Why are Apple on a witch hunt?
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
Apple should concentrate on fixing their problem instead of finger pointing and deflecting the issue onto other companies. We already know the problem isn't as severe on other devices as the iPhone 4.
I'm not saying that all other smart phones owners are jealous of my iPhone, I think we can all agree thats nonsense.
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
I don't think I've ever seen such a consistent troll on any forum.
"Consistent" is an understatement.
"Consistent" is an understatement.
yeah i'm not sure if its the card, or that slot in the motherboard
i bet its pretty close to the other ones? thus the heat.
i bet its pretty close to the other ones? thus the heat.
He probably did pocket the cash, since he asked if everything was cool when he handed me the bag, that def ran through my mind a few times.
go apple for having the 30" as cheap or cheaper than every one else. now the other models are getting better. most 20" are sub 300, 24" sub 800. if i had 2000 to spend the apple 30" is my choice.
the 20 isnt appeal cuase i just bought a 19wide for 170.
the 20 isnt appeal cuase i just bought a 19wide for 170.
I wonder what the special promotion is.
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
I bet it is simply..."We have the iPad 2 in stock and no one else does. Come get one."
That was actually fixed in the build before this one.
Ah, okay. Guess I just didn't notice it till this build. :)
Ah, okay. Guess I just didn't notice it till this build. :)
New watch. It's not supposed to be pretty; I have a better-looking one for occasions that need it.
In reality the whole 'Showtime' theme is really just to introduce a new movie staring Steve. :eek:
mine just says connecting
Didn't the Open Darwin project get shut down a few months back already?
Yes, that project closed down, but OpenDarwin, and the associated Web site, and the decision to give up, were all independent of Apple.
I don't like the concept of Apple loosing its open kernel due to someone reading between the lines on what is legal and what is right. Thats sad.
This is really the same thing that was being done by the earlier project. The claim from Apple all this time has been that Darwin (but not the higher level OS X stuff) is open source; this is supposed to be happening.
Yes, that project closed down, but OpenDarwin, and the associated Web site, and the decision to give up, were all independent of Apple.
I don't like the concept of Apple loosing its open kernel due to someone reading between the lines on what is legal and what is right. Thats sad.
This is really the same thing that was being done by the earlier project. The claim from Apple all this time has been that Darwin (but not the higher level OS X stuff) is open source; this is supposed to be happening.
take out the sim, go to market on wifi. all carrier restrictions is gone. :p
Untrue. The iPhone is the only phone affected this way.
I laughed at this.
So you mean to say that holding any other phone will never change the reception at all? HA!! Have you read your cell phone's user guide? On one of the first pages they have a diagram of how to hold the phone so as not to lose as much reception. Get a life, and stop calling me fanboy (assuming you're one of "those" people) because I can enjoy a perfectly usable phone more than you can.
I laughed at this.
So you mean to say that holding any other phone will never change the reception at all? HA!! Have you read your cell phone's user guide? On one of the first pages they have a diagram of how to hold the phone so as not to lose as much reception. Get a life, and stop calling me fanboy (assuming you're one of "those" people) because I can enjoy a perfectly usable phone more than you can.
Bad Boys
http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/mo/emv/20060223/12/1326344382_96.jpg
http://eur.i1.yimg.com/eur.yimg.com/ng/mo/emv/20060223/12/1326344382_96.jpg
Are they giving any additional discounts at the retail stores? I thought somebody said that last year they received a scratch off card with 10% off.
Yeah, it's just a big enough change that a new case would have to be bought :rolleyes:
What gives the bad impression is that, since is a 3D rendering, it doesn't have lens distortion (because the guy "forgot" about it). Real lenses always gives you some barrel distortion because they are curved, and the standard camera in a 3D software is always just straight 3 point perspective. When you put it in an angle that gives too much perspective it looks strange.
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
Specially the first image, is a good 3D, but is not realistic enough to be perceived as a photo because of:
1- Lack of lens distortion
2- Very linear noise, obviously applied.
3- Un-natural light
4- Not so realistic dynamic range and exposure
5- Shadows are too smooth for that kind of flash-light
6- Light is too uniform
7- The model is good, but you can see that there are some hard edges that are not natural.
8- Doesn't have any camera meta-data. (he "forgot" to fake that also)
and a few other minor things... but yeah, it's a very good 3D work!:)
if you want to do a little test with your abilities to tell if it's cg or not:
http://area.autodesk.com/fakeorfoto/challenge
a little to easy though... ;)
I got 11 of 12 (the bear), so I trust my own judgment that this is fake as can be.
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
The titanium iphone mod shows it can be done. http://www.engadget.com/2010/02/24/the-titanium-iphone-is-real-really-real-video/
They appear to be movie trailers.
I thought tht too, but there's already a section on the page for trailer. Just about the iTunes Videos
I thought tht too, but there's already a section on the page for trailer. Just about the iTunes Videos
Apple should spend the money spent on pointing fingers at others and no a bumper is not a fix. It only happens to 1% of the users? Greeeeat. That's 1% more than it should. So get to work and stop trying to look at others failures that are similar to yours.
What's apple trying to say? That they are failing At fixing something just better?
What's apple trying to say? That they are failing At fixing something just better?
I don't have AirDrop anymore!
I posted a story to digg (http://www.digg.com/apple/MacRumors_spoils_keynote_for_watchers_on_their_spoiler_free_page) regarding the spoiling issue. I think Arn was extremely responsive to the issue and avoiding these kinds of inadvertent spoiling is difficult to do in this day and age. My brother even txted me a spoiler. Is it possible to be completely unspoiled regarding something like this?
There is no spoiling information so far in the story, but I imagine most of us are avoiding digg like the plague.
There is no spoiling information so far in the story, but I imagine most of us are avoiding digg like the plague.
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
charcoal gray.
That was my point, until it's thoroughly tested in court (or repealed or modified) it remains up to interpretation, which makes most encryption/DRM reverse engineering related work in the US (somewhat) risky business.
DVD Jon may have found a way around this in that he's not currently trying to circumvent the access control, he appears to be trying to apply a compatible access control to files that would not otherwise have one.
B
That was my point, until it's thoroughly tested in court (or repealed or modified) it remains up to interpretation, which makes most encryption/DRM reverse engineering related work in the US (somewhat) risky business.
DVD Jon may have found a way around this in that he's not currently trying to circumvent the access control, he appears to be trying to apply a compatible access control to files that would not otherwise have one.
B
