vi2867
Nov 1, 02:03 PM
If I get the new iPod Shuffle 2G with old headphones, i'm sending it right back. That is one of the reasons I bought the Shuffle. Instead of spending $29 for some headphones I spent $50 dollars more and got a shuffle...:(
Xapplimatic
Jan 9, 03:57 PM
What happened to all the software updates?? Guess he's holding that off until next Mac World.. :(
iJohnHenry
Apr 5, 03:15 PM
The real problem here is that not enough women are standing in front of their mirrors after dressing and asking themselves "if I get raped wearing this, will I be blamed?"
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/ohmy.gif
Look out, here they come!!!
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Townsfolk.gif
If I wear a nice business suit, am I to blame when I get mugged?
If you are on your iPhone 4, and have a MacAir in your bag, yes. :p
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/ohmy.gif
Look out, here they come!!!
http://i55.photobucket.com/albums/g158/MouseMeat/Smilies/Townsfolk.gif
If I wear a nice business suit, am I to blame when I get mugged?
If you are on your iPhone 4, and have a MacAir in your bag, yes. :p
cannonball
Oct 19, 08:34 AM
Best I've seen so far... (though I have many more to look at).
more...
Brasilian
Apr 26, 11:09 AM
I just tried Jailbreaking my Ipod 4th Gen, 4.1.2 with PwnageTool. Everything is fine until I have to restore it, I have gotten three different errors so far, one was 8, the other was 1604 and I forget the third.
I can successfully enter DFU mode and choose which firmware I need to restore with, it's just unsuccessful when I try restoring it, theres either an error, or Cydia doesn't appear and it says "Restore Complete"
I can successfully enter DFU mode and choose which firmware I need to restore with, it's just unsuccessful when I try restoring it, theres either an error, or Cydia doesn't appear and it says "Restore Complete"
matteusclement
Mar 10, 11:14 PM
Was hoping to get the straight goods on PC video editing and PC gear suggestions. What websites out there do you use to get your fix on the dark side?
thanks.
thanks.
more...
Merthyrboy
Dec 24, 07:10 AM
Hopefully I'll be getting my 1981 4001 rickenbacker that I've saved for and the Christmas and birthday money. Snows like stopped the deliverys though :(
bombavich
Jun 19, 07:29 AM
Can't decide between here with the easy parking but longer queues or the many shops of middlesbrough and being stuck in town at hours I'd rather not.
Was quite handy for the 3G launch
Was quite handy for the 3G launch
more...
iBug2
Nov 12, 10:01 PM
I'm not complaining. On more than one occasion they forced the competition to offer more for less in order to compete and that's a great thing from a consumer perspective.
I think once Apple saw just how deep down the post production rabbit hole they'd have to go to meaningfully support and develop Shake they decided it would be too much effort for too little return so bye-bye Shake. It was too much of a niche w/in a niche for Apple, IMO.
Lethal
Possible, but they must have known that when they purchased a highly niche product aimed only at large FX houses.
Checked the article on QT, and I must say I didn't think it would take that long for Apple to iterate QTX to catch up with QT. Seems like we'll have to wait a "while". Although that's no reason to delay the FCS overhaul, it can still work through QTKit Server.
I think once Apple saw just how deep down the post production rabbit hole they'd have to go to meaningfully support and develop Shake they decided it would be too much effort for too little return so bye-bye Shake. It was too much of a niche w/in a niche for Apple, IMO.
Lethal
Possible, but they must have known that when they purchased a highly niche product aimed only at large FX houses.
Checked the article on QT, and I must say I didn't think it would take that long for Apple to iterate QTX to catch up with QT. Seems like we'll have to wait a "while". Although that's no reason to delay the FCS overhaul, it can still work through QTKit Server.
Chip NoVaMac
Feb 13, 04:41 AM
Well I can only dream of achieving the moderator status. Maybe in 2 years Arn will give me a shot.
Be-careful on what you wish for. I have been a mod before, and it is not an easy task.
In many ways it is far better to be a positive contributing member to a forum.
Be-careful on what you wish for. I have been a mod before, and it is not an easy task.
In many ways it is far better to be a positive contributing member to a forum.
more...
Necross
Apr 6, 01:51 PM
On Stargate Universe last night they were saying Dr. Rush's entire human consciousness was something like 300 terabytes.. so how many people can Apple store in their systems? like 40?
I wanna be saved on a hard drive when I die!
I wanna be saved on a hard drive when I die!
CaoCao
Apr 16, 01:33 AM
I think you either read the statistical trend wrong or perhaps read a twisted version of it from some "Christian blog" of some sort.
What's really happening is that the birth rate is "diminishing"...not "reversing". The trend throughout ALL 1st world and emerging economies is that the birth rate per person reduces. There are several factors for this including the fact that modernized civilizations do not need to have that many babies in hopes that a few will survive disease, famine, hardship, etc. And the few babies that do get born are brought up to be "more powerful humans" so to speak...in a sense that they are nurtured more and given more attention and education, etc. What happens is that the average "modernized person" can supply like multiple X more economic productivity than your average 3rd worlder. In addition, many more of those 3rd worlders will die before they have "fulfilled their usefulness" to society ... or perhaps even reproduce.
Think of it this way. If a person with a degree in industrial engineering can make a machine that spits out 10,000 donuts per day...how many "villagers" will it take to make an equivalent amount of food?
Red is screwed, yellow is sucky, green is above replacement... You don't want birth rate to drop below 2.1, Turkey the only country above replacement is 2.14...
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9463/europepopulation.png (http://img826.imageshack.us/i/europepopulation.png/)
Even if I assume this unsourced soundbite is true, there is a missing phrase: "without intervention."
If it really came down to it, the EU (or any other country/countries with a declining birth rate) could enact any number of policies or incentives to bolster the population, including making it easier for gay couples to adopt. So what?
The intervention should not be forbidding or discriminating against a group because of their sexual behavior. If it's all about the birthin' then they better start taking a hard look at those hetero scofflaws who don't want to have kids, too. *Gasp*
http://www.economist.com/node/5494593
The only meaningful way to save the red countries from depopulation is to eliminate access to birth control and abortions. Places have tried to boost birth rates, it hasn't succeeded.
What's really happening is that the birth rate is "diminishing"...not "reversing". The trend throughout ALL 1st world and emerging economies is that the birth rate per person reduces. There are several factors for this including the fact that modernized civilizations do not need to have that many babies in hopes that a few will survive disease, famine, hardship, etc. And the few babies that do get born are brought up to be "more powerful humans" so to speak...in a sense that they are nurtured more and given more attention and education, etc. What happens is that the average "modernized person" can supply like multiple X more economic productivity than your average 3rd worlder. In addition, many more of those 3rd worlders will die before they have "fulfilled their usefulness" to society ... or perhaps even reproduce.
Think of it this way. If a person with a degree in industrial engineering can make a machine that spits out 10,000 donuts per day...how many "villagers" will it take to make an equivalent amount of food?
Red is screwed, yellow is sucky, green is above replacement... You don't want birth rate to drop below 2.1, Turkey the only country above replacement is 2.14...
http://img826.imageshack.us/img826/9463/europepopulation.png (http://img826.imageshack.us/i/europepopulation.png/)
Even if I assume this unsourced soundbite is true, there is a missing phrase: "without intervention."
If it really came down to it, the EU (or any other country/countries with a declining birth rate) could enact any number of policies or incentives to bolster the population, including making it easier for gay couples to adopt. So what?
The intervention should not be forbidding or discriminating against a group because of their sexual behavior. If it's all about the birthin' then they better start taking a hard look at those hetero scofflaws who don't want to have kids, too. *Gasp*
http://www.economist.com/node/5494593
The only meaningful way to save the red countries from depopulation is to eliminate access to birth control and abortions. Places have tried to boost birth rates, it hasn't succeeded.
more...
dxerboy
Apr 6, 12:55 PM
Check out my solution here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12341218
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?p=12341218
vi2867
Oct 31, 12:23 PM
I think "1" gig is more than enough.
This iPod is meant to play a set of songs like a playlist. It is not meant for you to keep your entire library of songs.
That's why it is called an iPod Shuffle;) ...
This iPod is meant to play a set of songs like a playlist. It is not meant for you to keep your entire library of songs.
That's why it is called an iPod Shuffle;) ...
more...
skoblick24
May 6, 11:23 AM
I am looking to use (2) Airport Expresses going to a multi zone amplifier to power (2) sets of speakers in the yard. Is it possible to use the AirPlay feature from the iPod Touch to send audio to both the Expresses at the same time so they are synced? I figure this way I would get audio level control to both zones on the iTouch.
New to the Mac world and looking for solutions.
Thanks in advance
New to the Mac world and looking for solutions.
Thanks in advance
iMeowbot
Aug 16, 03:09 AM
If you pretend it's caramel and chocolate chips you'll like it better.
more...
livingfortoday
Jun 20, 05:46 PM
I've got a 80GB HD from a PC I parted out. It's a Hitachi Deskstar, 7200rpm SATA drive. It's got a warranty on it until April of but I don't know if it's transferable.
Lemme know what you're willing to pay for it.
Lemme know what you're willing to pay for it.
masterkoga
Mar 31, 05:21 PM
They're idiots. Caught up in the "coolness" hype. Nothing more. And I don't consider weekend wedding photogs to be pros. I guarantee that any full time pro who needs to put food on the table does not depend on, much less condone the iPad to earn his/her keep.
Yeah, right. Like I'm going to be processing 30MB RAW files on a freaking 64gb Web browser.
LOL!
No. Proofing and this so called "manipulation" belongs in a lab where meticulous care can be devoted to delivering perfectly color balanced prints�. Not a silly-assed iPad out in the field. And if said lab is out of reach then bring the lab with you in the form of something with more computing muscle�.
in other words� get the right tool for the job at hand and the iPad ain't it.
The iPad does nothing for me "in the field" that can't be achieved with a $99 portable DVD player used to show clients an enlarged preview. And photo journalists aren't allowed to use photoshop anyway.
No joke.
Look I'm all for new additions to the line of productivity apps for iOS products, but if someone walked into my studio touting their iPad with Photoshop or any other drawing, painting, video or audio app as a production station, I would laugh them right out the door. Do people seriously have any idea how big some of these files get? Not to mention the horse power that is needed to maintain a reasonable working interface? "Oh I can zoom in and do this, zoom out and do that..." Then they have no idea what timely productivity and deadlines are all about.
In the current form this does not cut it on a professional level. It may get there, but not anytime soon.
Yeah, right. Like I'm going to be processing 30MB RAW files on a freaking 64gb Web browser.
LOL!
No. Proofing and this so called "manipulation" belongs in a lab where meticulous care can be devoted to delivering perfectly color balanced prints�. Not a silly-assed iPad out in the field. And if said lab is out of reach then bring the lab with you in the form of something with more computing muscle�.
in other words� get the right tool for the job at hand and the iPad ain't it.
The iPad does nothing for me "in the field" that can't be achieved with a $99 portable DVD player used to show clients an enlarged preview. And photo journalists aren't allowed to use photoshop anyway.
No joke.
Look I'm all for new additions to the line of productivity apps for iOS products, but if someone walked into my studio touting their iPad with Photoshop or any other drawing, painting, video or audio app as a production station, I would laugh them right out the door. Do people seriously have any idea how big some of these files get? Not to mention the horse power that is needed to maintain a reasonable working interface? "Oh I can zoom in and do this, zoom out and do that..." Then they have no idea what timely productivity and deadlines are all about.
In the current form this does not cut it on a professional level. It may get there, but not anytime soon.
Winni
Dec 21, 08:06 AM
Macs would be an excellent choice for any business to use ...
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
Yeah, sure. Because all of those business/enterprise applications written exclusively for Windows run ah-so smoothly on Macs...
Just accept it, folks: There is no business case for using Macs in an enterprise environment.
Compatibility? Fail. (There is a world beyond the Microsoft .doc format where enterprise applications live. There's OLD Java, and many Java apps require a very specific Oracle JVM to run. There's .NET. There's Sharepoint. There's an IBM mainframe you need to talk to. There are department printers that have no OS X drivers. There's a long list of office equipment that only plays well with Windows.)
Enterprise-ready? Fail. See compatibility, see support, see backup.
Central administration? Fail. Try applying group policies to a Mac.
Central backup? Fail. No, Time Machine is NOT an enterprise solution.
TCO? Fail. Expensive hardware, short-lived platform support.
Enterprise-support from the manufacturer (Apple)? HUGE fail.
Roadmaps? Fail. Apple doesn't even know what the word means. You just cannot plan with this company and their products.
Product longevity? Knock-out Fail. (Try getting support for OS X Leopard in two years from now. Try getting support for Tiger or Panther TODAY. Then compare it to Windows XP, an OS from the year that will be officially supported until 2014. Then make your strategic choice and tell me with a straight face that you want to bet your money on Cupertino toys.)
It's MUCH easier to integrate Linux desktops into an enterprise environment than it is to put Mac OS X boxes in there. Why? Because some "blue chip" companies like Oracle and IBM actually use, sell and support Linux and make sure that it can be used in an enterprise environment.
Trying to push a home user/consumer platform like the Mac into a corporate environment is a very bad idea. Especially if the company behind the product recently even announced that they dropped their entire server hardware because nobody wanted them. Why should the head of a large IT department trust a company that just dropped their only product that was even remotely targeted at the enterprise market? It's like asking a CTO to bet the company's IT future on Nintendo Wiis.
And just for your info: I've had those discussions at the World Health Organization of the United Nations, and it turned out to be IMPOSSIBLE to integrate Macs into their IT environment. I had the only Mac (a 20" Core Duo) in a world wide network because I was able to talk someone higher up the ladder into approving the purchase order for it, but then I quickly had to give up on OS X and instead run Windows on it in order to get my job as an IT admin done and be able to use the IT resources of the other WHO centers. OS X Tiger totally sucked in our network for almost all of the above reasons, but Windows Vista and XP got the job done perfectly. It wasn't very persuasive to show off a Mac that only runs Windows. That's what you get for being an Apple fanboy, which I admittedly was at that time.
Where I work now, two other people bought Macs, and one of them has ordered Windows 7 yesterday and wants me to wipe out OS X from his hard disk and replace it with Windows. He's an engineer and not productive with OS X, rather the opposite: OS X slows him down and doesn't provide any value to him.
And personally, after more than five years in Apple land, I will now also move away from OS X. It's a consumer platform that's only there to lock people into the Apple hardware and their iTunes store. If the web browser and iTunes and maybe Final Cut Studio, Logic Studio or the Adobe Creative Suites are the only pieces of software that you need to be happy, then OS X probably is okay for you. For everything else, it quickly becomes a very expensive trap or just a disappointment. When Apple brag about how cool it is to run Windows in "Boot Camp" or a virtualization software, then this rather demonstrates the shortcomings of the Mac platform instead of its strengths. I can also run Windows in VirtualBox on Linux. But why is this an advantage? Where's the sense in dividing my hardware resources to support TWO operating systems to get ONE job done? What's the rationalization for that? There is none. It just shows that the Mac still is not a full computing platform without Microsoft products. And that is the ultimate case AGAINST migrating to Mac OS X.
oyah
Feb 18, 10:46 AM
My service provider offers CPanel Horde for webmail. I didn't used to mind that but now Horde has been changed in lots of crappy ways and I don't like it. Plus it doesn't work at all on Safari.
Is there a way for me to get my webmail through another service?
Is there a way for me to get my webmail through another service?
SevenInchScrew
Apr 7, 10:51 AM
Me too. I've always loved Alfa Romeo. Well Fiat is here...so we never know...maybe one day we will see Alfa Romeo as well.
Me three. The Brera is a sexy piece of kit.
Me three. The Brera is a sexy piece of kit.
gordyc44
May 2, 04:43 PM
I'd give blood as often as possible (and did so a few times before I left the UK) but the rules in New Zealand catch me out. Having lived in the UK during the mad cow disease outbreak (aka nvCJD) in the 1980s means they won't take my blood for a long time yet (I've gone to the donation centres and asked them about it twice). Particularly unfortunate since I'm O negative. But if the blood tests get better and they can verify that the disease is nonexistent and not just dormant, then perhaps more of us here will be able to contribute.
PatrickCocoa
Apr 7, 11:35 AM
So posting faults makes one a troll?
Nice place, this (was better and less abusive before Apple released the iDevices). :(
. . . and get off my lawn!
Nice place, this (was better and less abusive before Apple released the iDevices). :(
. . . and get off my lawn!
Whyren
Sep 26, 09:59 PM
If you're 47 you were ~23years old when AIDS hit the headlines. When did your 'youth' end? Oh and I'm pretty sure herpes was about, but it shows how bad sex education either state or parental must've been back then!.
Yes, diseases have been around for a long time, but keep in mind that diseases change over time. Part of the problem nowadays is, despite better medicinal technology, there are more dangerous disease. Why? Antibiotics as we know them haven't been around long. When first discovered, they were considered a miracle and used to treat everything and anything. They were even used preventatively. This resulted in the decimation of strains of disease that couldn't protect themselves, but left resistant strains which were free to reproduce and grow exponentially. Soon enough, you have an entire disease that is resistant to antibiotics.
If you've ever wondered why doctors require you to finish a prescription even if you feel better, this is the reason. If you don't, you potentially leave resistant strains to carry on. Same reason doctors today don't use antibiotics unless necessary and even then, very specifically targeted ones as generalized antibiotics result in the same problem. Today, a simple staphylococcus infection can kill you. Thirty years ago, you more than likely could have cured it with a few days of antibiotics. (some more info (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/698_bugs.html))
Another major problem occurs with viruses as even today there is very little that can be done to combat them, not just HIV, but any virus partially due to the fact that they simply don't conform to the rules of "life" as we know it. Besides which, they can do things that no other living organism can (such as create DNA from RNA). There are methods that can slow viruses or even cause dormancy in them, but for the most part, there is no way to kill a virus.
So yes, diseases have been around a long time, but you can't necessarily compare an STD today to an STD thirty years ago in the same way you can't take last years' flu vaccine for this year's flu season.
Sorry for the aside, just wanted to clarify a bit.
Yes, diseases have been around for a long time, but keep in mind that diseases change over time. Part of the problem nowadays is, despite better medicinal technology, there are more dangerous disease. Why? Antibiotics as we know them haven't been around long. When first discovered, they were considered a miracle and used to treat everything and anything. They were even used preventatively. This resulted in the decimation of strains of disease that couldn't protect themselves, but left resistant strains which were free to reproduce and grow exponentially. Soon enough, you have an entire disease that is resistant to antibiotics.
If you've ever wondered why doctors require you to finish a prescription even if you feel better, this is the reason. If you don't, you potentially leave resistant strains to carry on. Same reason doctors today don't use antibiotics unless necessary and even then, very specifically targeted ones as generalized antibiotics result in the same problem. Today, a simple staphylococcus infection can kill you. Thirty years ago, you more than likely could have cured it with a few days of antibiotics. (some more info (http://www.fda.gov/fdac/features/1998/698_bugs.html))
Another major problem occurs with viruses as even today there is very little that can be done to combat them, not just HIV, but any virus partially due to the fact that they simply don't conform to the rules of "life" as we know it. Besides which, they can do things that no other living organism can (such as create DNA from RNA). There are methods that can slow viruses or even cause dormancy in them, but for the most part, there is no way to kill a virus.
So yes, diseases have been around a long time, but you can't necessarily compare an STD today to an STD thirty years ago in the same way you can't take last years' flu vaccine for this year's flu season.
Sorry for the aside, just wanted to clarify a bit.
