jimmyjoemccrow
Jan 12, 01:14 AM
Windows user here for at least a decade. This is obviously propaganda to promote some sort of upcoming suite of software for OSX to prevent "viruses" lol. Yawn. I am right now on my Windows box as I don't have a Mac at the moment but I have owned several. The only way your Mac can be infected with anything is through stupidity.
IPHONE 4 WALLPAPERS HD PACK
call-of-duty-black-ops-zombie-
call of duty modern warfare 2
kim kardashian wallpapers hd.
emma watson wallpapers hd.
nature wallpapers hd
love-wallpapers-hd-640x400.
ipod touch 4g wallpapers hd.
Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare
ipod touch 4g wallpapers hd.
Call of Duty Wallpaper in HD
Amazing HD Wallpapers
10 Smashing Wallpapers of Call
emma watson wallpapers hd.
abstract wallpapers hd
18:Best HD Wallpapers Pack 184
Call Of Duty 6 - Modern
call of duty modern warfare 2
panzerchieftain
Apr 30, 06:12 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; nl-nl) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Will there be new sizes ? A 24 inch would be perfect :)
Will there be new sizes ? A 24 inch would be perfect :)
!� V �!
Apr 25, 03:50 PM
In the market for a 17" to replace my 2007 version. Not interested in getting rid of the optical drive as I still use it to watch DVDs on it (have Netflix and the streaming content is far from being complete). The current one seems to have everything that I'm looking for. I'd like a SSD but they are just too much $$$ now.
DiY SSD, works great and love the performance gains. Ditch the Optical Drive already its 2011. :apple: remember the Floppy ditch with the original Bondi Blue iMac, make it happen with the 2011 iMac and SuperDrive. :D
DiY SSD, works great and love the performance gains. Ditch the Optical Drive already its 2011. :apple: remember the Floppy ditch with the original Bondi Blue iMac, make it happen with the 2011 iMac and SuperDrive. :D
Stridder44
Apr 25, 01:30 PM
I can't wait. I liked the materials and certain aspects of the current generation, but overall it never really did it for me. I'm excited to see what they'll do next.
Porchland
Sep 26, 07:49 AM
Oh man. Verizon early termination fee, here I come.
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
Yeah, this is pretty exciting news. I had already planned to call Verizon this morning to see when my contract is up.
EDIT: $175 termination fee per phone and a good while to go on the contract. Yeouch! I may just have to keep my fingers crossed that Verizon Wireless gets the iPhone late next year.
dr Dunkel
Mar 30, 01:22 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
I'm 100% with M$ on this one. Apple's case would never hold here.
I'm 100% with M$ on this one. Apple's case would never hold here.
samiwas
Apr 20, 02:47 PM
The free market would suck if it were run in the way your brain imagines it. But imagine if you ran a company, and your chief goal is to make a profit. Having happy employees who are payed fairly and receive vacation days, benefits, etc, is definitely a better business model than working your employees like slaves.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
OK, so why don't more businesses do that, instead of doing everything they can to "cut costs" to "generate higher profits"? Obviously, a business needs to make a profit. But instead of just making a profit, it seems that nowadays a business is not considered successful unless that business generates massive profits, or highly increased profits over the previous year. And if a business doesn't make as much as they thought they might (even though they've pulled in billions in profit), they are considered failed and their stock tumbles.
Honestly, I don't believe the "free market" that you or any Republican/Tea Partier/Libertarian believes in would work either, except for funneling even more dough to the top (which I actually think might be the way you want to see it, and thus believe would be successful). If you really believe that without some sort of regulation, all businesses would be spending MORE on their employees, you are hopeless.
Benefits shouldn't be government regulated. However, the slave labor that you describe should most certainly not be allowed, duh. Try cutting back on the straw man argument some.
My example may have been a little over the top, but let's not pretend for one second that plenty of employers out there would think nothing of asking their employees to come in on weekends or stay late nights with no extra compensation.
Benefits should have some sort of MINIMAL regulation. The US has pretty much the fewest benefits of any developed nation, and this is considered a good thing....because it benefits the business and not the worker.
It's humorous that when people imagine a free market, they ignore that in a free market, employers would be fighting for good employees as much as employees are fighting for the employers.
Wait...what?? Employers are currently not trying to get good employees? What does this even mean?
It's sad that the government is the largest charity, because it's just so darn inefficient. I have an idea. Private charity.
Somehow, I can't imagine a private charity large enough to take care of all of America's bottom class or replace existing "entitlement programs". The largest charity in the US is the United Way with $3.8billion in income. As for current government program expenses, even Tenant-based Rental Assistance is at $18.2billion, and that's just a single line item in a portion of one part of programs. I just cannot see how private charity could have the kind of reach that the government does. And I'm guessing that the people who do run the government programs make a little less than the $715,000 salary of the head of the United Way.
For all the bleeding heart liberals I've spoken with over the years, who want crazy amounts taxed in order to support social uplift programs, I never see any of them giving away 50+% of their income to charity. It's a lot easier to ask the government to give other peoples money to charity.
I can tell you right now that my family gives >50% of its total income.
However, if you think that taxes = charity, what incentive do you have to give? (to the organizations that are 90+% efficient rather than whatever the crap the government is)
So, AFTER paying 30% in federal and state income taxes, whatever percentage in sales and property tax, you are still able give away an additional 50% or more to charity? So you are able to live on like 3% of your earnings? I would LOVE to be in that position! It's very admirable, but hardly reachable for the average person. I try to give whenever I can, but I can admit that's it's usually around $2k a year.
Anyway, the topic is about the influx of low-wage, no-benefit jobs with no worker protections during times of high profitability and skyrocketing leadership pay. Some people actually see this as good. Some see it as bad. If you see this as a good thing, then we're at an impasse.
Eidorian
Apr 14, 05:54 PM
After thinking about this some more, I have come to believe this is just damage control over AMD's recent chipset certification (http://www.xbitlabs.com/news/mainboards/display/20110413152041_AMD_First_to_Certify_USB_3_0_Supporting_Chipset.html) from the USB-IF.
They are just reassuring their support of USB 3.0. I still believe that Thunderbolt will require its additional controller and will not be supported directly on the chipset for Panther Point. (Intel 7 Series, excluding X79)
They are just reassuring their support of USB 3.0. I still believe that Thunderbolt will require its additional controller and will not be supported directly on the chipset for Panther Point. (Intel 7 Series, excluding X79)
n-abounds
Sep 15, 06:34 PM
It's funny...and I say this not as a rumor...just coincidence.
There was a guy in a pizza place I went for lunch that was showing his friends his phone. And it was white. I thought that was a little odd because I don't think I've ever seen a white phone, and odd that someone was showing it off.
But it was a flip-phone and it was ugly, and it had lots of seams...
There was a guy in a pizza place I went for lunch that was showing his friends his phone. And it was white. I thought that was a little odd because I don't think I've ever seen a white phone, and odd that someone was showing it off.
But it was a flip-phone and it was ugly, and it had lots of seams...
Lesser Evets
Mar 22, 03:45 PM
I wonder when Apple will do that again re: GPUs. Ever.
Is it necessary these days? Back in 1999 it was still difficult days to just get video going at a good rate. These days it isn't hard to get good graphics.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
Is it necessary these days? Back in 1999 it was still difficult days to just get video going at a good rate. These days it isn't hard to get good graphics.
What would be the use of redundant graphics? It must be a very small wedge of the market.
NT1440
Apr 10, 09:08 PM
you guys do realize gas is like 9 dollars a gallon in europe right?
And this one random arbitrary fact is relevant....how?
Not to mention that it completely ignores the differences in culture regarding transportation. America is set up with cars being the main type of transport. Most European countries don't have this set up.
Knowing this, you then must acknowledge that many don't have the crazy subsidies we have on gas that gives it the appearance of being cheap, only because at the end stage the price tag is lower.
So, after taking this into consideration, what exactly was the point of this apples to oranges comment? :confused:
And this one random arbitrary fact is relevant....how?
Not to mention that it completely ignores the differences in culture regarding transportation. America is set up with cars being the main type of transport. Most European countries don't have this set up.
Knowing this, you then must acknowledge that many don't have the crazy subsidies we have on gas that gives it the appearance of being cheap, only because at the end stage the price tag is lower.
So, after taking this into consideration, what exactly was the point of this apples to oranges comment? :confused:
cheunghy
Sep 5, 08:44 AM
Apple Store Hong Kong is still up...
Cheffy Dave
Apr 22, 03:20 PM
You have been pretty much dead on in the past HH so I shall yield to your wisdom. (I just downed another shot of that cheap canadian swill I've been drinking in your name).
never go with swill, always go with Makers Mark:eek:, or better yet Makers Mark "42";):D:cool:
never go with swill, always go with Makers Mark:eek:, or better yet Makers Mark "42";):D:cool:
orbital
Apr 20, 12:20 PM
Your loosing it wrong
ckodonnell
Sep 14, 10:37 AM
Dell currently quotes 9-22. Or did yesterday when I placed an order.
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
If nothing else, 9-24 is extremely close to 9-27 - the date on which Dell claims to be shipping their (Merom) Core 2's.
ascender
Oct 12, 04:54 PM
Wow, can't believe some of the posts on here!
Its a limited edition iPod and by buying it, it looks like a donation will be made to a charitable organisation set up by people who are trying to make a difference, which wants to help people less fortunate than us. Where's the problem?
Its a limited edition iPod and by buying it, it looks like a donation will be made to a charitable organisation set up by people who are trying to make a difference, which wants to help people less fortunate than us. Where's the problem?
tigress666
Apr 4, 12:20 PM
I haven't read the article but it sounds like the guard was shot at.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
So for those saying the guard shouldn't have killed the crook? Should the guard just sit there and let the guy kill him? If some one must die, I vote the crook!!! Why shouldn't the guard defend himself?! If the crook didn't want to take that chance, he could at the very least not be shooting at the guard!!!!! Even better, don't rob a store.
And shooting to wound really is not feasible in that situation. You shoot the guy who has a gun in the leg, he can still shoot you. The only place to stop him without killing him is to get both hands or both arms.... while being shot at, do you really want to try for such small targets (not to mention even the legs are not big targets. Big target = torso which can very well be a shot that kills)? Sorry, but the only way to defend yourself in that situation is shoot areas that quite possibly will kill the guy as it will have to be something that renders him unable to do anything.
Shoot, if you shoot him anywhere there is always the possibility that he will die. Just cause it's not instantly lethal doesn't mean stuff doesn't happen. You just gave him a chance that some infection will come in, or more blood will come out before the paramedics an come and stop it, etc etc.
alent1234
Apr 29, 08:35 AM
Of course they play in the consumer / gadget / toy market.
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
x-box and gaming are a huge money maker. millions of people pay $50 a year for x-box live
Zune, Kin, Xbox.
They are just not particularly successful in these markets, despite pouring a lot of money into them.
x-box and gaming are a huge money maker. millions of people pay $50 a year for x-box live
Bomino
Apr 25, 03:34 AM
argue with his neighbors (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=978345&highlight=)
plus parking in a handicapped spot. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=928429&highlight=)
funny how in these two, hes asking for legal advice, when his uncle is apparantly a judge. yeeaaahh i'm calling BS.
plus parking in a handicapped spot. (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=928429&highlight=)
funny how in these two, hes asking for legal advice, when his uncle is apparantly a judge. yeeaaahh i'm calling BS.
rtharper
Sep 14, 09:59 AM
Why do people seem convinced Apple won't release something like an SLR or video camera?
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
Because, AFAIK, there's no market for a "Think Differently" camera. A professional photographer doesn't need a camera to match their MacBook Pro, they want one that was made by a pro camera maker.
zap2
May 3, 05:21 PM
...and we like to hook up our consoles to our monitors... I really hope this deal about the failed Target Mode is some kind of misunderstanding.
Yes, this is a stupid limitation Apple has put into place. I hope with adaptors, you'll be able to hook up mini-displayports, HDMI, DVI, and what not.
But Apple has also been weird about its target display mode...putting it only on the 24'' and 27'' model. Its a neat feature, but I doubt I'd grab a 27'' just for that.
It might convince a few people to to for the 27'', but if the 21.5'' had it, that might convince some Mac Mini owners to go for it.
Yes, this is a stupid limitation Apple has put into place. I hope with adaptors, you'll be able to hook up mini-displayports, HDMI, DVI, and what not.
But Apple has also been weird about its target display mode...putting it only on the 24'' and 27'' model. Its a neat feature, but I doubt I'd grab a 27'' just for that.
It might convince a few people to to for the 27'', but if the 21.5'' had it, that might convince some Mac Mini owners to go for it.
manu chao
Apr 11, 05:56 AM
Care to actually show me what app that will actually do what I was talking about? :rolleyes:
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
As mentioned multiple times in this thread: Airfoil
Airfoil runs on your Mac, Airfoil Speakers on your iOS devices. Start Airfoil Speakers (which is a free app) on your iOS devices and then select inside Airfoil on the Mac on which devices you want your sound being played. You can let it play on multiple devices at the same time and the app does a decent job of synchronising the sound. In addition to iOS devices any Airport Expresses and Apple TVs can also be selected. And you can select to broadcast the sound of individual applications on the Mac only (eg, iTunes only to avoid other system sounds being transmitted).
Or, for simpler needs, just enable Home Sharing in iTunes and play your Mac's iTunes content directly from your iOS device.
I want to play music from iTunes on my Mac as the source, and multiple airplay devices as the target. Currently I can only play to Airport Expresses and Apple TVs (and upcoming Airplay certified speakers). I want Apple to include all iOS devices to that list of target devices.
As mentioned multiple times in this thread: Airfoil
Airfoil runs on your Mac, Airfoil Speakers on your iOS devices. Start Airfoil Speakers (which is a free app) on your iOS devices and then select inside Airfoil on the Mac on which devices you want your sound being played. You can let it play on multiple devices at the same time and the app does a decent job of synchronising the sound. In addition to iOS devices any Airport Expresses and Apple TVs can also be selected. And you can select to broadcast the sound of individual applications on the Mac only (eg, iTunes only to avoid other system sounds being transmitted).
Or, for simpler needs, just enable Home Sharing in iTunes and play your Mac's iTunes content directly from your iOS device.
Eidorian
Jul 14, 08:20 PM
Is it more than a G5? I see someone posted PowerMac processor power consumption, but those were dual processors in a PowerMac. I want to see how much power the single G5 in an iMac consumed.The 970FX specifications are littered in my earlier posts in this thread and in the Woodcrest thread.
I believe it was along the lines of 80w of power with 25-47w TDP.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608770&postcount=148
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608968&postcount=154
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2614723&postcount=44
I believe it was along the lines of 80w of power with 25-47w TDP.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608770&postcount=148
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2608968&postcount=154
http://forums.macrumors.com/showpost.php?p=2614723&postcount=44
mainstreetmark
Apr 20, 10:36 AM
Agree to that, but why is it being collected without permission?
You gave it permission. Location Services is enabled on your phone, and apps that require the data ask your permission, and almost any system level service keep logs.
You gave it permission. Location Services is enabled on your phone, and apps that require the data ask your permission, and almost any system level service keep logs.