pianoman
Sep 12, 02:26 PM
for me, the hardest part will be deciding whether or not to go with the 30 or go with the 80. i'll have to check it out at the store when they get them in stock.
i'm not sure if i want to keep my nano just because...
decisions, decisions
i'm not sure if i want to keep my nano just because...
decisions, decisions
DeSnousa
Sep 4, 07:10 PM
I believe this media player will simply be a better iPod with better integration to your television, via possibly a nice dock. It makes sense, it's keeps the iPod in the forefront which would enable the market to grow because most will buy it for the music, but seeing it can attach to the t.v... :)
loyrun
Mar 23, 05:55 PM
you don't think a web app will pop up for this the second these apps are removed from the store?
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
***I am 100% against drunk driving, if you drive drunk you are ignorant and should be put in jail. period.
clarksonknight
Dec 30, 10:22 AM
It makes sense. iProducts are increasingly becoming ubiquitous, therefore they will become more profitable for malware developers to attack. It's not a McAfee sales pitch so much as it's stating the obvious. Same with Android.
~Shard~
Aug 31, 11:52 AM
If Apple made a new handheld with PDA, video, and audio features based around the iPod innovations... I'm there man, I'd so buy one.
What about cell phone capabilities too? :p ;)
What about cell phone capabilities too? :p ;)
Genner21
Apr 4, 12:47 PM
You guys should read LA times..Looks like an officer got shot in the Face today in the morning as well..
http://crime.latimes.com/
Chula Vista is not a walk in the park. I'm not surprised the security guards being armed, or the night guards at least.
Also, i'm surprised on how many keep commenting without reading the article. Yes I know it wasn't stated before, but it has now been updated. 40 shots were fired for the millionth time. At least skim the article.
http://crime.latimes.com/
Chula Vista is not a walk in the park. I'm not surprised the security guards being armed, or the night guards at least.
Also, i'm surprised on how many keep commenting without reading the article. Yes I know it wasn't stated before, but it has now been updated. 40 shots were fired for the millionth time. At least skim the article.
.jpg "Subramaniapuram+heroine+")
mcrain
Apr 20, 08:54 AM
Always makes me lol to see someone attribute slavery to the "right". The mysteries of 7th grade history class, revealed for you:
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
"The Republican Presidential Candidate Abraham Lincoln thought no price was too great for the abolition of slavery and the creation of a society in which a man was not judged by the color of his skin."
"The Democratic Party Platform presented a plan of "Compromise with the South", which ... would be to agree to make permanent the institution of slavery in exchange for an end to the Civil War and restoration of the Union. In other words, the Democratic party was ready to "Sell Out" the enslaved, in order to stop further loss of white lives."
http://www.sonofthesouth.net/democratic-party-platform.htm
"an exclusively partisan Democratic organization in the South" ... "the southern Klan remained Democratic, closely allied with Democratic police, sheriffs, and other functionaries of local government. With continuing disfranchisement of most African Americans and many poor whites, the only political activity took place within the Democratic Party."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ku_Klux_Klan#Political_influence
You are right, but there is a great big asterick. The republicans a long, long time ago were the party that opposed slavery, and the southern democrats were the party more representative of slave owners.
What might have changed since the days of Abe Lincoln? Considering his museum is about 200 steps from where I'm sitting right now, I'll offer an answer. The positions of the two parties shifted when the Republicans adopted the southern strategy.
I find it funny (LOL) whenever Republicans point to Honest Abe as a standard bearer for their party when they turned their backs on what he stood for. If he were alive today, he would be a Democrat, and he would be ashamed of the efforts of his party to divide the nation into those who have vs. those who do not.
Southern Strategy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Southern_strategy)
(edit) So, depending on how you look at it, both arguments are correct. Yesterday's Democrats were responsible for slavery, but todays "right" sounds an awful lot like yesterday's southern Democrats. In other words, the "right" by today's standards would have been yesterday's Democrats.
From a 5 second google search - a different view of the same issue...
I find it extrememely hard to believe that Abe Lincoln would be a Republican today since the Republican Party of the 1860s was a completeley different animal than today's conservative GOP. Even though he was a moderate, his party's base of support was in the Northeast/New England and was made up of former Whigs, Free Soilers, Radical Republicans and abolitionists (i.e., America's first "bleeding-heart liberals"). The Democratic Party was the party of "states rights", wealthy plantation owners and slave-holders, and rather arch-conservative elements.
Abe Lincoln first made a name of himself by speaking out against the Mexican-American War in the Illinois legistlature, as a war that was only meant to expand slavery westward (can you say "ANTI-WAR LIBERAL")
Abe Lincoln was also hated in the South (he didn't recieve a SINGLE VOTE in the South!), was even accused to being half-black, even though he was not as radical as some other Republicans.
vouder17
Sep 15, 05:31 PM
I don't really see this happening, if apple is going to take the risk of entering this competitive market, I see them doing it with a very innovative 'new' product.
SilianRail
Apr 22, 02:56 PM
Thinking of getting this for my mom. The top of her needs are 1080p YouTube videos, will they run smoothly?
liketom
Sep 19, 01:46 PM
thats good now release the service world wide ! and see how many they get
amateurmacfreak
Sep 12, 03:47 PM
Kind of a huge gap, don'cha think? For an extra $100 I can nearly TRIPLE the capacity? Why would I even consider a 30 GB model?
A lot of people just don't need the bigger capacity. And it's still thinner, right??
I would buy a 30GB if I was in the market (which I'm not) for a new iPod. I just really don't need more than 30GB.
This is a stupid update. Not anything important.
I was a little bit sad that my iPod would probably be out-dated by today. But yeah right, it's not. But of course everyone already knew that it's still 5G.... Where's our iPhone, Steve? :rolleyes:
A lot of people just don't need the bigger capacity. And it's still thinner, right??
I would buy a 30GB if I was in the market (which I'm not) for a new iPod. I just really don't need more than 30GB.
This is a stupid update. Not anything important.
I was a little bit sad that my iPod would probably be out-dated by today. But yeah right, it's not. But of course everyone already knew that it's still 5G.... Where's our iPhone, Steve? :rolleyes:
dagger01
Mar 29, 12:40 PM
"IDC Projects Windows Phone to Top iPhone in Market Share by 2015"
ROFLMFAO...hahahahahahahahaha....wait....wait.....hahahahahahahaha
And donkey's might fly out of my butt. To say that MS would overtake anything in the smartphone market at this point is utterly ludicrous. I want some of what that IDC person is smoking!
ROFLMFAO...hahahahahahahahaha....wait....wait.....hahahahahahahaha
And donkey's might fly out of my butt. To say that MS would overtake anything in the smartphone market at this point is utterly ludicrous. I want some of what that IDC person is smoking!
Multimedia
Sep 13, 10:18 AM
so, how does one go about getting the 1.2 update? It does not appear in my version of iTunes7Install Quicktime 7.1.3 (http://www.apple.com/quicktime/download/mac.html) then install iTunes 7 (http://www.apple.com/itunes/download/). Connect your 3-5G iPod. Updater will appear in the new iTunes when you highligh the iPod in the left column. Eazy Peezy. :)
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
Hey everybody Big News
NBC Today Show went High Definition today!
twostep665
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
I'm amazed that so many people are basing their judgment of the "head shot" on 3rd person shooter games and CSI. In the real world, anyone with training will always be aiming for the center of mass, and where he actually hits depends more on luck than anything else.
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
In other words, just because the criminal was hit in the head, doesn't mean that the security guard was aiming for his head. A mall security guard with a pistol shooting at a moving target during a gunfight doesn't have the accuracy of a Marine sniper shooting a sniper rifle at a stationary target.
THANK YOU! It is hard enough making a head shot from 15 yards on the pistol range!
Hastings101
Apr 25, 01:07 PM
Maybe the next design will allow you to avoid being burned while playing games on the Macbook Pro :p
swissmann
Apr 4, 12:23 PM
How about the whole incident being avoided by people being honest and working for what you want. In this case no robbery, no need for a guard, no guns, no death. Ideally we shouldn't need locks on our doors or guards in the first place (unrealistic I know).
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
I do think most people are good though. My local Apple store had a door lock malfunction one morning and a dozen people were inside roaming around looking at things before management came to open the store. Nothing was stolen.
vvswarup
Apr 29, 12:46 AM
That can be viewed another way. Apple is too cheap to bother risking anything that is not a sure bet.
MS willing to risk R&D and a lot of R&D on things that might be a dead end.
MS R&D is more like a university Research compared to Apple R&D that is only about profit.
Guess which one adds more better for the people. Correct answer is not Apple
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
MS willing to risk R&D and a lot of R&D on things that might be a dead end.
MS R&D is more like a university Research compared to Apple R&D that is only about profit.
Guess which one adds more better for the people. Correct answer is not Apple
Your remark reminds me of a conversation I had with my brother. He was talking about starting a business. Now, to preface my next statement, let me offer a little background. A while ago, I suggested to my brother that he invest in stocks and he was not ready to take on the risk of it, so he refused to invest. So, when he said he wanted to start a business, my response was something like: "So you don't want to invest in stocks because it's too risky but you don't mind starting a business."
His response was: "Stocks have no value to society. With this business that I start, I would be able to make something of value to society."
I did not respond to it then, but after thinking about that remark, my response should have been that if the intention is create a for-profit business, an activity to make money for oneself, the value that the product adds to society is irrelevant. Also, companies use the cash from stock investors to fund capital expenditures. So the argument can be made that stocks indirectly add value to society because companies use the cash from stock investors to make more things that people can consume.
Your left-handed remark about Apple R&D vs. MS R&D is baseless and irrelevant. MS is not a university. It's a business. Businesses exist to make money. Also, Bill Gates did not start MS out of some altruistic intention of doing good for people. He started it to make money. Same goes for Steve Jobs.
Don't blow smoke and make this more than it really is. You were replying to the OP who said that Microsoft doesn't seem to be getting its money's worth on R&D. Don't aggrandize it fact by saying that MS is "adding more better for society" and Apple is "only about profit." The OP is right. Microsoft is not getting its money's worth on its R&D expenditure. Something has to change.
MS is a public corporation. Its first duty is to its shareholders. If spending better on R&D in order to get more profit out of it will enhance shareholder value, then Microsoft has an obligation to do so.
kavika411
Mar 22, 01:19 PM
Newbie question - please don't flame me.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
How big of a transition is this, as compared - for example - to the Intel chip back around 2006? What I mean is, after the transition to Intel, certain software and eventually the newest operating system itself could no longer be run on the old chip. So, is this transition as significant as that, or is this more of a speed boost kind of thing?
Thanks.
hondaboy945
Sep 15, 07:05 PM
Cram 1GB? Have you seen the 8GB iPod Nano? What are you talking about? Isn't flash memory capable of being used for running processes, or is it too slow?
thats whatI was thinking. But we could both be wrong.
thats whatI was thinking. But we could both be wrong.
headfuzz
Apr 4, 12:17 PM
The mall cop shot him? Really? The mall cop?!
I thought there was an app for that.
I thought there was an app for that.
Evangelion
Sep 5, 09:06 AM
Store is back up. Can't see anything new
FFTT
Sep 10, 08:26 PM
I understand the need for a mid level consumer tower, but right now
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
50%+/- of the market is looking at notebooks.
The cluttered, wire infested desktop is also none too popular with many people.
That's why the AOI iMac is so popular.
The MacBook is already more powerful than the majority of desktops MOST
average users have in their home.
The mini does a respectable job filling the affordable hassle free niche.
Heck, if you don't count the extra RAM cost, the Xeon powered Mac Pro 2.66 Quad is priced neck and neck with the mid level MacBook Pro.
That's amazing when you really think about it.
Even so, I do see a place for a Max mini of some sort starting
with at least the power of half a Mac Pro Tower for $999.00
PlaceofDis
Oct 12, 02:44 PM
kinda looks like a Target iPod Nano, no? :p
CalBoy
Apr 25, 01:54 AM
And then there's a thing called the speed limit. Doesn't matter if she did 45, 55, or 65. She's still in the right.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.
Well that's not entirely right either. Driving too slowly, especially in the fast lane, can get you a ticket as well.
It all comes down to reasonableness and safety. I don't think most posters in this thread object to drivers who go faster than the posted limit when they are cautious, calm, and experienced.
The OP's attitude is shocking because it is full of youthful arrogance of the type that usually ends up in a Red Asphalt video.