AngryCorgi
Mar 29, 11:25 AM
Here were their illuminating predictions in Jan 2010. :rolleyes:
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22176610
Key findings from a new IDC market outlook include the following:
prom updo hairstyles for lack
When you think of good lack
Top 10 Prom Hairstyles,
prom hair; prom hair dos
Prom Hairstyles 2011 For
Black People Hairstyles,
in her ruffled lack dress
The diversity in people#39;s
Filed under African American
Check out some beautiful prom
Celebrity Prom haircut
prom hairstyles for african
prom hairstyles for african
prom hairstyle image updo
Black Prom Hairstyles Braided
her red and lack dress.
Black Prom Hairstyles
Black-Girl-Prom-Hair-Styles
http://www.idc.com/getdoc.jsp?containerId=prUS22176610
Key findings from a new IDC market outlook include the following:
mambodancer
Oct 28, 09:15 AM
They do build in obsolescence into the ipod as you can't replace the battery (easily). It does become a disposable item, although a pricey one at that. I do love the ipod (even though I don't own one) but this puts me off to the point where I just can't go through with actually buying one. My experience with rechargeable batteries in mobile phones and lap top isn't good.
My first gen 5GB iPod is still going strong after 5 years.
Also, even if the battery went totally dead, why would you throw a perfectly good iPod away? I use mine as a portable hard drive and in the car with an FM transmitter (connected to the lighter outlet to power the iPod) to listen to podcasts and music. Neither requires the battery for either of these functions. If you jog or bike or listen to your iPod while travelling and don't have access to power then replacing the battery is problematic but not impossible. In fact the local Microcenter here in Denver sells iPod battery replacements for less than $100 and will install them if you don't want to.
I don't think this is the problem some people seem to think it is and if anyone reading these posts wants to throw out their iPod that has a bad battery please contact me and I will gladly take it off your hands.
My first gen 5GB iPod is still going strong after 5 years.
Also, even if the battery went totally dead, why would you throw a perfectly good iPod away? I use mine as a portable hard drive and in the car with an FM transmitter (connected to the lighter outlet to power the iPod) to listen to podcasts and music. Neither requires the battery for either of these functions. If you jog or bike or listen to your iPod while travelling and don't have access to power then replacing the battery is problematic but not impossible. In fact the local Microcenter here in Denver sells iPod battery replacements for less than $100 and will install them if you don't want to.
I don't think this is the problem some people seem to think it is and if anyone reading these posts wants to throw out their iPod that has a bad battery please contact me and I will gladly take it off your hands.
ucfgrad93
Apr 25, 02:16 AM
I never said my actions were morally right. I'll admit that my actions are probably very immoral, and ethically wrong. The simple fact is I don't care about how people view my morality or ethics. Why should I care what people think of me. I never said it bothers me that you guys are not agreeing with me, all I said is that I find it laughable.
-Don
This is the same attitude that people like Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc had as they totally scammed thousands of people out of billions of dollars.
-Don
This is the same attitude that people like Bernie Madoff, Kenneth Lay, etc had as they totally scammed thousands of people out of billions of dollars.
APPLENEWBIE
Sep 5, 08:08 PM
Showtime may be a two track movie store. One track to rent or purchase movies for the 'big screen' tv, computer monitors. A second track to download movies in a much smaller format specifically for the new "Showtime iPod." That way, movies become very portable and easy/fast download for iPod, and a much longer download for the "Apple Movie Machine" for tv/computer?
Could be a really neat show and tell....
Could be a really neat show and tell....
rtdunham
Oct 27, 11:16 AM
For all of Steve Jobs' zen-attitude, vegetarianism, often-proclaimed "do the right thing" stance, and Apple's financial liquidity, there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the change and Apple isn't willing to move in the right direction with their products.
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
can anyone--maybe you, true777, since i assume you're making the statement above based on personal knowledge--post pics showing the packaging for a Dell or Gateway or HP notebook computer vs apple's packaging for a comparable product? What about iPod packaging vs that for other MP3 players?
until we know the differences, it's hard to know where to stand on this issue, and impossible to conclude "there's no reason why other manufacturers can make the hange and apple isn't willing..."
Amazing Iceman
Mar 30, 11:48 AM
Microsoft is suing homebuilders for offering "Windows" in their homes. Instead, they need to refer to them as "transparent viewing portals".
"Portals"??? Did you say "Portals"? you can't say that! It could be trademarked too!
How about "Shoe Store"? is that a trademark too? If not, I should patent it and sue all of them.
Regarding the term "Windows", I have no idea how M$ got away with suing "Lindows". their claim was that phonetically there was a similarity that could confuse the public.
Repeat after me: "Lindows, Windows". Did you get confused? I don't think so.
Repeat after me: "AppStore, App Store". Did you get confused? What? Where? Sounds the same?
Based on their "Lindows" precedent, M$ has no ground to refute the lawsuit.
"Portals"??? Did you say "Portals"? you can't say that! It could be trademarked too!
How about "Shoe Store"? is that a trademark too? If not, I should patent it and sue all of them.
Regarding the term "Windows", I have no idea how M$ got away with suing "Lindows". their claim was that phonetically there was a similarity that could confuse the public.
Repeat after me: "Lindows, Windows". Did you get confused? I don't think so.
Repeat after me: "AppStore, App Store". Did you get confused? What? Where? Sounds the same?
Based on their "Lindows" precedent, M$ has no ground to refute the lawsuit.
iScott428
Mar 23, 05:43 PM
So much for freedom. Leave it Apple!
Spanky Deluxe
Apr 25, 12:59 PM
Bye bye built in Superdrive. I'll look back fondly at the five times I used you in the past three years.
monke
Sep 13, 09:00 PM
Hmmm.. Ok, not really shocked by the design a whole lot, but finally there is some (for lack of a better word) proof of what it looks like. Sure hope it comes in aluminum and white :D
JAT
Mar 30, 12:20 PM
No they weren't. This has been discussed time and time again here. The word "App" has been used for decades to describe a software Application.
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
"App" is NOT BEING TRADEMARKED. "App Store" is. How do people not understand that changing/adding/subtracting letters actually changes words? Like the guy who repeatedly typed "using" instead of "suing" above?
You like the irony? I was trying to be subtle on that one.
Touche!
(why can't Windows give me easy access to an accent?)
cuestakid
Sep 26, 11:32 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
ThinkSecret claims that Apple and Cingular have signed an agreement (http://www.thinksecret.com/news/0609cingulariphone.html) that will make Cingular the exclusive carrier for Apple's upcoming phone, reportedly due in early 2007. The contract is said to last 6 months, after which Apple would be free to expand its offerings to other providers. According to the site, Apple is still in talks with providers in other parts of the world on other exclusive deals.
The site has previously (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060915182716.shtml) claimed that Apple's phone will feature a candy-bar design with a 2.2" display and 3 megapixel camera, with "robust iTunes and iSync" support. MacRumors has posted an artist's rendering (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060913215342.shtml) of how our sources have depicted the phone.
I would just like to say that i had said this exact same thing a couple weeks ago-apple would probably initally only sign on with one carrier and everyone else would be left out in the cold-so to al those who said it wouldn't happen it appears that it will be happening
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.
AppleScruff1
Apr 20, 11:56 AM
Also the fact that its pretty obvious that Steve Jobs is obsessed with the Beatles.
That doesn't count either. You're looking at it wrong. :D
That doesn't count either. You're looking at it wrong. :D
~Shard~
Aug 31, 11:38 AM
A Movie Store would be great in theory, but as I've said before, it totally depends on how Apple structures it. Selection, compression, encoding, file sizes, txfer times, aspect ratios, cost/movie, etc. etc. Also, at the end of the day it doesn't matter in some respects since I'm in Canada and can't access the service regardless. :p ;)
Past this Movie Store though, Merom MacBooks are definitely due, and the Mac minis have to be right around the corner too, since they're still using Core Solo, let alone Core Duo and now Core 2 Duo. And, of course, that leaves the good old iMac as well - it would be nice to see it get a nice refresh with Conroe. :cool:
Past this Movie Store though, Merom MacBooks are definitely due, and the Mac minis have to be right around the corner too, since they're still using Core Solo, let alone Core Duo and now Core 2 Duo. And, of course, that leaves the good old iMac as well - it would be nice to see it get a nice refresh with Conroe. :cool:
Cameront9
Aug 24, 12:35 AM
Not Hierarchial File System! Hierarchial MENU System!
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
Now, we can freely discuss the "merits" of this patent, but fact is that Apple lost, fair 'n square. If Apple thought that Creatives patent was bogus, they would have NOT paid. 100 million dollars is a lot of cash, no matter how you slice it. If the patent was bogus, and they still paid, Apple would be sending other companies a message that said "Want some cash? Sue us with bogus patents, we'll gladly pay!". No, Apple paid because they felt that they were really infringing and that if they had proceedd with the lawsuit, they would have lost a lot more than 100 million.
If it's a BS patent, why did Apple pay? Clearly, it was NOT a BS patent. True, the patent-system might be screwed up, but that is not the point of this discussion.
Alright, Menu system. But it's the same thing. You select songs (files) through groups of albums/artists/etc (folders/directories).
Of COURSE Apple was infringing on the patent if you assume it was a valid patent. I'm saying the patent never should have been granted because it's not something you can patent. I have a feeling that Apple possibly could have won this lawsuit, but it would have taken years of red tape, legal fees, etc, and they would be taking a gamble. Apple's taken gambles in the legal process before and lost (see: Microsoft GUI case). Steve doesn't want to go through that again, so he pays off Creative. Then, being Steve, he somehow uses his RDF to get Creative to join the licensing program, which has the potential to MAKE APPLE MONEY off of this deal.
Did Apple "win" this? Of course not. They're still out 100 million. But they also came out with some interesting deals that make this not a total loss.
And finally, to answer your statement in the first paragraph: This is EXACTLY why the patent system IS messed up. Because it DOES send a message of "hey we filed this patent for something blatantly obvious, give us some money" In most cases, it will be cheaper to settle. Thus companies end up using Patents, rather than products, as a money-maker.
TheKrillr
Aug 28, 12:58 PM
I just want them to bump up the Macbook so then I can go ahead and buy my fist Mac. I just want to buy it when its the most current.
Ya, that's that I'm hoping. For the same reason too. I've used macs forever, but never owned my very own (other than an old PowerMac 7500). I also hope they update the ipod soon, I want to get the latest and greatest but I need to order by wednesday :-p
Ya, that's that I'm hoping. For the same reason too. I've used macs forever, but never owned my very own (other than an old PowerMac 7500). I also hope they update the ipod soon, I want to get the latest and greatest but I need to order by wednesday :-p
Eidorian
May 3, 11:21 AM
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
theBigD23
Mar 22, 03:00 PM
2012... 18 month update cycle? Far, far too long. No way... If that's the case, for the first time in 27 years, Apple doesn't get my money.
Mac Pro was just updated in August. They usually wait at least a year before updating the Pros, usually longer.
Mac Pro was just updated in August. They usually wait at least a year before updating the Pros, usually longer.
clintob
Oct 12, 03:49 PM
You do realize HIV effects women differently than men? It also effects children differently than adults.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Do yourself a favor and do a quick google on how much money has been spent on HIV research and prevention for children and women, compare that to men with HIV. Then do a search on children/women with HIV and mortality rates compared to men w/HIV.
We live in a very sexist society. HIV research was never funded or taken seriously by society at large until heterosexual white men started to develop AIDS.
I don't want to pick a fight, because that wasn't the intention of my post, but I'm sorry - this statement is, if not patently false, at very least highly misguided and irresponsible.
The mortality rate of HIV is far higher in men than in women - and it always has been. You look this up very easily all over the web, on the CDC's website, and any number of other places... it's very clear. But if you really want to go there, here's an empirical medical fact: at its worst levels of infection (in the mid 1990s), HIV mortality rates were nearly 30 per 100,000 for men, and barely over 5 per 100,000 in women. Look it up.
As for the disease affecting men/women/children differently, sure that's true, but it's true for pretty much every disease. Children's mortality rates are almost always higher than healthy adults. They are smaller, weaker, and have less developed immune systems. That's got nothing to do with HIV.
And as for when HIV research was taken seriously, I think to make a sexist claim against that is pretty unfounded. You can certainly make the heterosexual part of the argument - that's been well documented. But to say that science discriminates between male and female disease affliction rates is completely irresponsible. Our society is sexist in many ways, no argument there, but to say that scientific research is based on the proportion of male afflictions to female afflictions is insane. If that were true, breast cancer (which, by the way, affects FAR less women than prostate cancer does men) wouldn't be on every commercial and in every fundraiser known to man.
Nightarchaon
Mar 24, 07:44 AM
I bet you think the iPad makes a better e-book reader than the Kindle as well huh?
Im with you on the glossy iMacs, there AWFUL to actually sit in front of and use for any lenght of time, talk about eye strain.
MATT option iMac and im there in a flash, but im not holding out hope, the �1600 ive sat waiting for a new desktop is more and more likely going towards a home built i7 sandybridge rig, and windows 7 so that when i sit with my back to the window the screen doesnt just refelect the outside world and i have to squint through it rather than just see what im working on. I dont need a tree or a bus in my spreadsheets or word documents thank you apple.
I Love my Macbook pro, with its MATT screen, i cant justify a MacPro expense, and the Mac Mini just doesnt cut it at the graphics card level, so that leaves the iMac, love the form factor, love the OS, hate the unusable migrane inducing shiney screen.
However,
the iPad i prefer the glossy screen, same with the iPhone, but then the occasions ill be using an iPad require me to have a bright colour screen for PDFs, and the lighting is usually bad enough that the reflective qualities are not a problem.
Im with you on the glossy iMacs, there AWFUL to actually sit in front of and use for any lenght of time, talk about eye strain.
MATT option iMac and im there in a flash, but im not holding out hope, the �1600 ive sat waiting for a new desktop is more and more likely going towards a home built i7 sandybridge rig, and windows 7 so that when i sit with my back to the window the screen doesnt just refelect the outside world and i have to squint through it rather than just see what im working on. I dont need a tree or a bus in my spreadsheets or word documents thank you apple.
I Love my Macbook pro, with its MATT screen, i cant justify a MacPro expense, and the Mac Mini just doesnt cut it at the graphics card level, so that leaves the iMac, love the form factor, love the OS, hate the unusable migrane inducing shiney screen.
However,
the iPad i prefer the glossy screen, same with the iPhone, but then the occasions ill be using an iPad require me to have a bright colour screen for PDFs, and the lighting is usually bad enough that the reflective qualities are not a problem.
diamond.g
Apr 22, 03:05 PM
my point is that they stream from a location and aren't stored locally....
they stream fine for me.
because you are beholden to the content people for how long they want that content to be streamable. See loss of Dexter on Netflix as an example (or even the rolling expiration of movies).
they stream fine for me.
because you are beholden to the content people for how long they want that content to be streamable. See loss of Dexter on Netflix as an example (or even the rolling expiration of movies).
manosaurus
Oct 12, 12:57 PM
My gues is that all these whiners would not even notice if you snuck in at night and swapped out ther procesor for a C2D chip. They'd just wake up the next moring fire up the computer and never even notice.
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
Oh... Core 2 Duo gold and silver plated speaker wire tomoorow too!
It's like those audiophiles who argue endlessly about if gold plated or silver plated speaker wire sounds better.
Oh... Core 2 Duo gold and silver plated speaker wire tomoorow too!
MattDell
Oct 12, 11:08 PM
Not sure if it's already been pointed out, but GAP is also releasing a Red line of clothes tomorrow to support AIDS in Africa. I wonder if Oprah will be visiting various retail stores supporting the Red thing tomorrow.
I really want the Red SLVR phone, but it's not sold here.
-Matt
I really want the Red SLVR phone, but it's not sold here.
-Matt
BlizzardBomb
Aug 28, 12:21 PM
This Tuesday! This Tuesday!
That would be great! *fingers crossed*
Hmmm... really we shouldn't be getting our hopes up but who cares! :p
That would be great! *fingers crossed*
Hmmm... really we shouldn't be getting our hopes up but who cares! :p