lord patton
Sep 19, 09:31 PM
As for where iTunes puts it's content... the original poster had a good point - how to have the content synched between the external/networked storage device and the local machine, for example a laptop
Oh God yes this is what I want.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good�I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
Oh God yes this is what I want.
I've read where iTunes 7 supports multiple libraries, but it's not the solution we're waiting for.
I want to rip a CD onto my powerbook and have iTunes sync it with a master library on a partition of my external drive next time I hook it up. Right now, I'd have to remember to copy the new files onto the external... no good�I want it to be automatic and just work (Apple has spoiled me).
cube
May 3, 12:11 PM
I understand that Eyefinity offers a single display per connector. The best example being the 5/6 Mini DisplayPort video cards on the market.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
You can see the multiple monitor setups for those cards in the usual hardware sites.
What I have not seen are daisy chaining multiple displays from a single DisplayPort connector (via proper cabling) or from a passthrough based on a display to an additional monitor.
You can see the multiple monitor setups for those cards in the usual hardware sites.
Duujo
Aug 28, 06:19 PM
You certainly know how to make friends, sir.
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
yeah.. it's true.. amazing my girlfriend has hung around this long.!! :D
DJMastaWes
Aug 28, 12:53 PM
I did say the may just announce them tomorrow, but that rumor of a large shipment coming in from overseas seems like a better indication of when they may be shipping.
If there annouced tomorrow that's 100% fine with me.
If there annouced tomorrow that's 100% fine with me.
seenew
Jul 15, 04:24 AM
:( And I thought I was hot stuff with my 2GHz Core Duo iMac... Less than a month old!
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?
Oh well, that's the way it always goes...
What's the probability of being able to drop one of the newer, more powerful chips into my iMac sometime in the future? I mean, I've got 2GB RAM and a 500GB HDD, and a 256MB video card... A newer processor down the line should work well, right?
talkingfuture
Apr 20, 09:47 AM
Will be interesting to see Apple's response to this. I don't necessarily mind the data being collected for things like find my iPhone and forensics but I'd like it to be very well secured.
TangoCharlie
Jul 14, 10:03 AM
Perhaps some kind of high performance consumer-oriented/gaming-oriented tower?
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
(Just pure speculation...)
-Terry
Exactly!!! Here's hoping! :D
KPATVPOD
Apr 20, 09:50 AM
Is the Program to read it Mac only or is there a PC version??
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/#4
tatonka
Apr 20, 01:40 PM
Apparently, this is related to AT&T only and it is not based on GPS location services but rather a database of cell towers. It contains no identifiable information and is sent to AT&T for analysis for signal strength statistics.
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
Since it does not contain personal information and is being used to analyze the state of the AT&T network, I don't see a problem here. People who are not inside of the US are not affected by this.
So why does it track the cell tower in the UK as well then? Click 2. Video (http://petewarden.github.com/iPhoneTracker/)
technicolor
Sep 4, 03:14 PM
All I know is, I will be buying whatever it is they have for sale.
I want one of each:D
I want one of each:D
Maxx Power
Oct 27, 09:36 AM
But this particular crap from Greenpeace has already been debunked.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
I don't know if you can call that debunking. I see a lot of greenpeace arguments as well that are valid. If anything, I'd say the author and the posts go so far as to trivialize what greenpeace had to point out, but not invalidating it. You can't invalidate environmental risks that occur sometime down the road by purely using data from now.
Same thing with global warming, which should be renamed into a non-misleading term "global weather change" since strictly speaking some regions will warm up, others will cool down (like europe, right now, with the gulf stream cut short, they've been getting snow in Germany and France for example, consistently over the last few years where there wasn't any before), we know for a fact we can affect our weather, we know for a fact that in many regions (mine for example), the weather has been consistently warming up and gradually changing on the yearly scale (last year the temp record in winter was broken again by 1 degree, and has been since the beginning of records), so it's not a debate about whether or not global warming is an observable fact, it should be a debate about how much it is caused by us and to what extent it'll affect us and what can we actively do about it. Anymore debate into its existence is a stall of time and a waste of effort.
I think that any argument against greenpeace implying that "artificial chemicals, when dumped into our ecosystem, will not do harm as long as we don't observe it" can be safely ignored. If you put it this way, the scientific industry that does this kind of environmental research doesn't even close to the funding that R&D gets, and that it isn't revenue generating. There isn't nearly as big of a chance that the eco-scientists will catch problems as fast as they are made.
They have gone from a respectable environmentalist group to a militant anti-business lobby.
I am Green, but I am not Greenpeace!
link at /. where this has been gone over a while ago, what a bogus Greenpeace report: http://apple.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=198431&cid=16258305
I don't know if you can call that debunking. I see a lot of greenpeace arguments as well that are valid. If anything, I'd say the author and the posts go so far as to trivialize what greenpeace had to point out, but not invalidating it. You can't invalidate environmental risks that occur sometime down the road by purely using data from now.
Same thing with global warming, which should be renamed into a non-misleading term "global weather change" since strictly speaking some regions will warm up, others will cool down (like europe, right now, with the gulf stream cut short, they've been getting snow in Germany and France for example, consistently over the last few years where there wasn't any before), we know for a fact we can affect our weather, we know for a fact that in many regions (mine for example), the weather has been consistently warming up and gradually changing on the yearly scale (last year the temp record in winter was broken again by 1 degree, and has been since the beginning of records), so it's not a debate about whether or not global warming is an observable fact, it should be a debate about how much it is caused by us and to what extent it'll affect us and what can we actively do about it. Anymore debate into its existence is a stall of time and a waste of effort.
I think that any argument against greenpeace implying that "artificial chemicals, when dumped into our ecosystem, will not do harm as long as we don't observe it" can be safely ignored. If you put it this way, the scientific industry that does this kind of environmental research doesn't even close to the funding that R&D gets, and that it isn't revenue generating. There isn't nearly as big of a chance that the eco-scientists will catch problems as fast as they are made.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 04:49 PM
This is setting a very dangerous precedent for app removals if it goes through.
I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
I think Apple's app-approval process is pretty arbitrary, so how much do they care about precedent in the first place? Apple giveth, and Apple taketh away. There is much bile spilled over it, but Apple's sales continue to soar.
I personally think passing around checkpoint info is protected under free speech. But, to repeat myself, anyone who is over the legal limit and uses an app to avoid a DUI is a selfish, irresponsible *******.
doodosh
Sep 12, 07:39 PM
I was really curious if the 5.5 G iPod has the same back finish as the U2 special edition. That would make things a lot better imo
sal
Apr 4, 12:38 PM
Had this security guard done nothing and instead hide in a corner somewhere like most of you would, I could only imagine some of the comments you guys would post.
security guards in general get so much heat from the general population. Armed guards are there to protect life and property. they don't respond like they should in these situations, they aren't doing their job. Most guards, don't do their job and this is why they get ridiculed. this guard does his job and you get people saying things like "security guards shouldn't carry guns, OMG"
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
pretty amazing huh? I use to do armed security. Sometimes when I do duty without a gun, I'd get all kinds of wise-ass side remarks about being a rent a cop. when I carried my gun, I got nothing but respect. the "rent-a-cop" remarks stopped. or maybe they just said it very low so I couldn't hear. Not sure why, I am not going to shoot anyone for an insult :D
and yes, if my life or those I am working to protect are threatened by you, this "rent-a-cop" would shoot you in order to save my life or those around me. No questions asked.
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life.
when you take your permit to carry a gun, they make it a point NOT to get your permit if you are not emotionally capable of handling taking someone's life. You don't wear a gun for show, you wear it for protection. if you come from the mentality that you could never shoot someone, even if your own life or those around you in is in danger, then leave your gun at home and pick a different job.
I'm sorry but those guys deserved it. Why should the mall guard have to wait until his life in in danger before putting someone else's life in danger?
it's the law, otherwise you open up yourself to be thrown in jail or face a civil lawsuit. the judge has to see that without a reasonable doubt, your life was in danger and you did what was needed in order to protect it or protect the life of those around you.
it's a judgement call you have to make and sometimes it's not an easy one to make because there are so many variables. Having an adrenaline rush and chaos all around you, makes it very easy to make mistakes. such as shooting a suspect as he is running away. missing shots and hitting bystanders. Pulling the trigger preemptively and killing someone without a "real" threat.
the messed part is that armed security guards, don't get the same type of protection police get. Had this been a police shooting, I bet half of these responses would be different.
security guards in general get so much heat from the general population. Armed guards are there to protect life and property. they don't respond like they should in these situations, they aren't doing their job. Most guards, don't do their job and this is why they get ridiculed. this guard does his job and you get people saying things like "security guards shouldn't carry guns, OMG"
Rent-a-cops have guns? And shoot people IN THE HEAD? I'm amazed.
pretty amazing huh? I use to do armed security. Sometimes when I do duty without a gun, I'd get all kinds of wise-ass side remarks about being a rent a cop. when I carried my gun, I got nothing but respect. the "rent-a-cop" remarks stopped. or maybe they just said it very low so I couldn't hear. Not sure why, I am not going to shoot anyone for an insult :D
and yes, if my life or those I am working to protect are threatened by you, this "rent-a-cop" would shoot you in order to save my life or those around me. No questions asked.
How sad,
I mean a person lost his life because of his actions, and the guard now has to live with the fact that he took a life.
when you take your permit to carry a gun, they make it a point NOT to get your permit if you are not emotionally capable of handling taking someone's life. You don't wear a gun for show, you wear it for protection. if you come from the mentality that you could never shoot someone, even if your own life or those around you in is in danger, then leave your gun at home and pick a different job.
I'm sorry but those guys deserved it. Why should the mall guard have to wait until his life in in danger before putting someone else's life in danger?
it's the law, otherwise you open up yourself to be thrown in jail or face a civil lawsuit. the judge has to see that without a reasonable doubt, your life was in danger and you did what was needed in order to protect it or protect the life of those around you.
it's a judgement call you have to make and sometimes it's not an easy one to make because there are so many variables. Having an adrenaline rush and chaos all around you, makes it very easy to make mistakes. such as shooting a suspect as he is running away. missing shots and hitting bystanders. Pulling the trigger preemptively and killing someone without a "real" threat.
the messed part is that armed security guards, don't get the same type of protection police get. Had this been a police shooting, I bet half of these responses would be different.
Compatiblepoker
Sep 17, 11:56 PM
Because US cell phone carriers suck. :/
Don't forget our lovely service providers like hmmmm AT&T. They've gotta be the worst company of all companies. Their customer service means putting people on hold for 2-3 hours.
Anyway, Im looking forward to the Apple phone. My $50 gophone just isnt cutting it anymore.
Don't forget our lovely service providers like hmmmm AT&T. They've gotta be the worst company of all companies. Their customer service means putting people on hold for 2-3 hours.
Anyway, Im looking forward to the Apple phone. My $50 gophone just isnt cutting it anymore.
WestonHarvey1
Mar 23, 06:07 PM
show me the law that says it'l illegal to notify other drivers of a cop checking speeds, or to notify the position of a DUI check point.
Most state courts have come down on the side of motorists who flash headlights as a signal, arguing that it is protected speech.
Where illegal, like Washington State, it's typically flashing high beams itself that isn't legal (safety reasons or whatever), and not the sharing of information about a speed trap.
Most state courts have come down on the side of motorists who flash headlights as a signal, arguing that it is protected speech.
Where illegal, like Washington State, it's typically flashing high beams itself that isn't legal (safety reasons or whatever), and not the sharing of information about a speed trap.
GGJstudios
Mar 23, 03:55 PM
Don't attempt to use logic or scientific evidence around here zer0sum. Fanboys have never heard of it.
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
It's quite predictable that when someone fails to prove their baseless arguments in this forum, they resort to the elementary school tactic of name-calling, such as "fanboys". Your "logic" and "scientific evidence" was flawed. Just because others didn't agree with you doesn't make them "fanboys". It just means they found your arguments unfounded.
Machead III
Aug 29, 05:04 AM
You make it sound like companies have an obligation of going public. And what you may say MIGHT be true, you are also forgetting that most of the crummy companies in existence are public. Enron was public, Microsoft is public, Exxon is public, Chiquita is public. The list goes on. And you are forgetting that while in theory investors might force changes in the company, usually they don't. Only time they force changes are when the company is not delivering "enough" ROI for the investors. Investors are the primary reason why we have "quarter-capitalism", where long-term benefits are sacrificed for short-term profits.
Personally I believe all companies not only have an obligation to go public, but have an obligation to surrender the entire control held by the board of directors to the state which is controled absolutely by the public, thereby allowing for the involvement of interests other than those financial and allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
Not that I think Apple is particularly one of the companies creating that trend, it's fairly good in that regard, and I hope to see them make a real effort to improve conditions in the iPod City.
Microsoft on the other hand, regardless of how piss poor their software is, is notoriously ruthless towards workers, other businesses, even public serivces, and definately contributes to the overall erosion of both democracy and any kind of "Wealth of Nations" free market capitalism that remains the only partially benevolent flavour of said economic system.
It's very true, investors rarely act upon non-financial interests, but occasionally. Still, this is what happens when the only method of interaction with a coroporation is through the buying and selling of stocks and products.
Such is the success of neo-liberalism; it's impossible to express social human concerns with the language of GDP and quarter profits imposed by the unanimous corporate landscape of the modern world.
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
Morality over Mhz!
Personally I believe all companies not only have an obligation to go public, but have an obligation to surrender the entire control held by the board of directors to the state which is controled absolutely by the public, thereby allowing for the involvement of interests other than those financial and allowing actual democracy to pervade rather than increasingly fascist corporatocracy.
Not that I think Apple is particularly one of the companies creating that trend, it's fairly good in that regard, and I hope to see them make a real effort to improve conditions in the iPod City.
Microsoft on the other hand, regardless of how piss poor their software is, is notoriously ruthless towards workers, other businesses, even public serivces, and definately contributes to the overall erosion of both democracy and any kind of "Wealth of Nations" free market capitalism that remains the only partially benevolent flavour of said economic system.
It's very true, investors rarely act upon non-financial interests, but occasionally. Still, this is what happens when the only method of interaction with a coroporation is through the buying and selling of stocks and products.
Such is the success of neo-liberalism; it's impossible to express social human concerns with the language of GDP and quarter profits imposed by the unanimous corporate landscape of the modern world.
Personally I'd rather pay a lot more for my Macs, have them updated a lot less often and even suffer decreases in the rate of performance improvements, if it meant that the people who manufactured the computers were paid enough to sustain themselves and their families in comfortable, suitable housing with enough money left over for an enjoyable life.
Morality over Mhz!
iJawn108
Sep 14, 05:09 PM
The invitation suggests Aperture, but could it also be an extreme closeup of an isight camera on a black anodized MBP? ;) :cool: :D :eek: :confused:
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
i honestly don't think they will pull the black(top model) stuff into the pro line.
Macnoviz
Oct 12, 03:37 PM
I think we can call this confirmed. The Chicago Tribune has a pic of Bono and Oprah using the red Nano on the front page of their website - http://www.chicagotribune.com/
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
A further story by the Trib says this will happen on Friday (tomorrow) - http://www.chicagotribune.com/technology/chi-061012red-ipod-story,1,3682862.story?coll=chi-news-hed
I call fake
It's definitly photoshoped, you can see the headphones are shorter than the normal headphones :D
no, really
Is that a C2D MBP in the background?
steadysignal
Apr 22, 06:42 PM
time to get the purchase order put in the system :)
cwt1nospam
Jan 2, 09:25 PM
It all comes down to training users.
Maybe you can say that with OS X and and even Windows, but IOS is different in that the user can't run anything that isn't built in or doesn't come from the app store. That's what Android fans call "closed" or a "walled garden." It makes IOS even more secure than the Mac OS.
Like I said before, there is no reason to think that targeting IOS will be even half as successful as the dramatically unsuccessful attacks on OS X over the last decade, no matter what Antivirus vendors would like you to think.
Maybe you can say that with OS X and and even Windows, but IOS is different in that the user can't run anything that isn't built in or doesn't come from the app store. That's what Android fans call "closed" or a "walled garden." It makes IOS even more secure than the Mac OS.
Like I said before, there is no reason to think that targeting IOS will be even half as successful as the dramatically unsuccessful attacks on OS X over the last decade, no matter what Antivirus vendors would like you to think.
lessthandmb
Aug 28, 03:13 PM
There's no chance apple is releasing MBP's tomorrow. There are too many things pointing towards early/mid-Sept.
codymac
Apr 11, 09:18 PM
The more paranoid might suggest that oil companies are collaborating with auto makers and the government to keep efficiency as low as they can get away with. Remember, the record for fuel economy was set in the mid 70s in a slightly modified Opel: something like 237 miles on a gallon (US) of gasoline. Highly idealized conditions no doubt, but my goodness, the average automobile today should be at least a third of the way there.
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
Well, if we're talking about ideal conditions...
;)
The Shell Opel got close to 400mpg back in the 70s. Now Shell sponsors the Eco Challenge and the top internal combustion car for 2010 was over 6000mpg while the top fuel cell car was over 10,000mpg.
No... those aren't typos.
http://www.sonoma.fr/projects/SECOM_EU/src/iFrame.php?f_compGroup=7vtbzw2hj2&f_DispUnits=mpg&
