xVeinx
Dec 1, 03:58 PM
Vista looks like OS X so switching wouldn't be as big a pain.:)
Except that getting a computer that will run Vista WELL (not just "run" it) will be a pain in your wallet, probably more expensive than a mac for a while (unless you just dual boot it :) ). The other problem is that you would have to rebuy all of your software, mess with all of the incompatibilities with Vista and the constant performance and security updates, hope that WGA doesn't conk out on you, etc. Trust me, the bundle of fun that is Vista is just too much for most :p.
Except that getting a computer that will run Vista WELL (not just "run" it) will be a pain in your wallet, probably more expensive than a mac for a while (unless you just dual boot it :) ). The other problem is that you would have to rebuy all of your software, mess with all of the incompatibilities with Vista and the constant performance and security updates, hope that WGA doesn't conk out on you, etc. Trust me, the bundle of fun that is Vista is just too much for most :p.
tarjan
Oct 24, 09:06 AM
triple: 20-30 dollar cost difference, probably less in quantity. It is just coming from apple not wanting to put a high res screen on the laptop for some reason, probably their misguided attempt at hitting a specific dpi count until resolution independance.
thisday
Apr 18, 12:10 AM
What about the heat? MBP are too hot and not in a nice way.
Don't panic
Apr 28, 12:56 PM
The best I can do on short notice...
that's pretty good.
let's hope in a short night (but not too short, as in abruptly ended ;))
the tricky part will be to find the infected (which probably is not infected yet)
that's pretty good.
let's hope in a short night (but not too short, as in abruptly ended ;))
the tricky part will be to find the infected (which probably is not infected yet)
more...
rovex
Apr 28, 04:27 PM
OMG... it's .2mm thicker. STOP THE PRESSES!
Apple shouldn't be aloud to state the thickness as being the same as the black iPhone. If they can't even fit into some cases then it's just yet another issue apple has to amend. Honestly, with all the QC issues and delays in the past do they just purposely not tackle issues that surely a competent R&D faculty would inevitably find?
Apple shouldn't be aloud to state the thickness as being the same as the black iPhone. If they can't even fit into some cases then it's just yet another issue apple has to amend. Honestly, with all the QC issues and delays in the past do they just purposely not tackle issues that surely a competent R&D faculty would inevitably find?
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
more...
Brad Pitt#39;s movie Burn After
jolie and rad pitt movies
more...
Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt and
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
more...
Angelina Jolie And Brad Pitt; angelina jolie and rad pitt movies. Angelina Jolie Turns Down Role; Angelina Jolie Turns Down Role
Angelina Jolie Brad Pitt and
more...
angelina jolie and rad pitt
angelina jolie and rad pitt
more...
Angelina Jolie furious with
American movie actor Brad Pitt
more...
Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie
Brad Pitt Angelina Jolie News
Evolution of Brad Pitt
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
more...
Bonds79
Apr 24, 02:24 AM
A few clarifications that pertain to AT&T/T-Mobile and this story:
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
Interesting, so I guess T-Mobile 's network has more spectrum depth than att's network, seem t-mobile's network allows high 3G speeds
* The most valuable thing T-Mobile has is it's *spectrum*. The network itself, while quite valuable, isn't the key here at all. Oh, it's a factor, but it's not the reason why the Death Star is after it.
* T-Mobile has not been bought. There's just a stated intent for AT&T to buy T-mobile. The purchase process will take many months, and there are many regulatory hurdles to overcome. Since this will mean reducing the number of national (or near national) carriers, it will get heavy scrutiny, and there's more than a small chance that the deal will be rejected, or come with so many conditions that AT&T will withdraw the offer.
* Between now and the actual purchase, the companies can do some exploratory work with each other but they cannot operate in any way as if the deal has already taken place. AT&T cannot ask APPL to test the iPhone at T-Mobile bands.
There are probably some ways around the last bullet (called "gun jumping") but with a deal with this level of scrutiny, nothing is going to happen which jeopardizes the deal.
Interesting, so I guess T-Mobile 's network has more spectrum depth than att's network, seem t-mobile's network allows high 3G speeds
SchneiderMan
Sep 15, 08:40 PM
Deathstars...
I wouldn't buy Hitatchi, buy hey, it's as you wish...
No HDD brand is fail proof.
I wouldn't buy Hitatchi, buy hey, it's as you wish...
No HDD brand is fail proof.
more...
Ammo
Apr 26, 08:48 PM
The theoretical never actually happen though. That's why I'd take a superior network standard with a lower frequency, and thus better building penetration, any day.
Well AT&T is rolling out LTE as well so it's really the best of both worlds.
Well AT&T is rolling out LTE as well so it's really the best of both worlds.
baleensavage
Apr 22, 04:32 PM
Ugh, don't go back to that awful scratch-magnet shiny metal back. It's bad enough us iPod touch users have to deal with it. That's one of the worst designs for a handheld. The glass back was classy and made for a much nicer phone. I also can't see why Apple would take such a huge step backwards in design to make it look more like the first iPhone.
more...
chrmjenkins
Feb 28, 04:43 PM
It's happened before...
And we reelected him. :mad:
And we reelected him. :mad:
fabianjj
Apr 24, 06:11 AM
No, the European iPhone is the same hardware as the AT&T iPhone. It will handle voice and pokey EDGE/GPRS data on the T-Mobile USA network, but not 3G data because they use the AWS band for that.
Whether you believe that there is carrier exclusivity is irrelevant. Apple probably tests on many different carriers around the world.
The fact of the matter is Apple doesn't announce the terms of their contracts with mobile operators, so your so-called "exclusivity" could have ended at midnight yesterday.
I think gkarris point was that T-Mobile operates in other countries as well, where they have the iPhone and where they do use 3G frequencies that the regular iPhone supports.
Whether you believe that there is carrier exclusivity is irrelevant. Apple probably tests on many different carriers around the world.
The fact of the matter is Apple doesn't announce the terms of their contracts with mobile operators, so your so-called "exclusivity" could have ended at midnight yesterday.
I think gkarris point was that T-Mobile operates in other countries as well, where they have the iPhone and where they do use 3G frequencies that the regular iPhone supports.
more...
timmillwood
Oct 24, 08:58 AM
The 17" is cheaper by the way if you opt for the 100GB drive. In the last revision you didn't get a price drop on it. Now you do. With a higher education discount I could get a beast of a machine for the price of a 15" MBP.
I wish they offered the 120GB HDD i dont need 160, but 100 is too little, 120 is just right + would save me nearly �60
I wish they offered the 120GB HDD i dont need 160, but 100 is too little, 120 is just right + would save me nearly �60
QCassidy352
Jul 25, 09:50 AM
$70 really isn't that bad. All multi-button bluetooth mice cost a fair amount.
That said, if I were going to buy a new BT mouse (which I'm not, because my 2.5 year old MS one is still kicking) I'd get the radtech BT600 because it has more buttons and can recharge with usb. (it's $60 btw... same range)
That said, if I were going to buy a new BT mouse (which I'm not, because my 2.5 year old MS one is still kicking) I'd get the radtech BT600 because it has more buttons and can recharge with usb. (it's $60 btw... same range)
more...
igirlca
Apr 14, 03:12 PM
wrong forum
KingCrimson
Apr 23, 01:05 PM
another unhappy marriage, can't we all just play nice.
Since when do global mega-corporations every play nice. Dude, it's us against them. Maybe you just found that out.
Since when do global mega-corporations every play nice. Dude, it's us against them. Maybe you just found that out.
more...
coder12
Apr 14, 07:07 AM
"iX" = "Ix", which is the nickname for the character Ford Prefect in the book "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy".
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
It's the new iWatch nano with a built in towel rack!
Obviously, the new Apple device is either a digital watch or a towel.
It's the new iWatch nano with a built in towel rack!
simon-says
May 3, 11:53 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148a Safari/6533.18.5)
Kinda funny one of my lines just had it's eligibility for upgrade moved up nearly 5 months. Late September to next week, May 9th.
Kinda funny one of my lines just had it's eligibility for upgrade moved up nearly 5 months. Late September to next week, May 9th.
mr.steevo
Apr 28, 04:41 PM
I have both the white and black 32gb iPhone 4's next to me now. How anyone can say one feels immediately thicker than the other is beyond me lol.
That's what I thought.
That's what I thought.
SciFrog
Oct 13, 01:58 PM
Console client, no third party items...
eastercat
Apr 24, 01:13 AM
There are people who think ignorance is acceptable. :rolleyes:
Now, all they need is to unlock the phone and we'll know the exclusivity contract is broken.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
Now, all they need is to unlock the phone and we'll know the exclusivity contract is broken.
I think "cali" is acceptable.
bartelby
Sep 14, 02:50 AM
Pre-ordered the Super Deluxe edition of Soundgarden's retrospective Telephantasm:
http://com.soundgardenworld.max.prod.resources.s3.amazonaws.com/images/products/4000-SDX.jpg
http://com.soundgardenworld.max.prod.resources.s3.amazonaws.com/images/products/4000-SDX.jpg
BreadMaster
Sep 12, 09:25 PM
http://www.corndogcomputers.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/11/imacslbyjosh.png
2009 i5 Refurb, gets here Tuesday!
Also http://blogs.pitch.com/fatcity/sunkist.solar.fusion.jpg
It wasn't bad!
2009 i5 Refurb, gets here Tuesday!
Also http://blogs.pitch.com/fatcity/sunkist.solar.fusion.jpg
It wasn't bad!
IJ Reilly
Jan 27, 11:35 AM
True, that's why I like to look at the PEG Ratio (P/E to Growth). If we take the current price of 130 minus cash net of payables and receivables (approx $17 a share), you get 113 for the "enterprise" value of Apple. I'll give it a conservative $5/share earnings this year, for a P/E of 23. According to Yahoo, we have an estimate of 30% growth this year, so we are getting a PEG of less than 1 for this year. Less than 1 is cheap, HOWEVER, it doesn't mean it can't/won't get cheaper.
Excellent comments. Long-time AAPL investors have seen these moments of despair before -- too many times before, to be honest. The markets have always treated Apple this way, unfortunately. It's difficult to imagine Apple's prospects being any brighter. The company is moving forward on all fronts. These are times when you have look down the road instead of at the potholes at your feet.
Excellent comments. Long-time AAPL investors have seen these moments of despair before -- too many times before, to be honest. The markets have always treated Apple this way, unfortunately. It's difficult to imagine Apple's prospects being any brighter. The company is moving forward on all fronts. These are times when you have look down the road instead of at the potholes at your feet.
0 Yorumlar