arkitect
Apr 27, 12:02 PM
I'm not a birther. But I would love to know why the certificate looks new when the president is nearly 50. Now I'm about five months older than he, my original birth certificate has faded. The certificate he produced clearly isn't the original. Or if it is the original, it's astoundingly well-preserved.
:rolleyes:
If you'd care to read the stamp at the bottom of the document.
It is a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaiian State Department of Health. Dated 25 April 2011.
I doubt they leave their records lying about to get faded and illegible so of course a scanned copy is going to look pretty good.
Not that I'd take you as a birther, of course…
Link to a download copy (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/longformbirthcertificate.pdf)
:rolleyes:
If you'd care to read the stamp at the bottom of the document.
It is a true copy of the record on file in the Hawaiian State Department of Health. Dated 25 April 2011.
I doubt they leave their records lying about to get faded and illegible so of course a scanned copy is going to look pretty good.
Not that I'd take you as a birther, of course…
Link to a download copy (http://msnbcmedia.msn.com/i/MSNBC/Sections/NEWS/A_Politics/longformbirthcertificate.pdf)
bedifferent
Mar 26, 01:46 AM
No way. The current Lion is a developer preview and not even a beta. For third party applications to test their products on OS X 10.7, just as any 10.X, there are dozens of beta's before it even reaches GM. As a developer since 10.1, I can assure you there has never been an instance of such. Currently Apple is examining the hundreds of bug reports filed by developers as well as many other suggestions before releasing the first official beta.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
If the remote chance this is valid and Apple has set a new precendent for OS X development, then I would know well that Apple officially cares less about OS X and much more about iOS (as evident by the dozens of iOS updates for all iOS devices to date).
This post made me laugh. As a developer who is actively testing and reporting bugs I can tell you that without a doubt this is 100% false. My dozen of bug reports combined with a lot of different discussions happening in the developer forums is a pretty clear indicator they have a while to go.
Side note: Really? Techcrunch?
On point.
DVK916
Jul 27, 11:02 AM
Only the Mac Mini and the iMac's processor can be replaced. the MacBook and MacBook Pro have the processor soldered into the motherboard.
No, this isn't true. All of them have a socket cpu that can be replaced.
No, this isn't true. All of them have a socket cpu that can be replaced.
manu chao
Apr 27, 08:53 AM
No it isn't. They say they are not logging your location. This is correct. If it were incorrect, they would be keeping a database of your phone's exact GPS location. Instead, as they state, they are keeping a cache of the cell towers and wifi hotspots in order to aid the A-GPS system. So, no, they are not logging your (and by your, I mean an identifiable log) exact locations and beaming it home to watch you like big brother.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
They are instructing your iPhone to log your approximate location. And I am sure anybody in this thread (ie, those really knowing about the details) knows the difference between 'Apple is logging your location on its servers' and 'Apple is instructing your iPhone to log your location on your iPhone and computer'.
Tones2
Apr 19, 02:45 PM
Talking to me?
I am not trying to convince; simply stating opinions by providing facts. Problem?
No, I was talking in general. Not at all specifically about you.
Tony
I am not trying to convince; simply stating opinions by providing facts. Problem?
No, I was talking in general. Not at all specifically about you.
Tony
11thIndian
Apr 6, 09:04 PM
Never said it was an industry-wide trent (sic). I said "a lot of professionals" have made the switch.
Thanks.
When what you meant to say was, "A lot of professionals I know.".
Your welcome.
Thanks.
When what you meant to say was, "A lot of professionals I know.".
Your welcome.
radiohead14
Apr 6, 11:45 AM
as long as the new MBAs will have longer battery life (7+ preferably), then i'm cool with the HD 3000 in there, as the MBA's purpose is to be an ultra portable
Renegate
Aug 8, 01:32 AM
I don't know what there is to be underwhelmed about; the rumor has basically been that the main things being covered here would be the Mac Pro (which exceeded my expectations) and the first real glimpse at Leopard (which looks very cool from what I've seen). I didn't find either the Mac Pro or Leopard to be underwhelming, so I don't see anything that would make me feel underwhelmed.
I guess I would be underwhelmed if I had mistaken WWDC for Macworld or something, and expected a bunch of major new product announcements.
And don't forget they said : More things to be announced next week
I guess I would be underwhelmed if I had mistaken WWDC for Macworld or something, and expected a bunch of major new product announcements.
And don't forget they said : More things to be announced next week
azentropy
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
Hopefully there will be new iMacs to go with it. Refresh please!
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
and Mac Pros!
and entry level MacBook!
and Mac minis!
and ...
LegendKillerUK
Apr 6, 10:46 AM
fingers crossed for no Over-heating issues, you know how those turbo speeds can get and how they've treated the 13'' Pros
Any overheating would be caused by the lack of appropriate thermal paste.
My experience is at best anecdotal but I tend to run Windows 7 in Parallels and have a flash stream running in Safari and the CPU doesn't go above 80c, which is perfectly acceptable. :)
Any overheating would be caused by the lack of appropriate thermal paste.
My experience is at best anecdotal but I tend to run Windows 7 in Parallels and have a flash stream running in Safari and the CPU doesn't go above 80c, which is perfectly acceptable. :)
xlii
Apr 8, 05:48 AM
Well fill me in. Our family used to run a small local (and successful) computer store in the 80's and if we had it, we sold it.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
The only reason I can think of (and I know nothing down these lines) is to push more revenue into this quarter (the last quarter just ended March 31st). Perhaps BB made their number for the quarter from Jan 1 to Mar 31 and want to get a running start on this current one.
With cost of inventory being fairly high, why would you stop if you met a "quota"?
The only reason I can think of (and I know nothing down these lines) is to push more revenue into this quarter (the last quarter just ended March 31st). Perhaps BB made their number for the quarter from Jan 1 to Mar 31 and want to get a running start on this current one.
dejo
Aug 7, 06:51 PM
Would Dashcode be considered part of the "Enhanced Dashboard" choice?
marksman
Apr 14, 03:57 PM
Im waiting til June, if iphone 5 is delayed then i will jump to a nice android smartphone. Many people forget that cellular market has changed a lot and now competition is harder than before, there are nice alternatives, very nice ones.
But the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone on the market and will continue to be so well past June.
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
LOL. Right.
But the iPhone 4 is still the best smartphone on the market and will continue to be so well past June.
If you want to choose to get an inferior phone because you want to chase after a spec sheet that is on you. That does not change reality.
A 4" display is already the standard size.
Just because Apple has not progressed is no indicator of their plans for the upcoming model. To continue to lag behind the rest of the pack with a little display would be sad.
LOL. Right.
Jigga Beef
Apr 27, 07:54 AM
Yeah totally, its necessary to check it at every wi-fi hot-spot. Just to make sure wi-fi still exsist..
Yamcha
Apr 19, 02:08 PM
Sorry about the caps but everyone should see this:
EVERYONE: THE PICTURE POSTED HERE IS STRAIGHT FUD. THE F700 WAS NOT ANNOUNCED AT CEBIT 2006! THIS IS A LIE!
Here are the phones they announced: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
So, is it possible for a mod to get rid of this? It's trolling and FUD at its finest.
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
EVERYONE: THE PICTURE POSTED HERE IS STRAIGHT FUD. THE F700 WAS NOT ANNOUNCED AT CEBIT 2006! THIS IS A LIE!
Here are the phones they announced: http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_at_cebit_2006-news-177.php
So, is it possible for a mod to get rid of this? It's trolling and FUD at its finest.
According to Wikipedia It was released in Feb before the iPhone was released..
Popeye206
Apr 19, 02:06 PM
lawsuit aside, that's up to the courts, not all the couch lawyers here....
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
I was wondering if maybe the sales numbers for the iPad are just iPad 1.0 sales and not including iPad 2?
I guess we'll know tomorrow.
PhantomPumpkin
Apr 27, 10:49 AM
Apple identified it? No. Check your history. It was brought TO Apple's attention over a year ago.
It was again brought TO Apple's attention via various reports and articles.
THEN Apple looked into the matter.
I commend Apple for taking action (now).
But let's not rewrite history, shall we?
You're just misinterpreting what I was saying. They identified it as a potential issue, instead of saying "there's nothing wrong, we're not going to do a darned thing." I wasn't saying the brought it up to the media's attention on their own.
Nitpicking, is well, nitpicky?
It was again brought TO Apple's attention via various reports and articles.
THEN Apple looked into the matter.
I commend Apple for taking action (now).
But let's not rewrite history, shall we?
You're just misinterpreting what I was saying. They identified it as a potential issue, instead of saying "there's nothing wrong, we're not going to do a darned thing." I wasn't saying the brought it up to the media's attention on their own.
Nitpicking, is well, nitpicky?
NAG
Mar 31, 03:14 PM
The real Android bait-and-switch is calling the platform "open" to consumers. Sure, there are a few "Google Experience" devices that have not been mutilated by handset makers, but even those often have closed hardware. The way I see it, Google uses this ruse of openness to get geek support. Geeks then advocate their platform, which is a great form of marketing.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
The reality is that any Android handset with a locked bootloader or no root access from the factory is just about as closed as any iOS device (or BlackBerry, WebOS, Windows, etc. device). The open vs. closed = Android vs. iOS argument is ridiculous, because it focuses on the part of the platform (underlying source code) that matters the least to almost all users.
Actually, I think the open shtick was probably mostly to convince handset makers to abandon Windows Mobile (not that they needed to do much with Microsoft finding new and inventive ways to shoot themselves in the foot). It's open and free meant that the handset makers were not beholden to Redmond, which everyone was chafing under. Just look at HP if you want a good example of former Redmond partners fleeing as fast as they can (which isn't very fast but still).
The handset makers only recently realized, apparently, that Google is not their white knight and Google is just trying to use them as pawns to make everyone dependent on Google advertising. Does this come as any surprise after handset makers started toying with things like removing Google search for Bing or removing the Android marketplace entirely?
Google wanting greater control so they can maintain their business plan isn't evil, of course since only Apple is evil. :rolleyes: Seriously though, the issue here is that Google's true plan (or loyalties, I guess) are being laid bare and they are not what they've been claiming (although if you were paying attention you would have known they were lying from the start). Did they plan to do this from the start? I doubt it. Android has always been reactionary � they tried to fix it with the various Google phones that failed and then tried to decouple components of the OS so they could be updated via the marketplace and not as reliant on the handset makers/carriers. It still doesn't excuse Google for blatantly lying about their motives.
briansolomon
Jul 14, 05:26 PM
It's about time. For a company that prides itself on innovations, features, and ease of use this is something that should not just be coming to fruition now...and should have never been eliminated from the G5 during the change from G4 <<<weird wording but I think you all will get the idea
jmbear
Nov 29, 12:39 PM
See, that's the catch-22 for new artists. The labels are the ones that get tunes played on the radio. In the 50's and 60's they would strong-arm their stuff in, but I'm sure even nowadays they provide incentives (read: bribes) to get new stuff on the air. Especially if they think the band is really good and will make it in the long run. And don't fool yourself into thinking a new band can get huge without radio.
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
The internet can become the new radio. I am quite fond of looking for pre-made playlists, I will get the songs on LimeWire, listen to them, the ones I like, I buy legally, the ones I don�t I delete them. You don�t get commercials, just music. I am not saying that radio is going to dissapear completely. TV didn�t kill it. But its importance will diminish.
The problem is that the labels get the artists by the balls when they sign them up to ridiculous contracts. Your 1-4 examples look pretty good on paper, but in order to sell any significant number of copies of their music, anyone wanting it (but doesn't know it yet) has to wade through tons of (what that persons sees as) crap just to get any exposure to something they'll consider good. I'm sure there's a lot of music in the indie catalog that I would just love, but I don't have the time to wade through it all to find it. Instead, I'll listen to the radio and when I hear something I like, I'll try to pay attention to who it is. I may or may not end up buying it, or checking out what else they do, but without radio exposure, most good indie bands don't have a chance in hell of selling to anyone except those that happen to be in the bar where they're playing one weekend..
iTMS could potentially change this. There are some people that will do all the research for you (as in what is good music), then ratings will allow you to get the good songs! It�s similar (and somebody will flame me for saying this) to researching a product on Amazon or CNET, you usually look for a LCD screen, all the results pop, and you will go for the ones with the highest ratings, read the comments and eventually make up your mind. Some day you will look up for electronic music (which I love), all the DJ�s will pop, you will pick the highest rated songs or playlists (because most people like a song because other people like it), listen to their songs for free (yeah, just like radio), and then buy them if you want.
Now, if you take a look at already established and popular bands, that's a different story. Someone mentioned huge bands like Pink Floyd. Their last couple of CDs didn't need a big label to sell. People were going to buy it if they like Floyd no matter what. And in a case of that kind of popularity, the radio stations were going to play them with or without a major label. The same could be applied to other huge (classic) rock bands, as well as established artists in other music styles (country, rap, R&B, blues, etc...). Another example would be someone like Eric Clapton. He could put one out on "Clapton Records" and would sell nearly, if not exactly, the same number of CDs as he will on a major label..
I agree record labels + good music = superstars like Calpton, Floyd, U2 etc... But these bands became popular in a different time (before the internet). Internet is changing the record labels� business model, and that is what they afraid of. The new wait of creating bands and distributing their music is not as profitable for them as it used to.
Unfortunately, the number of artists (of any type of music) that could dismiss the labels and still sell as many CDs and get the same radio exposure are limited. And any new band is going to go nowhere without radio (or MTV/VH1) exposure.
Internet is offering them exposure. Right now MTV and VH1 are still popular. But YouTube, Yahoo!, MSN could become the new MTV and VH1.
Not really relevant, but interesting to think about is that most of you have probably seen the video of the ruma ruma guy (I can�t link it because I am at work and the proxie does not allow me to visit YouTube). But how many have actually seen the video for the song? YouTube made that fat kid a star, and most people probably know his face better than the guys that sing the song. Exposure.
In the end, I don't see the labels going away totally any time soon. They're in cahoots with the big FM music stations and in general, they do a good job of promoting new good bands that sign up. It's just a shame that there's really nothing to keep them from raping the artists. If there were just some way for new bands to get exposure to the masses without having to sell their souls to the labels then things would be better. Unfortunately, the Internet can only go so far in helping a new band with this.
I agree, they won�t go away anytime soon, but change is coming, and change will be good for artists and consumers, not for the record labels.
Sorry for my weird grammar or mispells, I am not a native english speaker, I don�t have a spell checker on this computer (in english at least) and I am too lazy to proof read what I wrote lol :)
Vegasman
Apr 27, 08:57 AM
Ah, I see. I wasn't checking the WSJ, only Macrumors.
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
Woah! That's a scrary thought. ;)
EvilEvil
Apr 11, 03:55 PM
makes my recent iphone 4 purchase look like a good decision. Sorry for those who are waiting for the 5 :o
qft!
qft!
whooleytoo
Sep 13, 07:22 AM
Man, I don't know why people keep saying this. On OS X, *all software utilizes the extra cores*. The only way it wouldn't is if you have less than 8 processes running, which I guarantee you that you don't. (System alone requires 20-30 processes to run.)
Actually, it's even less than 8 - as a process can have several threads each of which can be moved to idle processors. Safari alone on my Mac currently has 23 threads at the moment, my system overall 277.
Actually, it's even less than 8 - as a process can have several threads each of which can be moved to idle processors. Safari alone on my Mac currently has 23 threads at the moment, my system overall 277.
Lone Deranger
Mar 26, 09:43 AM
OS X is still based on UNIX, dating back to '69.
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
You say that as if that's a bad thing. NT≠Unix. :)
