leekohler
May 5, 11:30 AM
There is nothing wrong with a doctor talking to anyone about guns, as they can be a risk to health. That's like telling my doctor he can't tell me to use condoms if he asks if I'm gay, or that he can't tell me to do certain stretches before I play hockey, if he asks me about that. This proposed law is a load of crap. Asking people about activities they engage in are key to treating a patient.
GeoffRuth
Oct 19, 11:29 AM
Why on earth would anyone mark this as negative, unless they were a troll?
ct2k7
Apr 17, 08:15 PM
Anyone to comment on the iPhone pics at engadget.com
twoodcc
May 10, 09:39 PM
It will be easier once you get moved.
yeah it should be. i'll be there to fix any problems then
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
haha, yeah it can be fun....when it works. not so fun when things aren't working. but i'll get it
But you loose the bigadv unit every time almost no?
i wouldn't say that. it seems this is the only area where i've been kinda lucky. i haven't lost as many bigadv units as some, but i have lost a few
That is true, unfortunately with my new i7980x I haven't gotten any bigadv units yet, I may need to reinstall folding to see if that works, which means losing a normal unit... And most of the problems were before I had folding going anyway.
yeah i'm sorry to hear no bigadv units for that monster. yeah reinstalling fah might help. let us know how it goes
yeah it should be. i'll be there to fix any problems then
But it's so fun cursing at the thing because you did something wrong and have to reboot into the firmware yet again. Ahhh, but once you get it right it feels good that you only took 3 days this time, the last time took a week or more :p each time gets a little less painful, usually anyway. :rolleyes:
haha, yeah it can be fun....when it works. not so fun when things aren't working. but i'll get it
But you loose the bigadv unit every time almost no?
i wouldn't say that. it seems this is the only area where i've been kinda lucky. i haven't lost as many bigadv units as some, but i have lost a few
That is true, unfortunately with my new i7980x I haven't gotten any bigadv units yet, I may need to reinstall folding to see if that works, which means losing a normal unit... And most of the problems were before I had folding going anyway.
yeah i'm sorry to hear no bigadv units for that monster. yeah reinstalling fah might help. let us know how it goes
citizenzen
May 5, 10:02 AM
The better question here, is why do you feel so immune to violent crime?
What makes you think he feels immune to violent crime?
The opposite is probably true.
The fact that guns are so prevalent in America makes it more likely that any one of us will find ourselves on the wrong end of one.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
I shouldn't have to a gun on me to feel safe in my community.
I agree.
The old saying, guns don't kill people, people do, has a logical extension ...
Guns don't protect people, people do.
We need to rely less on bullets, and more on each other.
What makes you think he feels immune to violent crime?
The opposite is probably true.
The fact that guns are so prevalent in America makes it more likely that any one of us will find ourselves on the wrong end of one.
Given the choice, I'd much rather have the robber hold me up with a knife, than a gun.
I shouldn't have to a gun on me to feel safe in my community.
I agree.
The old saying, guns don't kill people, people do, has a logical extension ...
Guns don't protect people, people do.
We need to rely less on bullets, and more on each other.
mauka
Nov 24, 12:46 PM
At the Honolulu Apple Store I was able to buy a black MacBook, using govt employee discount less black friday discount, total price $1309.00. At first they were saying no double discounts, but after a bit of a stand down myself and another unrelated buyer got the deal. :)
gattaca
Jan 9, 12:12 PM
The only thing I care about seeing is an update to the Mac Book Pro.
But really, has anyone even heard anything about it being updated? All I've heard is that people assume it will be. Does anyone know for sure?
But really, has anyone even heard anything about it being updated? All I've heard is that people assume it will be. Does anyone know for sure?
adamfilip
Sep 25, 11:00 AM
the Aperture page on Apples website has been updated to reflect the new version
Applejuiced
Apr 22, 09:02 PM
Working on the IE issues.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
arn
Thank you.
On the iPhone safari browser it works fine.
Jo-Kun
Sep 25, 06:31 PM
hmm I might consider to give it a try afterall...
when it came out my G5 was rejected (only because of the stock graphics card) there was a testing app to see if you could run it before you buy the actual program... and since a new card would set me back some extra � and aperture was at that time at the high price... I passed... now it supports my system, so maybe I'll ge it (first I'll do a testrun at my local shop where I buy my camera's... they told me not to buy V1... and said the latest was very much improved, and now there is another new version ;-))
when it came out my G5 was rejected (only because of the stock graphics card) there was a testing app to see if you could run it before you buy the actual program... and since a new card would set me back some extra � and aperture was at that time at the high price... I passed... now it supports my system, so maybe I'll ge it (first I'll do a testrun at my local shop where I buy my camera's... they told me not to buy V1... and said the latest was very much improved, and now there is another new version ;-))
aokiqiao
Oct 13, 05:01 PM
After reading the above comments about having dropped calls I can also vouch to say that AT&T's network and or the iphone FAILS at keeping a clear call or even keeping a line at all. The reason I say this is because I've had Alltel up until the switch to verizon since last week. I say up until last week because my contract ended with alltel and I did not want to renew with verzion. I had a dropped call with alltel/verizon maybe every month or two and that was because I was in a room deep inside the hopsital (where I work)where even the radio couldnt get a station. Im not saying its AT&T completely because Ive had multiple coworkers that Ive asked that have both dumbphones and smartphones with AT&T (other than an iphone) and theyve all told me they hardly ever get dropped calls. So it might be both AT&T and Apple that have to work something out to fix this. All I know is when I look at my cities coverage map where the signal should be strongest I know the info is a load of BS. Sometimes I make calls and the persons voice is crackling or theres a voice echo or fades in and out and of course it drops the call. I live in a desert in west texas where its flat, harldy ANY trees or buildings and it still FAILS. Not only that, sometimes Ill be completely still looking at my phone and itll switch from 4 bars of 3G to 2 bars of EDGE to no EDGE back and forth.
Also, sometimes my friends will get just portions (one or two words) of my text messages. This happen to anyone else?
Im on OS 3.1.2
Also, sometimes my friends will get just portions (one or two words) of my text messages. This happen to anyone else?
Im on OS 3.1.2
applebum
Aug 5, 12:09 PM
I was thinking, ( always a dangerous activity).
There IS one thing that could make me switch over to the cross platform compatibility side of this argument.
That would be if the CC of Norway enforced it ACROSS THE BOARD!
My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen Micro. The only reason I have an iPod is because when I switched to Macs, the nice people at Creative Labs informed me that their sync software DID NOT SUPPORT MAC OS.
I can't even access Sony's Connect music store on my Mac. I'm told I need to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher". (Upgrade to IE??? Bwahahahahaha!!! Those silly wabbits. :D)
I have a couple of programs I used in my PC days that are completely useless now, they won't run on Mac OS. Why not? I bought them! I paid for them! What right do these software companies have to lock me into a single platform?
I have, at last count, 317 files on my comp with the extension .xls. If I should decide I prefer to use Lotus, will I be able to open these files as is? Or will I have to take the time to convert them to XML format? Will I lose any of the custom formatting these files contain? ( I honestly don't know. I'm just beginning to learn the ODF stuff. Beside, current version of Lotus appears to be Windows only!) And these files aren't something I paid for, they are my own creations!
I'd be more than willing to see Apple surrender some iPod sales, (given the quality of the product, I don't think it would be much), if it would remove the single largest block against switching to Mac OS; the availabilty of software! Then the OS's could compete on other planes; features, ease of use, quality of computing experience, stability, etc. All of which would be, dare I say, good for the consumer?
Maybe I'm just a silly dreamer, but imagine the boon to Mac and Linux users if all these software development companies were forced to make their products interoperable, with the same functionality, and price.
What a beautiful place the world would be! :cool:
dsnort - finally, someone has hit the nail on the head. A standard DRM does not help ALL consumers - only those using Windows. This is why I see these rules/laws as fluff. There has to be 2 parts to any law before I will see it as positive. First - the law must insist on OS Neutrality. Meaning, if you want to have an online music store, it must work on Linux, Mac, and Windows. You make a music player, then it must have drivers or work on Linux, Mac and Windows. Once you have that, then let's get a universal DRM that is used by all these music stores and all these music players. Until both things happen, these laws do not help all consumers. And isn't what these laws are supposed to do - help the consumer???
My household has nothing but Macs. If these "laws" were enacted and we suddenly had a universal DRM, it would NOT help me as a consumer. I would still only be able to use iTunes, as none of the other big music stores (Sony, Yahoo, Napster, Real, Microsoft, Walmart) work on a Mac. I could perhaps buy a different player, but that would only help if that player had drivers or software that would work on a Mac.
These "laws" seemed to be created by Windows using politicians who don't truly understand what it would take to be fair to ALL consumers. It seems that they only care about whether Windows users get all the bells, whistles, and benefits. So I say leave it the way it is until it will help everyone.
There IS one thing that could make me switch over to the cross platform compatibility side of this argument.
That would be if the CC of Norway enforced it ACROSS THE BOARD!
My first MP3 player was a Creative Zen Micro. The only reason I have an iPod is because when I switched to Macs, the nice people at Creative Labs informed me that their sync software DID NOT SUPPORT MAC OS.
I can't even access Sony's Connect music store on my Mac. I'm told I need to "upgrade to Internet Explorer 5.5 or higher". (Upgrade to IE??? Bwahahahahaha!!! Those silly wabbits. :D)
I have a couple of programs I used in my PC days that are completely useless now, they won't run on Mac OS. Why not? I bought them! I paid for them! What right do these software companies have to lock me into a single platform?
I have, at last count, 317 files on my comp with the extension .xls. If I should decide I prefer to use Lotus, will I be able to open these files as is? Or will I have to take the time to convert them to XML format? Will I lose any of the custom formatting these files contain? ( I honestly don't know. I'm just beginning to learn the ODF stuff. Beside, current version of Lotus appears to be Windows only!) And these files aren't something I paid for, they are my own creations!
I'd be more than willing to see Apple surrender some iPod sales, (given the quality of the product, I don't think it would be much), if it would remove the single largest block against switching to Mac OS; the availabilty of software! Then the OS's could compete on other planes; features, ease of use, quality of computing experience, stability, etc. All of which would be, dare I say, good for the consumer?
Maybe I'm just a silly dreamer, but imagine the boon to Mac and Linux users if all these software development companies were forced to make their products interoperable, with the same functionality, and price.
What a beautiful place the world would be! :cool:
dsnort - finally, someone has hit the nail on the head. A standard DRM does not help ALL consumers - only those using Windows. This is why I see these rules/laws as fluff. There has to be 2 parts to any law before I will see it as positive. First - the law must insist on OS Neutrality. Meaning, if you want to have an online music store, it must work on Linux, Mac, and Windows. You make a music player, then it must have drivers or work on Linux, Mac and Windows. Once you have that, then let's get a universal DRM that is used by all these music stores and all these music players. Until both things happen, these laws do not help all consumers. And isn't what these laws are supposed to do - help the consumer???
My household has nothing but Macs. If these "laws" were enacted and we suddenly had a universal DRM, it would NOT help me as a consumer. I would still only be able to use iTunes, as none of the other big music stores (Sony, Yahoo, Napster, Real, Microsoft, Walmart) work on a Mac. I could perhaps buy a different player, but that would only help if that player had drivers or software that would work on a Mac.
These "laws" seemed to be created by Windows using politicians who don't truly understand what it would take to be fair to ALL consumers. It seems that they only care about whether Windows users get all the bells, whistles, and benefits. So I say leave it the way it is until it will help everyone.
Compile 'em all
Apr 13, 03:04 PM
- Auto save
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
.
I stopped reading here.
Hmmm....ok...how is this a big deal again?
.
I stopped reading here.
donbluto
Aug 2, 05:09 AM
The fewer the people in a nation, the easier it is to say they are the best or the worst in certain things.
So a ratio isn't necessarily a ratio, then? It depends on the population size?
So a ratio isn't necessarily a ratio, then? It depends on the population size?
goober1223
Apr 6, 11:21 AM
With respect, you clearly don't work in advertising. You pay to put ads in front of the right people, not just anyone. Especially not competing advertisers and agencies. Why do you think Google (a) makes so much advertising revenue and (b) collects so much data about its users? Coincidence?
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Secondly individuals are just as greedy as corporations, and generally get to operate outside of the spotlight. Apple has a lot to lose if its iAd platform is seen to be poorly targeting users, but an App developer has a lot to gain from indiscriminate iAd spamming. So in this case, yes, for the sake of self interest I'd expect Apple to reimburse advertisers for clicks inside their iAd app, and I'd expect an independent developer of a similar app to laugh all the way to the bank.
I never said btw I'd expect Apple to reimburse developers for their time on rejected apps. Or if I did I didn't mean it.
I know you didn't say that. I was just explaining my original statement that said that they should.
And no, I don't work in advertising (electrical engineer), so you certainly bring a different view, which I appreciate.
As far as a comparison between corporations and individuals, and in this case Apple, I still see no proof that they aren't charging advertisers for displaying these ads. Certainly, they are more capable than a 3rd party in reimbursing such money, but I also see no proof that there is an exorbitant amount of money to be made here. It's a cool gimmick that will not spend much time in actual use, especially if the ads don't change very often, and if there is no additional content to the application.
Besides, pertaining to your best point, how well are iAds targeted at this point? Considering how few big advertising partners there are, I have a hard time understanding how well they are able to advertise when these ads also aren't included in general browsing, but specifically-purposed apps.
Certainly, Apple wants to get there with iAds, but the first step seems to be to take the premium off of the price. The infrastructure may cost a lot, but they have tons of cash to drain on this project if they want to make it a true competition with google and operate similarly. For instance, if I'm playing "Doodle Bowling", the odds that I will get an iAd for anything relevant to bowling is zero. I also associate bowling with greasy bowling alley food, too, but the odds of having any food advertised (on purpose) appears to be zero, as well. The odds of getting an advertisement for a local bowling alley? Again, zero. If I go online and search "doodle bowling" they have tons of options to select from in targeting my search: past search history (and whatever else they know about me), they know that my search is related to bowling, mobile applications, cartoonish games, etc.
The point is, the differences are innumerous. iAds is absolutely primitive in its targeting capability simply by virtue of how many advertising partners it has, and it should not be any different (at this point) how those ad impressions are received.
Yannick
Oct 17, 09:39 AM
To me, it would be good news that Apple supports both HD-DVD and BD.
twoodcc
Aug 11, 07:06 PM
^^ is 200mhz really that important :p
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
macaddict3
May 4, 03:05 AM
love the ad, truly a great device. a year ago everyone joke about the name but now people see the true side of the device what it could actually do.
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
saving107
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
Continue to justify yourself, don't worry, your not the bad guy here, Best Buy is.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
And as much as you hate them, you continue to give them your business and use their Reward Zone service.
schwell
Oct 8, 09:56 PM
About 2 months ago I paid an early termination fee and gave up my iPhone because of the dropped calls. I have a Blackberry on Verizon, and consume about 800 minutes a month (peak times, not nights and weekends) and close to 200MB of bandwidth.
I have not had a single dropped call. I can also finally browse the web without Safari crashing all the time.
I would not call looking at the web on a blackberry surfing. It is more like wading in a kiddie pool.
I have not had a single dropped call. I can also finally browse the web without Safari crashing all the time.
I would not call looking at the web on a blackberry surfing. It is more like wading in a kiddie pool.
Small White Car
May 3, 09:31 PM
The iPad commercials are so much better than the current iPhone ads it's not even funny.
I'm not saying the iPhone ads should be just like this, but surely they can do better than what they've got if they have the creative folks who worked on this beauty.
I'm not saying the iPhone ads should be just like this, but surely they can do better than what they've got if they have the creative folks who worked on this beauty.
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 08:18 PM
I agree with you on this- the comments were definitely rude.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
samcraig
May 2, 12:36 PM
Well I'm sure Steve Jobs could trot out the explanations given here and point out it is nothing right?
Email him the argument that this is nothing and blown all out of proportion. He might have a news conference.
I hate this because it feels like I am ridiculing Steve Jobs like the trolls that come on here. I am not. The world simply isn't black and white. And that is more the case with corporations than individuals.
Agreed. And just because there are those of us that are being vocal - that doesn't mean we don't like Apple or their products. There's no trolling going on here (from me, for example). And I fully understand that companies (all companies) act in their best interest most of the time.
Many posters here see the world as polarized and you're either "with us" or "against us".
Holding Apple accountable does not mean we are against them. And if you don't understand the semantics of that, then there's little hope in explaining it to you.
Email him the argument that this is nothing and blown all out of proportion. He might have a news conference.
I hate this because it feels like I am ridiculing Steve Jobs like the trolls that come on here. I am not. The world simply isn't black and white. And that is more the case with corporations than individuals.
Agreed. And just because there are those of us that are being vocal - that doesn't mean we don't like Apple or their products. There's no trolling going on here (from me, for example). And I fully understand that companies (all companies) act in their best interest most of the time.
Many posters here see the world as polarized and you're either "with us" or "against us".
Holding Apple accountable does not mean we are against them. And if you don't understand the semantics of that, then there's little hope in explaining it to you.
No comments:
Post a Comment