8 too. :rolleyes:
NAG
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
I remember using the prerelease versions without an Apple menu (and a decorative Apple in the center).
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
davepoint
Aug 12, 04:31 PM
surely they wouldn't update the specs only to release something new in a month or so..
fyrefly
Apr 29, 02:39 PM
Whew!! They also brought Safari's "Drag Image to Desktop to save Image File" back in this Preview Build. :D
In previous Lion Builds, dragging an image to the desktop resulted in a Safari Link file to the Image's location on the web.
In previous Lion Builds, dragging an image to the desktop resulted in a Safari Link file to the Image's location on the web.
Aperture
Jan 15, 09:51 PM
As others have said, it may have been funny for one time on the big wall of TVs. Definitely not at a live presentation.
Leemo
Sep 12, 03:55 AM
I genuinely think that if Apple are introducing a movie store today they're going to have something rather special up their sleeve - I think pricing should be extremely competitive compared to DVDs otherwise what's the point?
Digital downloads of films (sorry, movies) needs to be made appealing to the masses in the same way music was, with cheap individual prices that compared favourably to CDs - people have gotten used to owning only digital copies of their music, however movies are still in that tangible area of hard media, and I feel Apple are going to have to really be priced competitively to alter public perception of digital distribution of movie content.
Not that they *won't* of course, but I don't think it's going to be necessarily easy.
If they introduce HD content I'll be a very happy bunny.
-Leemo
Digital downloads of films (sorry, movies) needs to be made appealing to the masses in the same way music was, with cheap individual prices that compared favourably to CDs - people have gotten used to owning only digital copies of their music, however movies are still in that tangible area of hard media, and I feel Apple are going to have to really be priced competitively to alter public perception of digital distribution of movie content.
Not that they *won't* of course, but I don't think it's going to be necessarily easy.
If they introduce HD content I'll be a very happy bunny.
-Leemo
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 01:23 AM
Street Kings
I think my favorite thing about this movie is it's soundtrack... prob in top 10
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2485/streetkingsbluray.jpgthat movie was pretty good.
I think my favorite thing about this movie is it's soundtrack... prob in top 10
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2485/streetkingsbluray.jpgthat movie was pretty good.
Eduardo1971
Nov 24, 01:30 PM
Oddly enough, from the education store, you can't get the extra discounts. Well at least not on the ipod...but on the government store ... YOU CAN!
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
Yeah, I tried to see any discounts one their education portal. No discounts.
May you provide the link to Apple's Federal employee portal?
I would have save an extra $30 if I went through the gvt store. OOOPS! Hopefully someone else benefits from this post and doesnt make the same mistake! I will probably call apple in the morning and see if I can get the extra savings ... but just a heads up if you are a gvt employee!
:D
Yeah, I tried to see any discounts one their education portal. No discounts.
May you provide the link to Apple's Federal employee portal?
fivepoint
May 4, 03:44 PM
considering that everybody seems to be agreeing with you on the stupidity of this law, your claim of "hypocrisy" seems completely empty
No, we've had similar discussions before regarding a physician's willingness to treat someone due to their own personal religious beliefs, etc. and their response was quite different... the vast majority in that case believed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not allow doctors to ask such questions or refuse to perform procedures they found philosophically reprehensible such as abortions... as if each physician in the country is some sort of robot working at the service of the government no longer allowed to think or reason on their own. But, now that it's about guns, they take a different approach. It's a very distinct hypocrisy.
No, we've had similar discussions before regarding a physician's willingness to treat someone due to their own personal religious beliefs, etc. and their response was quite different... the vast majority in that case believed that the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT should not allow doctors to ask such questions or refuse to perform procedures they found philosophically reprehensible such as abortions... as if each physician in the country is some sort of robot working at the service of the government no longer allowed to think or reason on their own. But, now that it's about guns, they take a different approach. It's a very distinct hypocrisy.
0 comments:
Post a Comment