gr8whtd0pe
Jan 23, 12:25 AM
They make racing and sport seats
DUH. I knew it sounded familiar but I was thinking baby seats... I'm a tard lol.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5249125771_40b962bf86_b.jpg
can anybody guess what year/model it is? :D
Uhh deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
DUH. I knew it sounded familiar but I was thinking baby seats... I'm a tard lol.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5247/5249125771_40b962bf86_b.jpg
can anybody guess what year/model it is? :D
Uhh deff early 90's/late 80's... I'm going to go with accord?
notjustjay
Nov 24, 04:10 PM
http://www.cloverleaf.ca/images/products/448/CloverLeafSmokedOysters.jpg
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
... along with a bag of walnuts, carrots and some eggs.
cderalow
Jan 23, 08:43 AM
Right, Recaro makes race and sports car buckets. I doubt they make a single baby seat. They are probably licensing their name to it.
actually, they make the seats themselves.
http://www.recaro.com/us/product-areas/child-safety/product/overview.html
actually, they make the seats themselves.
http://www.recaro.com/us/product-areas/child-safety/product/overview.html
aquajet
Sep 6, 09:22 AM
The latest pathetic Mac Mini upgrade continues to highlight the idiocy of the decision to build a cheap 'switcher' computer using expensive notebook parts.
Sometimes it's about form over function. This is nothing new for Apple.
Sometimes it's about form over function. This is nothing new for Apple.
Fearless Leader
Aug 6, 09:57 PM
how long is the keynote?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
Hasta la vista, vista. can you say bye to something that isn't here?
dr Dunkel
Apr 20, 02:54 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; sv-se) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
2. HDMI out
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
HDMI-in would be nice :-)
2. HDMI out
Why would be ever see this on an iMac? Mac mini, yes (it was overdue). iMac, never.
HDMI-in would be nice :-)
aswitcher
Jan 13, 06:04 PM
Maybe it's not as cool as having ZERO ports but Apple did patent the idea of collapsible ports:
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
Which would be absolutely awesome in a small form factor machine.
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2007/08/16/connecting_350.gif
http://www.macrumors.com/2007/08/16/ultraportable-connecting-system/
Which would be absolutely awesome in a small form factor machine.
lifeinhd
Feb 26, 10:44 PM
My friend and I actually built the stand our selves, it serves to provide room for me to slide the keyboard under and just to elevate the imac in general, so it's more at eye level.
What's it made out of? And I presume there's a third leg holding the back of the iMac foot up? Otherwise I'd be rather concerned about it falling out of balance during an intense typing session :o
Lamp: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BCDGMG
External HDD: http://www.macally.com/EN/Product/ipod4show.asp?ArticleID=209
Speakers: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Z-3-Wood-Grained-Speakers/dp/B0000C20V3/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1298679238&sr=1-12
iPhone stand: http://www.xtand.net/xtand.html
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
What's it made out of? And I presume there's a third leg holding the back of the iMac foot up? Otherwise I'd be rather concerned about it falling out of balance during an intense typing session :o
Lamp: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/B000BCDGMG
External HDD: http://www.macally.com/EN/Product/ipod4show.asp?ArticleID=209
Speakers: http://www.amazon.com/Logitech-Z-3-Wood-Grained-Speakers/dp/B0000C20V3/ref=sr_1_12?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1298679238&sr=1-12
iPhone stand: http://www.xtand.net/xtand.html
You know what this forum needs? The ability to tag items in photos, sort of like how you tag people in FaceBook.
And I hate FaceBook.
Mainyehc
Nov 28, 02:39 PM
What I meant by moderately high ante was the dollars spent, not the product.
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
Yes, of course... that "gorilla"-thing is a fairly good point. But don't forget about that pervasive M$ corporate culture. I'm not talking about laborious employees, like programmers or designers, which are mostly very talented people (it's not their fault - at least, not of all of them - that they have to deal with dumb business decisions and craptastic 10-20-year-old-code). I'm talking about management, which, as it seems, is quite rotten at Microsoft, and probably not just at the core. And to make things worse, there is no "Jobs" waiting on the wings to salvage Microsoft from itself, and that will be the sole reason why they won't last long (would've Apple had, if not for Steve and NeXT?)...
As for buying clues, sure! Maybe they'll hire someone from outside. But naaah, they're too proud to change their ways, I guess... They didn't do it in 20 years time, so why would they now? Sure, the XBox was a small glimpse of "innovation" (albeit not THAT useful for their survival as a company), but meh, a bit lackluster while compared with iPod+iTunes (which, ironically, were partly developed by outsiders) and the effect they had on Apple...
And as for their investment, I STILL don't get it! I mean, they didn't even bother about condensing the Zune to be more attractive... Is its thickness a side effect of having a WiFi chip inside, or a reflex of M$'s design team's incompetence at "refreshing" a 3rd party product? Was it an item SO EXPENSIVE to "develop"? And they didn't took the steps to develop an interesting alternative to the click wheel, anyway. AND its interface, from what I can tell (I haven't had the chance to try it yet, as I live in Europe... :rolleyes: :D ), is nothing special, it's just an iPod-like menu scheme with some wallpapers plastered underneath it... Big deal!
Look at the nano and the shuffle (and even the 5G). Now there are some examples of some impressive and probably expensive industrial design...
I don't think we'll know what MS executives will do when Gates leaves until he's gone. Even Mr. B.
Don't get me wrong - I think the Zune is crap. However it's always foolish to ignore the 800 pound gorilla, even when it's lazy and clueless. They can wake up and buy clues.
Yes, of course... that "gorilla"-thing is a fairly good point. But don't forget about that pervasive M$ corporate culture. I'm not talking about laborious employees, like programmers or designers, which are mostly very talented people (it's not their fault - at least, not of all of them - that they have to deal with dumb business decisions and craptastic 10-20-year-old-code). I'm talking about management, which, as it seems, is quite rotten at Microsoft, and probably not just at the core. And to make things worse, there is no "Jobs" waiting on the wings to salvage Microsoft from itself, and that will be the sole reason why they won't last long (would've Apple had, if not for Steve and NeXT?)...
As for buying clues, sure! Maybe they'll hire someone from outside. But naaah, they're too proud to change their ways, I guess... They didn't do it in 20 years time, so why would they now? Sure, the XBox was a small glimpse of "innovation" (albeit not THAT useful for their survival as a company), but meh, a bit lackluster while compared with iPod+iTunes (which, ironically, were partly developed by outsiders) and the effect they had on Apple...
And as for their investment, I STILL don't get it! I mean, they didn't even bother about condensing the Zune to be more attractive... Is its thickness a side effect of having a WiFi chip inside, or a reflex of M$'s design team's incompetence at "refreshing" a 3rd party product? Was it an item SO EXPENSIVE to "develop"? And they didn't took the steps to develop an interesting alternative to the click wheel, anyway. AND its interface, from what I can tell (I haven't had the chance to try it yet, as I live in Europe... :rolleyes: :D ), is nothing special, it's just an iPod-like menu scheme with some wallpapers plastered underneath it... Big deal!
Look at the nano and the shuffle (and even the 5G). Now there are some examples of some impressive and probably expensive industrial design...
Slix
Mar 22, 07:56 PM
I'm glad to see it not leaving. iPod Classic can't go! I mean, that's like, not good. :p
AppliedVisual
Oct 23, 11:11 AM
I've read that even the current MBP supports 4gigs.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
Unfortunately, the current MBP is restricted to about 3.2GB because of the 32bit CPU *AND* the 32bit i945 chipset. Intel won't have a 64bit mobile chipset until they ship Crestline (the i965 mobile chipset for Santa Rosa). So, unless Crestline is ready early and Apple has some sort of exclusive agreement, the updated MBP still will not allow anyone to use more than approximately 3.2GB of RAM.
In a 32bit system, the 32bit CPUs and/or chipsets can address a total memory capacity of 4GB. But this 4GB address window must account for all memory I/O addresses, BIOS/ROM as well as video memory in addition to the actual RAM heap. That is why when you install 4GB of RAM, you essentially miss out on the last 600 to 800 MB. Also why the C2D/Merom iMac systems can only be configured with up to 3GB of RAM. Apple probably figured they didn't need to sell people RAM that they can't use. Some PC vendors still sell 4GB installed into such systems even though it can't all be used because by installing two matched 2GB modules, the dual-channel performance benefits are there, just not the last 800MB.
Apple just doesn't offer it in their store since the CPU can only address around 3,2gigs (like every other 32bit cpu).
Unfortunately, the current MBP is restricted to about 3.2GB because of the 32bit CPU *AND* the 32bit i945 chipset. Intel won't have a 64bit mobile chipset until they ship Crestline (the i965 mobile chipset for Santa Rosa). So, unless Crestline is ready early and Apple has some sort of exclusive agreement, the updated MBP still will not allow anyone to use more than approximately 3.2GB of RAM.
In a 32bit system, the 32bit CPUs and/or chipsets can address a total memory capacity of 4GB. But this 4GB address window must account for all memory I/O addresses, BIOS/ROM as well as video memory in addition to the actual RAM heap. That is why when you install 4GB of RAM, you essentially miss out on the last 600 to 800 MB. Also why the C2D/Merom iMac systems can only be configured with up to 3GB of RAM. Apple probably figured they didn't need to sell people RAM that they can't use. Some PC vendors still sell 4GB installed into such systems even though it can't all be used because by installing two matched 2GB modules, the dual-channel performance benefits are there, just not the last 800MB.
lyzardking
May 1, 07:19 PM
congrats to lyzardking for 7 million points!
i see your output is up! care to share what machines you got folding?
one 08 MP 2.8 dual quad
two 09 MP 2.26 dual quads
I finally got inCrease to push my key to F@H, although it looks like one (one of the newer PMs) isn't getting the bonus... I'll have to check when I get back.
I could never get the Console one to work right....
I just saw that my user name is/was being listed multiple times, I wonder if that has anything to do with it (I thought I wasn't getting any points from the console)
????
i see your output is up! care to share what machines you got folding?
one 08 MP 2.8 dual quad
two 09 MP 2.26 dual quads
I finally got inCrease to push my key to F@H, although it looks like one (one of the newer PMs) isn't getting the bonus... I'll have to check when I get back.
I could never get the Console one to work right....
I just saw that my user name is/was being listed multiple times, I wonder if that has anything to do with it (I thought I wasn't getting any points from the console)
????
evilgEEk
Sep 9, 09:04 PM
Can you put them side by side and run some comparisons?
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
Since I'm home for the evening and didn't see your post until now, I can't give you any specific side-by-side tests, but I can give you a rough estimate of the speeds.
Overall, the Dual G5 is faster, not by a landslide by any means, but it is faster. Of course the G5 has 1.5 gigs of RAM vs. the mini's 512K, and the G5 has a 1Ghz BUS speed vs. the 667Mhz of the mini. If I were to slap in 2 gigs of RAM in to the mini then I'm sure I would see a little more performance, but I think the G5 would still be faster.
But the mini is still very zippy, no beachballs or waiting on Apps, very fast and clean for average use. Now if I were to do some Photoshop or, say, FCP comparisons, I'm sure the G5 would clean up in those areas.
I'm really happy with the purchase though, it's perfect for what I need it to do.
Oh, I installed Windows XP via BootCamp and after having to burn an illegal copy of my legal disc (the retail disc was bad) I got it running with no problems. I must say, this mini is the fastest Windows machine I've ever had.
zoran
Nov 27, 02:50 PM
Well Apple should just first make a face lift in ACDs both specs and price and then lets all just start thinking about the new 17" wide lcd. Personally i dont give a sh@t about a such a small display, the 23" ACD suits my needs, only its price and its potentials dont!
Damn it! :D
Damn it! :D
brepublican
Aug 7, 07:58 AM
When apple releases new products are they normally ready to ship that day? Hopefully they won't need to charge my card right away until they ship it at a later date...I have no money but am still gonna buy a new expensive mac pro.... :confused:
:eek:
I have no money either. Thats why I'm just going to watch, get goose bumps and feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
:eek:
I have no money either. Thats why I'm just going to watch, get goose bumps and feel all warm and fuzzy inside :D
miloblithe
Aug 31, 12:42 PM
If the $499 model has a superdrive too, what's the incentive to get the $599 version? Larger HD isn't enough, and I don't see Apple either dropping the higher-priced model or putting anything faster than 1.83 in the mini.
And I'm basing this on the guy in on the link above having his $599 current core solo replaced with what I put for the $599 model.
So maybe:
$599: Core Duo 1.66, 100GB, Superdrive, 512MB
$799: Core Duo 1.83, 120GM, Superdrive, 1GB
And I'm basing this on the guy in on the link above having his $599 current core solo replaced with what I put for the $599 model.
So maybe:
$599: Core Duo 1.66, 100GB, Superdrive, 512MB
$799: Core Duo 1.83, 120GM, Superdrive, 1GB
mc68k
Dec 18, 04:18 PM
i may add some more over the break
Nym
Nov 30, 10:58 AM
No way, M$ doesn't like Apple for what it is, for their history, if Apple would sink there would always be competition, and monopoly... 90% of the world's computers running Windoze? what's that? :D
nagromme
Jun 22, 04:36 PM
Oh, you will always be able to run Xcode on a Mac. You'll just have to buy the developer subscription for a few thousand dollars per year in order to get it activated...
What Apple actions would lead you to believe that would ever happen? I don�t see the logic in such fears.
What Apple actions would lead you to believe that would ever happen? I don�t see the logic in such fears.
Angrisano
Sep 6, 08:45 PM
You are not alone. I think there are a lot of Apple users right now who would love to see Apple release a mac-mini pro.
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
Well I posted it in another thread however I just built a PC with some amazing specs for under $500. It was a P4 3ghz, 2gb ram, 250GB HD, 256MB GPU, DVDR, bluetooth, wifi. The kicker is it's a Shuttle so it's tiny, not much bigger than a mini, and it's made of aluminum. The thing is very Mac like. And being able to build it so cost effectively, really ticked me off.
Because no matter what I'd get on the Apple side it would either cost much, much more or it would be hobbled in some way (GPU, monitor, etc.). In the end you have to realize that as a Mac user you're paying more for a brand and for the ability to run OS X. That's fine, provided you can find a system which meets your needs.
(yeah it's late and I'm cranky) :P
omegaphil6
Feb 8, 06:57 AM
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Blackedout.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
2008 Dodge Charger SE
http://www.jimmirehman.com/charger/Signaturev1.jpg
DrJohnnyN
Apr 3, 10:28 AM
Great ad.
CalBoy
Apr 26, 03:17 PM
I doubt any legal battle between titans is a simple case, even if it appears so to us laypersons.
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
Certainly there are going to be minutiae that most of us won't ever learn about (and even fewer will understand), but in this case the trademark dispute is going to invariably depend on whether or not "app" is specific enough to trademark or whether it is generic to the point that trademarking it would deprive consumers and companies of a simple ands valuable labeling device.
"Amazon" is a generic term and should not be used for a store name.
Generic in a legal sense means that the term describes the product or service. For example, "computer" broadly describes any device with a chip, some storage, and an ability to perform calculations or other functions for the user. A person could not trademark "Computer Store" because it would leave other competitors with no way of describing the service they offer.
Amazon is an online retailer; hence "online retailer" cannot be trademarked but "Amazon" can be.
In much the same way "app store" describes what is being sold and how, and any competitor would want to make use of the same basic naming structure in order to clearly inform consumers about what they could expect to find.
The general population never heard the term "App" until Apple released the iPhone.
Nor did the general population ever shop for Apps online until Apple built the App Store.
The abbreviation "App" used in conjunction with "store" to denote an online marketplace in which to buy applications is a unique combination that is not known in generic parlance.
Apple will win this.
This is just not true. App has long been in use since before the 1990s.
Apple is also not the only company to sell software online; many companies had been doing direct downloads for years before iOS came out.
You make it sound as though this is such an obvious distinction that Apple could never get a trademark for "app store". But apparently this argument is not so strong in trademark law as Apple actually has the trademark already. If that were not the case how could they sue another entity for trademark infringement?
I think all of you who believe you have trademark law all figured out should keep this in mind. Apple has a trademark for app store. Previously another company had a trademark for "appstore" which is very similar.
You can write about the topic as though you have it all figured out but clearly your interpretation is not definitive as Apple was awarded the trademark.
Now perhaps eventually apple will lose it or have to modify it but the fact that they got the trademark and a legal battle would need to be waged for them to lose proves that your opinion of trademark law in this case is oversimplified.
It was.
Apple does not actually hold the trademark yet. That is still being decided. They filed their case against Amazon prematurely, hoping to either make Amazon change names or get a leg-up in the trademark hearings (or both).
jephrey
Jul 14, 10:53 AM
I thought that there were other benefits to BD, therefore I've been backing their effort. I read that the scratch resistance of a BD is amazing. I know that there's a size issue at this point, but 25G on one layer is nicer than 30 on 2. Yes, you're going to pay for it, but there's much more "potential" with BD. We justified the expense of our macs using a similar argument. Finally, I think that in the future, we'll be needing that extra space on the 2-6 layers of a BD for uncompressed or losslessly compressed Hi-Fi audio/video. And is BD limited to MEPG-2, or can't it do MPEG-4 h.264 ? But all this may be bunk. I'm waiting for the first HVD to come out, then I can just stour a few TB on each disc. I'll just burn a main and a backup and keep all my digital data on them.
Jephrey
Jephrey