jfyrfytr25
Apr 4, 11:00 AM
they'll let people upgrade at the subsidized iphone price (with a new 2-yr deal) because they'll see a mass exodus of subs if they don't.
it will all work out.
there was supposed to be a mass exodus when the Verizon iPhone was reeased as well/ It was not as many as the analysts expected. I doubt there will be a mass exodus for this either becasue the majority of people are sheep. They might get mad for a moment, but eventually they will justify staying and that will be it. Making a stand is hard, conforming is easy.
it will all work out.
there was supposed to be a mass exodus when the Verizon iPhone was reeased as well/ It was not as many as the analysts expected. I doubt there will be a mass exodus for this either becasue the majority of people are sheep. They might get mad for a moment, but eventually they will justify staying and that will be it. Making a stand is hard, conforming is easy.
bella92108
Apr 6, 08:44 PM
Is there anyway to change an app icon from a app store-purchased app on the iPad 2? (Without a jailbreak, obviously)
No
No
alexbasson
Apr 6, 02:08 PM
I think it's funny all the comments about "is that enough?" I think this proves two things...
1. Most people don't quite understand just how much a million/billion/trillion of something is.
2. People think that this 12PB amount must have been decided upon arbitrarily, as if Apple didn't do a crapload of research to decide what a good starting amount would be.
Here's another good visual representation of trillion, in dollars:
What does a trillion dollars look like? (http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
Here's what I understand about how much 12 PB is: My own video/music collection is a shade over 3 TB. That's .025% of 12 PB, and that's not taking RAID or similar backup/redundancy solutions into account. Considering how many movies and TV shows I don't own, 12 PB doesn't seem like all that much to me, if you're trying to be a media provider.
I'm generally inclined to trust that Apple knows what it's doing, and I'm sure they did their research well. When I wonder if this will be "enough", this implies that I have some expectations, or at the least hopes, for Apple's plans for this storage capacity. Point being: 12 PB may not be enough for what I'm hoping Apple will offer in the near future, which implies that Apple may not be planning what I'd hoped they were planning.
1. Most people don't quite understand just how much a million/billion/trillion of something is.
2. People think that this 12PB amount must have been decided upon arbitrarily, as if Apple didn't do a crapload of research to decide what a good starting amount would be.
Here's another good visual representation of trillion, in dollars:
What does a trillion dollars look like? (http://www.pagetutor.com/trillion/index.html)
Here's what I understand about how much 12 PB is: My own video/music collection is a shade over 3 TB. That's .025% of 12 PB, and that's not taking RAID or similar backup/redundancy solutions into account. Considering how many movies and TV shows I don't own, 12 PB doesn't seem like all that much to me, if you're trying to be a media provider.
I'm generally inclined to trust that Apple knows what it's doing, and I'm sure they did their research well. When I wonder if this will be "enough", this implies that I have some expectations, or at the least hopes, for Apple's plans for this storage capacity. Point being: 12 PB may not be enough for what I'm hoping Apple will offer in the near future, which implies that Apple may not be planning what I'd hoped they were planning.
Porco
Apr 30, 07:45 PM
This instantly made me think of Laputa: Castle in the sky [....]
ld go for this over iCloud. It's a brilliant idea to brand a cloud related service as a castle. It just fits. They can even claim that it's "magic as a castle in the sky"
(Movie Spoiler):
As big a fan of the film, and Miyazaki, as I am, I'm not sure the end of the film would make for a good analogy!! 'Store your data with Apple: watch it crumble into the sea or float off into space!' :)
ld go for this over iCloud. It's a brilliant idea to brand a cloud related service as a castle. It just fits. They can even claim that it's "magic as a castle in the sky"
(Movie Spoiler):
As big a fan of the film, and Miyazaki, as I am, I'm not sure the end of the film would make for a good analogy!! 'Store your data with Apple: watch it crumble into the sea or float off into space!' :)
more...
CaoCao
Mar 17, 08:33 PM
I know right? Christians are totally equivalent in women's clothing to Muslims. I mean, asking for the skirts to be to their knees, for them to not see midriff, or parts of the breast is totally equivalent to making the wear burkhas. And then there is the audacity to ask for them to not be exposed to butt crack on the beach, simply appalling their curtailing of freedom!
k1121j
May 1, 11:29 AM
all i know if they let you store video and music they better offer gobs of space or it wont work for me i have Well over 500 GB of iTunes purchases and my total media lib it nearing 2TB i would pay for this service if it offers streaming... after a recent close call with my Drobo and thanks to apple to letting me redownload all my purchases from the dawn of time i lost only a few hundred GB of data however my main machine is an iMac that has a 3TB drive and backing up to my drobo after i hit 3TB i dont know what to do or where to store it all and back it up.
is anyone else running in to this problem
is anyone else running in to this problem
more...
JAT
Apr 29, 12:50 PM
Quality over Quantity. I'm sure Ford outsells BMW, but BMW is obviously the better choice.
Can we go with Lexus, instead? Thanks!
Can we go with Lexus, instead? Thanks!
Diatribe
Feb 12, 03:05 PM
Hehe, congrats all. You know what they say, power corrupts :D
I guess now I have to choose my words wisely when talking about Keira :p
I guess now I have to choose my words wisely when talking about Keira :p
more...
���h�?
Oct 23, 05:14 AM
Love it although i have never found her attractive in the slightest.
Koodauw
Mar 30, 03:26 PM
Sounds pretty sweet. I would love a hand made one of a kind bag for my Powerbook. If only they were truely stylish.
more...
phas3
Dec 5, 09:02 PM
http://i55.tinypic.com/kbrozs.png
mmmmm oliviaaaaa in full 1080p
mmmmm oliviaaaaa in full 1080p
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
more...
mcdj
Mar 27, 08:56 PM
You don't believe me? He sent that to my eBay and now the auction is cancelled like he just said he was going to do. Sucks but I dont think that other guy is going to get his money back. Not like we are going to find out either.
Oh I believe you now, but you didn't say he messaged you through ebay before�I thought you meant he pm'd you here.
Oh I believe you now, but you didn't say he messaged you through ebay before�I thought you meant he pm'd you here.
whyrichard
Jan 20, 02:33 PM
http://nytimes.com/2004/01/19/business/19neco.html
more...
gkarris
Nov 23, 10:44 PM
Discussed here:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1047192
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1047192
Eric374
Apr 30, 06:24 PM
Handbrake works well too.
more...
Chrisdanger
Mar 23, 09:46 AM
It looks like the field of potential "heirs" to Steve-O's throne is reduced. I will say the Steve Austin robot eye didnt win him any favors. Sad to see him go, bring on the next contestant
HarryPot
Oct 5, 11:24 PM
do you have a link to the wallpaper by any chance? Thanks!!
Link. (http://www.myhdwallpapers.net/wallpapers/Cartoon-boy-1440x900.jpg)
It has some letters in the bottom left, but it can be easily taken out in PS.
Link. (http://www.myhdwallpapers.net/wallpapers/Cartoon-boy-1440x900.jpg)
It has some letters in the bottom left, but it can be easily taken out in PS.
tunerX
Jul 25, 06:27 PM
http://portforward.com/cports.htm
ChrisA
Nov 29, 12:12 PM
What Apple needs to do is establish the "normal" rights a user gets when they buy a video. Of course every Disney film will come with the normal, default rights. Then if another studio wants to sell a video with different rights attached iTunes should clearly label the video in big red letters as being "crippled with restrictive usage rights" Then a pop-up dialog box should appear that explains this and asks "Do you really want this crap are would you prefer we mailed you the DVD copy" Finally after reading the warning label and clicking yes in the pop up you can download the film.
In my opinion the whole argument is moot. The video quality is so low I would never buy it.
In my opinion the whole argument is moot. The video quality is so low I would never buy it.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 5, 03:07 PM
And last but not least. (sorry if I've posted to many, I just love taking photos) :o
Not at all!! That is what this thread is for, and you and your awesome photos are always welcome.
A couple of those S2Ks earlier are AWESOME!! I've been really thinking about getting rid of my Talon and buying one of those. I need a new project car, and the S2K would be great. Those are just classic looking, so even years down the road, it will still look great. Thanks for the pics.
Not at all!! That is what this thread is for, and you and your awesome photos are always welcome.
A couple of those S2Ks earlier are AWESOME!! I've been really thinking about getting rid of my Talon and buying one of those. I need a new project car, and the S2K would be great. Those are just classic looking, so even years down the road, it will still look great. Thanks for the pics.
puckhead193
Mar 18, 12:29 AM
I don't know if this was listen but i was browseing the apple downloads page and came across this (http://www.objectpark.net/)
it puts a mini ical icon in the task bar. Once clicked, a mini calender pops up and u can hover over the dates and it shows whats scheduled. I like because it shows the real date in the task bar for easy refference. Check it out
it puts a mini ical icon in the task bar. Once clicked, a mini calender pops up and u can hover over the dates and it shows whats scheduled. I like because it shows the real date in the task bar for easy refference. Check it out
Mgkwho
Nov 4, 02:39 PM
People have already been commenting on future generations/revisions of the shuffle.
This is how I see the shuffle's roadmap:
Currently, it is at 1GB.
I think the next revision will bump it to 2GB at the same price point. That's what happened with the nano AND shuffle a year later. (although the shuffle did increase by $10, maybe due to the dock/form factor difference?)
My opinion is that they can not have two shuffles at 1GB and 2GB because of the price right now, and the intrusion into the nano market. Right now, prove me if I'm wrong, 2GB flash memory costs anywhere from $50-$100?
I also see Apple chopping off the part on the left that does not have controls. They will move the headphone jack over as well as the controls so that it fits in a 1"x1" section. That will probably be 3rd Gen, maybe at 4GB.
I think by the time 4GB becomes cheap/small enough to fit in an under $99 price point, they will be able to chop off that left side.
SO in my own opinion:
1GB at $79
becomes
2GB at $79 (sept '07 iPod Special Event)
becomes
4GB at $69 (sept '08 iPod Special Event) w/ left side chopped off. The reduction in price is just due to less material costs because of smaller size and advancements in manufacturing/technology.
I really do think it will take two years to see a 4GB shuffle because of size and price. Apple has historically doubled the size at the same price for the nano and shuffle, and granted that is only a year's work of data.
What does everyone think?
-=|Mgkwho
This is how I see the shuffle's roadmap:
Currently, it is at 1GB.
I think the next revision will bump it to 2GB at the same price point. That's what happened with the nano AND shuffle a year later. (although the shuffle did increase by $10, maybe due to the dock/form factor difference?)
My opinion is that they can not have two shuffles at 1GB and 2GB because of the price right now, and the intrusion into the nano market. Right now, prove me if I'm wrong, 2GB flash memory costs anywhere from $50-$100?
I also see Apple chopping off the part on the left that does not have controls. They will move the headphone jack over as well as the controls so that it fits in a 1"x1" section. That will probably be 3rd Gen, maybe at 4GB.
I think by the time 4GB becomes cheap/small enough to fit in an under $99 price point, they will be able to chop off that left side.
SO in my own opinion:
1GB at $79
becomes
2GB at $79 (sept '07 iPod Special Event)
becomes
4GB at $69 (sept '08 iPod Special Event) w/ left side chopped off. The reduction in price is just due to less material costs because of smaller size and advancements in manufacturing/technology.
I really do think it will take two years to see a 4GB shuffle because of size and price. Apple has historically doubled the size at the same price for the nano and shuffle, and granted that is only a year's work of data.
What does everyone think?
-=|Mgkwho
FSUSem1noles
Apr 1, 05:49 AM
Happy April Fools!!!
