Thomas Veil
Feb 28, 08:23 PM
Others have touched on this as well, but here's what Charlie said in one of his latest interviews (http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/41824830/ns/today-entertainment/):
...�I�m not angry, I�m passionate,� Sheen told Rossen. �It�s everybody thinks I should be begging for my job back, and I�m just going to forewarn them that it�s everybody else that�s going to be begging me for their job back.�...
In the interview with Rossen, which was taped Sunday in Sheen�s Beverly Hills home, the actor accused Lorre of �trying to destroy my family.� He also again took aim at Alcoholics Anonymous, calling it a failed system developed by a �broken-down fool that was a plagiarist.� He claimed he has conquered his own drug and alcohol problems by the sheer force of his will: �I closed my eyes and made it so.�
After checking himself out of rehab, Sheen set up his own home rehab facility called �Sober Valley Lodge,� from which the principles of A.A. had been banned. �I will not believe that if I do something then I have to follow a certain path, because it was written nice,� he said. �It was written for normal people, people that aren�t special. People that don�t have tiger blood, you know, Adonis DNA.�
He dismissed the idea that he has anything in common with addicts and alcoholics, who he says lack his strength of character, describing them as �fools, trolls. Weak. Defeated. They allowed defeat to be an option. I will not.
�I�m tired of pretending like I�m not special,� Sheen continued. �I�m tired of pretending like I�m not bitching, a total fricking rock star from Mars, and people can�t figure me out; they can�t process me. I don�t expect them to. You can�t process me with a normal brain.�..
Sheen accused his producers, Lorre in particular, of trying to destroy him and his family by �trying to take all my money, and leave me with no means to support my family. It�s not rocket science, you know?�...
Rather than apologizing, Sheen said it was he who was owed an apology, by CBS: �A big one. While licking my feet.�Okay, this is past the point where it's funny. This man has some very serious mental issues. He's starting to out-crazy Gadhafi -- and that's not easy.
...�I�m not angry, I�m passionate,� Sheen told Rossen. �It�s everybody thinks I should be begging for my job back, and I�m just going to forewarn them that it�s everybody else that�s going to be begging me for their job back.�...
In the interview with Rossen, which was taped Sunday in Sheen�s Beverly Hills home, the actor accused Lorre of �trying to destroy my family.� He also again took aim at Alcoholics Anonymous, calling it a failed system developed by a �broken-down fool that was a plagiarist.� He claimed he has conquered his own drug and alcohol problems by the sheer force of his will: �I closed my eyes and made it so.�
After checking himself out of rehab, Sheen set up his own home rehab facility called �Sober Valley Lodge,� from which the principles of A.A. had been banned. �I will not believe that if I do something then I have to follow a certain path, because it was written nice,� he said. �It was written for normal people, people that aren�t special. People that don�t have tiger blood, you know, Adonis DNA.�
He dismissed the idea that he has anything in common with addicts and alcoholics, who he says lack his strength of character, describing them as �fools, trolls. Weak. Defeated. They allowed defeat to be an option. I will not.
�I�m tired of pretending like I�m not special,� Sheen continued. �I�m tired of pretending like I�m not bitching, a total fricking rock star from Mars, and people can�t figure me out; they can�t process me. I don�t expect them to. You can�t process me with a normal brain.�..
Sheen accused his producers, Lorre in particular, of trying to destroy him and his family by �trying to take all my money, and leave me with no means to support my family. It�s not rocket science, you know?�...
Rather than apologizing, Sheen said it was he who was owed an apology, by CBS: �A big one. While licking my feet.�Okay, this is past the point where it's funny. This man has some very serious mental issues. He's starting to out-crazy Gadhafi -- and that's not easy.
AlligatorBloodz
Apr 13, 07:43 PM
Sheep tv would be more like it. What's next, a supermarket?
BAAAAAAAAAAAAD joke
BAAAAAAAAAAAAD joke
trip1ex
Apr 28, 04:20 PM
slow news/rumor day
rather you make up something about the new imacs. ;)
rather you make up something about the new imacs. ;)
KnightWRX
Apr 13, 06:42 PM
Read the article and links - it is all there - you continue to refuse to see it. As I stated in my earlier post - not getting into who is correct or who has refuted who - just saying info is out there giving Apple credit for pushing / envisioning / whatever the lightpeak approach.
I see it, I read it, and I read its rebuttal. Hardly something I'd base facts on, like Chuppa was doing. Again, not quite the citation I was looking for. As it stands, I think Chuppa was wrong.
I see it, I read it, and I read its rebuttal. Hardly something I'd base facts on, like Chuppa was doing. Again, not quite the citation I was looking for. As it stands, I think Chuppa was wrong.
seanpholman
Mar 15, 10:28 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Sean - there's dudes in this line who came from South Coast and said that South Coast had none
Thanks, just dropped my daughter off and on my way to FI.
--Sean
Sean - there's dudes in this line who came from South Coast and said that South Coast had none
Thanks, just dropped my daughter off and on my way to FI.
--Sean
maclaptop
Apr 12, 11:26 PM
The only possible way Apple could announce it at WWDC, is if they already have all parts in stock.
gnasher729
Jul 24, 10:48 AM
I know this does not have much to do with anything in this thread. I have heard Gates owns a some shares of Apple and was wondering how many or what percentage he owns. I have googled, ask jeeves, yahoo and searched this website for 45 minutes for the answer with no luck and thought you all in this thread could shed some light. Thanks for reading.
Zero.
Zero.
JLL
Apr 1, 03:35 AM
I thought that the inverse scrolling was a bug, but in Lion Dev Preview 2 it is still there :eek:
It's user selectable.
It's user selectable.
jonharris200
Jul 21, 12:14 PM
I'm holding off until WWDC to decide what route of "Mac conversion" I am going to be using. If Leopard has a built in Parallels type solution (which I believe it will), then I will absolutely begin my church's mac conversion in January.
"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p
"my church's mac conversion". your church needs converting? :p
cleanup
Jan 31, 11:05 PM
http://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/37497_05_p.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/43898_02_p.jpghttp://www.abercrombie.ca/anf/onlinestore/collection/39155_06_p.jpg
Though I never used to walk in the place unless my girlfriend wanted to go, I've taken a liking to A&F clothing lately for some reason, probably because it's high quality and often goes on sale. Trying to keep the gaudy logos and etc. to a minimum though. The moose/caribou is tolerable, and I nearly didn't buy the hoodie because of the enormous "ABERCROMBIE" on the sleeve, but it was only $30, so I'm not about to complain.
And a bunch of cheap photo accessories from DealExtreme... a hotshoe leveler, wireless Nikon remote (generic, unbranded version), new strap, a wideangle lens for my iPhone, and a couple of cheap filters for my lesser used lenses.
http://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_2341_1.jpghttp://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_39814_1.jpghttp://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_7033_1.jpg
Considering I got 10 items (including 2 straps and 4 filters) for $70, I'm satisfied with only mediocre quality.
[Edit] Oh, also picked up this silly Nikon lens cup as a fun gift for a friend; it was wildly overpriced, but the novelty is worth it. It's too bad it's actually a terrible mug.
http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/158/783/517/ET1exFsxSgWjH9H.jpg
Though I never used to walk in the place unless my girlfriend wanted to go, I've taken a liking to A&F clothing lately for some reason, probably because it's high quality and often goes on sale. Trying to keep the gaudy logos and etc. to a minimum though. The moose/caribou is tolerable, and I nearly didn't buy the hoodie because of the enormous "ABERCROMBIE" on the sleeve, but it was only $30, so I'm not about to complain.
And a bunch of cheap photo accessories from DealExtreme... a hotshoe leveler, wireless Nikon remote (generic, unbranded version), new strap, a wideangle lens for my iPhone, and a couple of cheap filters for my lesser used lenses.
http://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_2341_1.jpghttp://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_39814_1.jpghttp://www1.dealextreme.com/productimages/sku_7033_1.jpg
Considering I got 10 items (including 2 straps and 4 filters) for $70, I'm satisfied with only mediocre quality.
[Edit] Oh, also picked up this silly Nikon lens cup as a fun gift for a friend; it was wildly overpriced, but the novelty is worth it. It's too bad it's actually a terrible mug.
http://www.ioffer.com/img/item/158/783/517/ET1exFsxSgWjH9H.jpg
seble
Apr 15, 07:37 AM
You can 'like' a purchased track from within the music player app now, and post a comment about it. Surprised no one else mentioned this yet... Anyone else spotted any additional changes?
http://instagr.am/p/DKjvV/
I picked up on this before, it was in 4.3.1 for sure
http://instagr.am/p/DKjvV/
I picked up on this before, it was in 4.3.1 for sure
cjcampbell
Jan 26, 09:53 PM
I always wondered where "huffy" came from. :p
[/off topic]
AAPL will recover, but perhaps not soon. The markets are in a state of confusion right now (I can imagine that this week was one roller coaster for day traders! :eek:), but Apple is a solid company with solid earnings, solid growth forecasts, and a solid roadmap for the near future.
I mean, it's not as if Apple is taking on suspect mortgages...:p
Huffy, of course, is manufactured in China by the Russell Corporation. :)
It is true, if your Apple stock has declined, selling is probably the worst thing you can do. If you thought it was worth $169, then it is definitely worth $130 to you. Nothing has really changed since it dropped from its high.
[/off topic]
AAPL will recover, but perhaps not soon. The markets are in a state of confusion right now (I can imagine that this week was one roller coaster for day traders! :eek:), but Apple is a solid company with solid earnings, solid growth forecasts, and a solid roadmap for the near future.
I mean, it's not as if Apple is taking on suspect mortgages...:p
Huffy, of course, is manufactured in China by the Russell Corporation. :)
It is true, if your Apple stock has declined, selling is probably the worst thing you can do. If you thought it was worth $169, then it is definitely worth $130 to you. Nothing has really changed since it dropped from its high.
renewed
Sep 15, 03:13 PM
And correct terms, too (myosin/actin)!
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
That journal looks crazy. Wish it came with the Xbox 360 Bundle.
Burgess07
Apr 15, 06:05 PM
Thank god, I wasn't fond of the new style. I found it kinda confusing and out of place.
Best news ever. I hope they roll it back in other menu's as well.
yay!
Apparently I'm one of the few who liked the new slider buttons.
Best news ever. I hope they roll it back in other menu's as well.
yay!
Apparently I'm one of the few who liked the new slider buttons.
cherry su
Jan 2, 01:15 PM
Emphasis mine. Let's put corn ethanol for vehicle fuel and soy biodiesel aside for a minute. You may be shocked when you find out how much corn and other food is given to livestock to bulk them up for human consumption as meat. It's quite possibly the most inefficient calorie conversion we humans can conjure-- just because we like meat too g**d*** much.
Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating by Erik Marcus opened my eyes quite a bit about this kind of thing.
(Disclaimer: For a period of time, I was vegan because of what I read in that book and other resources. Nowadays I'm "flexitarian", eating meat for only about 10% of my intake, mainly in the interest of family harmony; I could "go veg" again rather easily.)
Agreed. The documentary Food Inc. brought this to my attention. It's quite freaky, feeding corn to cows. o_o
Vegan: The New Ethics Of Eating by Erik Marcus opened my eyes quite a bit about this kind of thing.
(Disclaimer: For a period of time, I was vegan because of what I read in that book and other resources. Nowadays I'm "flexitarian", eating meat for only about 10% of my intake, mainly in the interest of family harmony; I could "go veg" again rather easily.)
Agreed. The documentary Food Inc. brought this to my attention. It's quite freaky, feeding corn to cows. o_o
Yamcha
Apr 25, 11:52 AM
I'm looking forward to it, although I'm hoping the LED IPS display issues are resolved, I don't want to have to deal with yellow tint or dead pixels..
It'd be great if Apple had the same no dead pixel policy as Dell..
Also hoping for a new design..
It'd be great if Apple had the same no dead pixel policy as Dell..
Also hoping for a new design..
HappyPig
Oct 24, 08:32 AM
802.11n isn't due for ratification until 2008. There is a "Draft N v 2.0" due out next year that is supposedly close to what 802.11n will be but there's no guarantee anything will work until the final spec is released in 2008.
Yep, but the new iMacs are shipping with 802.11n's installed. Plus I'd imagine that Apple has its own standards about being compatible with its own stuff (iTV, etc).
Yep, but the new iMacs are shipping with 802.11n's installed. Plus I'd imagine that Apple has its own standards about being compatible with its own stuff (iTV, etc).
SeanZy
Mar 11, 01:40 PM
OMG :eek: Wow.
I'll probably try to hit the local Walmart of BestBuy instead.
Im gonna be driving past the Fullerton Best Buy in about 10 minutes... Ill post info here
I'll probably try to hit the local Walmart of BestBuy instead.
Im gonna be driving past the Fullerton Best Buy in about 10 minutes... Ill post info here
MagnusVonMagnum
Nov 20, 10:40 AM
If you don't address those very good reasons, your argument won't be very convincing. We do not want the CPU suck, the identity leaking, the UI inconsistencies, and the very real risk of "zero day" Adobe bugs.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Whom am I trying to convince? Illogical and irrational people who worship Steve Jobs and hate what he hates? Such people will not care or listen to any form of reason. That's why the word fanatic is in fanboy. No, I talk about an option to turn Flash on or off at will and you find it offensive to even offer an option. That is irrational at best.
Everything you fear would be avoided if someone just turned Flash OFF (or it could default to off and have to be turned on). I've said since the first post the word OPTION. You don't seem to comprehend that word or understand why those of us that would want the choice of having Flash are not asking you to give up anything in the process. You could always turn it off if it were present. We cannot turn it on if it's not present.
In other words, you are not competent to carry on a rational discussion. You're just here to vent.
No, I just don't see any point in trying to carry on a logical, rational discussion with someone whose "argument" is based purely on emotion. If it weren't, you wouldn't object to an option for those of us that don't agree with Steve Jobs point of view because an option satisfies all your arguments against having Flash because you can always just leave it OFF. It cannot do harm if it's off no matter how paranoid you may become about having it on your device.
Many millions of people have Flash installed on their Macs (let alone those using Windows and Linux) and they could remove it. They know that if they do, some web sites will cease to function properly and thus they leave it on. The security concerns you mentioned will be addressed as all security bugs are in both OSX and Windows.
Users of those 120M+ devices don't have to hope. They are already free of Flash!
Free of Flash? You say that in a tone that sounds like they're free of slavery or something. No, what they're free of is the ability to access millions of web sites that require Flash to view them or much of their content and I do not see that as a good thing. But my point of view doesn't require you to see it. I said from the first post I wanted an option to use Flash. You could still choose to turn it off if it were there. I cannot turn on what is not present nor should I have to buy some absurd 3rd party converter that requires their web site to be running to use it.
The analogy makes no sense. Nobody is forcing you to use any Apple product.
And so that makes it OK for him to behave as he does? A lot of us like Apple products, but we would like them a lot better if Steve would just stick to making the products unfettered instead of trying to force his opinions and world view on people in the process. He doesn't like Flash so he decides for everyone they should not use Flash. What if Steve decided iOS shall no longer support MP3 files, only AAC? I suppose you would accept that as OK too? Update iOS and your MP3s no longer function. Yes, that would be just wonderful if they did that. After all, AAC is superior to MP3, so why should Apple support a legacy inferior heavily pirated format? By your logic, they should not.
If you really want the "full web experience" of zero-day Adobe bugs, get an Android phone. Note: Android phones were vulnerable to the last zero-day Adobe bug. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I don't want a phone period guy. I only want and use an iPod Touch. Is there an Android iPod Touch? Android didn't exist when Apple made the claims of accessing the full Internet either and it doesn't make that any less a lie.
The fact that I can't catch zero-day Adobe attacks on my iPhone is a great reason to praise Apple's decision.
You act as if Apple has no vulnerabilities to attack. That is extremely naive to the point of emotionalism once again. In fact it's just the opposite. Apple's security is rated as bad compared to Windows and only the fact that there are so few Mac users compared to Windows has saved it thus far. As the popularity of iOS devices has exploded, it's inevitable that it will start attracting malware. It's only a matter of time. Will you wish you never bought an iPhone on that day or will you recognize that companies simply have to find and patch vulnerabilities. Apple has patched numerous security flaws in OSX over the years. Should we plug our ears and say there is no such thing?
Do tell: what exact sites are you talking about? What exact legacy flash applications are running on those sites to which you can find no substitute?
A quick search (you do know how to do that don't you?) reveals offhand a few example sites that don't use HTML5 video (which could and may in the future, but that doesn't help someone today):
Gametrailers
GiantBomb
Vimeo
Playstation Blog
Stiq of Joy
Engadget
Try some of these effects on this site this with HTML5:
http://superior-web-solutions.com/
Maybe read this article on Flash. Most HTML5 is just a video player. Flash isn't just a video player and it didn't even start as one.
http://www.andrewgreig.com/2010/06/html5-is-not-a-flash-replacement-and-shouldnt-be-seen-that-way/
Perhaps you want an open standard? So when does Apple stop requiring Quicktime on their web sites? :rolleyes:
Nobody is holding a gun to your head. Nobody is holding you hostage.
If you don't like the choices that Apple made, then ditch your iOS device and get an Android. Simple.
No, they're just boring me to death with emotional arguments why everyone should either worship Steve Jobs or leave the platform and get an Android instead similar to the "love OSX or leave it" arguments the fanboys regularly produce.
This is the first little lie in your rant. The iOS users don't find it inconvenient. If Flash were so damn important to them, they would have bought some device that could run Flash.
The fact that you think my statement is a "lie" based on a subjective opinion tells me you cannot even tell fact from fiction let alone lies from opinions. Trying to see someone else's point of view is completely foreign to you. You view the world through tinted lenses. What you say is akin to if you don't like something about OSX, go buy a Windows machine, as if there aren't any compromises along the way on that platform either (not to mention having to replace possibly thousands and thousands of dollars worth of software for a given platform to do so). Not liking something about a given platform and wanting to change it doesn't mean another platform is more viable in ALL areas or that a person may wish to spend a lot of money to make that change just because of that one issue. Perhaps you'd like to send me a free Android phone to replace my aging 1st Gen iPod Touch that I bought before Android even existed? I'd happily consider such an offer. Of course I'll need replacement apps as well.
The people who bought those 120M+ devices disagree with you.
You seem to forge that I and others that actually want Flash are part of those people dude. Get over yourself. Just because you don't like Flash doesn't mean the rest of us have hatred for it. Some of us simply don't like our iPhones, iPads and iPod Touches crippled for no reason. Besides, how you try to turn my initial argument that I'd prefer to see an option to use Flash for those of us that want it rather than no option into this flipping crusade against all things Apple and Flash alike is beyond me. You are making mountains out of mole hills and lies out of opinions. For what? I can't make you see things the way I see them. I never wanted to try. That's why I said OPTION. But you would deny everyone who wants that option to have it just like Steve Jobs. Steve does it because he's a control freak (he was once ousted from Apple for this very reason). I imagine you do it because you love Apple. Sadly, I actually prefer Steve's reason.
This is the second little lie. Apple did provide a choice: they approved the SkyFire App. They didn't have to do that.
Didn't they? It doesn't violate their rules for an app so how could they not approve it without being outright liars? Oh wait. They have done that before so I can see your point. ;)
Apple has also announced they will approve Flash Apps using Adobe's cross-compiler for iOS. If there actually are crucial Flash apps -- you haven't named a single specific one so far -- the owners of those apps should be able to easily cross-compile their apps for the iOS App Store.
Apple formerly announced they would NOT support it. Why did they change their minds? Could it have something to do with the Justice Department starting an investigation into anti-trust behaviors by Apple policies? Noooo....it couldn't be that. Apple is allowed to single out companies it doesn't like and compete with to just willy-nilly throw specifically into their license agreements.
And that is the third little lie. Flash is a proprietary and legacy platform. It's on the way down now.
I say if you don't have Flash you don't have the full Internet and you call that a "lie" based on the above quote? What freaking UNIVERSE do you live in??????? ROTFLMAO. You cannot tell a statement of fact from an idea in your head that somehow says that the "full internet" doesn't include sites that use "propriety" formats. Come on man. That position not only ignore reality it even invalidiates Apple's own web site as being part of the "full Internet" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
You need to try harder. Calling someone a liar when they are obviously stating facts and/or opinions just makes you look immature.
because accusing someone of lying when it's obvious
Even Adobe has acknowledged that a Flash-only choice is a bankrupt strategy (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999). After websites start offering their content with an open standard, you've gotta ask: what exactly is the value in continuing to prop up Flash?
First of all, you are the one that is calling it a "bankrupt strategy". I see nothing in that thread by Adobe that even addresses the matter. Adobe is simply trying to sell products and if they can easily sell more products to Apple users by providing an easy way to convert their hard work Flash sites into HTML5, they are going to do so and laugh all the way to the bank. That in NO WAY invalidates the fact that there are still plenty of Flash only sites out there and plenty of flash uses (e.g. Flash games) that HTML5 is no simple substitute for regardless. Until the Internet is Flash free, there is going to be a need and a will by people to have the option to view Flash.
The mere fact that this Skyfire app has raked in over $1 MILLION in sales already shows just how big that will is. Yet you reject the desire to be able to use Flash web sites as meaningless and unnecessary while the thread title alone proves you wrong.
Lennholm
Apr 22, 05:05 PM
Josh tweeted
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
Do you still think it's ugly?
I was among those that thought it was ugly, and that was an actual leaked device.
Save your breath for something a little more detailed than a mockup based on some guy's sketch.
Do you still think it's ugly?
twoodcc
Nov 21, 08:29 AM
that stats drop pissed me off, i hope those stats get reconciled at some point
Can't find ant update ad to when they will reinstate them...
yeah i know. i read that they would add them, but if they haven't by now, i don't think they will
Can't find ant update ad to when they will reinstate them...
yeah i know. i read that they would add them, but if they haven't by now, i don't think they will
FX4568
Apr 17, 08:41 PM
my mbp 13" i5 plays those games just fine.
yea, a MBP 13 i5 uses a different voltage than the one I stated above.
the Intel GPU largely depends on the processor power, and thus, will have a range of 30-120 FPS difference according to each processor.
yea, a MBP 13 i5 uses a different voltage than the one I stated above.
the Intel GPU largely depends on the processor power, and thus, will have a range of 30-120 FPS difference according to each processor.
BrianMojo
Jul 26, 03:54 PM
I can look at diagrams all day long
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
I'm impressed by your endurance! ;)
mikemac11
Apr 15, 01:46 PM
Looks like mostly bug fixes. Only thing new I have found is the result of putting a window out of focus.
iCal is still same design too.
iCal is still same design too.
