appleguy123
May 4, 10:28 PM
I'm not too sure how 3d screens work, but don't they devote half of the pixels to the right eye, and half to the left? If so, could you turn 3D off and have a double resolution retina display?
mdntcallr
Aug 24, 01:14 PM
there goes some of sony's good brand quality image.
one the good side. I once had to swap out a battery from apple before.
it was quick and easy. honestly i am a power user, travel tons.
could use a new fresh pair of batteries anyway. i am checking to see if any of my 3 are swapable.
hey not a bad thing. this is preventative. my batteries have been fine, aside from losing life after tons of charges.
one the good side. I once had to swap out a battery from apple before.
it was quick and easy. honestly i am a power user, travel tons.
could use a new fresh pair of batteries anyway. i am checking to see if any of my 3 are swapable.
hey not a bad thing. this is preventative. my batteries have been fine, aside from losing life after tons of charges.
MacRumors
May 4, 10:45 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/im/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/05/04/ios-5-to-finally-deliver-over-the-air-updates/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/04/234536-vz2_500.jpg
The boy with rown hair is
lonely anime girl. sad
Anime Girl Brown Hair - Anime
anime girl with rown hair
Brown Hair Hoodie Anime Girl
and Anime Art~ close cuz
Hair Color: Dark Brown
by Yomei on Wed Nov 18,
Anime Girls.
Anime Girl Brown Hair Hazel;
anime girl vampire. There
Anime Girl Brown Hair Brown
black hair Anime Wolf Girl
Anime Girl With Brown Hair
Description: Brown Hair
Anime Girls With Short Brown
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/05/04/234536-vz2_500.jpg
stuffradio
Mar 28, 11:12 PM
It'll be $129 � the same as ALL of the past upgrades except for Snow Leopard which was Leopard but just a slimmed-down, rewriting of the OS. Apple felt that without a lot of core new features being added, they would give the public a break and just charge a nominal fee for Snow Leopard, rather than the typical $129.
Don't listen to anyone who says differently. It will be $129.
It will be $99.
Don't listen to anyone who says differently. It will be $129.
It will be $99.
Peace
Jan 11, 05:23 PM
That's not a poster, it's a big iPhone. They've got one in every store window. Different images scroll from bottom to top. Obviously this photo is in mid scroll.
BTW - All the iphones in iPhone commercials are very different than my iPhone. They show a small little photo of the person calling instead of a big full screen photo. Don't know why. It's the same in this ad.
ahhh..Gotcha..Duh.
:o
BTW - All the iphones in iPhone commercials are very different than my iPhone. They show a small little photo of the person calling instead of a big full screen photo. Don't know why. It's the same in this ad.
ahhh..Gotcha..Duh.
:o
octoberdeath
Sep 12, 02:14 PM
I have Final Cut Pro and it comes with quicktime pro... my system is telling me all my software is up to date yet iTunes says i need to download the new quicktime. if i download the new quicktime and it isn't pro will it automatically give me pro features?
steadysignal
May 6, 07:07 AM
Worst rumor ever. Sure let's view web pages in 3D (hint: ads will be jumping around).
+1 to you.
3D will be crap for a while.
and the headaches will be plenty.
+1 to you.
3D will be crap for a while.
and the headaches will be plenty.
Raid
Mar 29, 03:06 PM
Yep, poor ole' Saddam, just an innocent bystander. :rolleyes: ....So if Saddam was such a baddie, why didn't Bush Sr. finish the job? Oh yeah, they thought he could be controlled after that. :rolleyes:
In my opinion, the current political leaders have little choice in the current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the reasons for getting into those conflicts, simply packing up and going home is just irresponsible. A transition of power and a peace keeping force will provide the population with more stability and security; and help change those nations in a democratic fashion rather than leaving a power vacuum in volatile situations.
In my opinion, the current political leaders have little choice in the current involvement in Iraq and Afghanistan. Regardless of the reasons for getting into those conflicts, simply packing up and going home is just irresponsible. A transition of power and a peace keeping force will provide the population with more stability and security; and help change those nations in a democratic fashion rather than leaving a power vacuum in volatile situations.
Flowbee
Nov 27, 07:27 PM
I'm sorry; the list was real (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clear_Channel_Communications). It wasn't an official ban per se, more of a suggestion, sent by Clear Channel Communications to stations they owned.
There's a lot of speculation in that Wikipedia article and very few citations of credible sources.
And then there's this...Official response to controversy
Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts (http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden) on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns."
There's a lot of speculation in that Wikipedia article and very few citations of credible sources.
And then there's this...Official response to controversy
Clear Channel officially denies most of these allegations. An article titled Know the Facts (http://www.clearchannel.com/Corporate/PressRelease.aspx?PressReleaseID=1167&p=hidden) on its corporate website addresses many of these concerns."
Scarlet Fever
Sep 4, 07:53 AM
haha i mate of mine got herself a nano against my recomendations... she will be crying when she sees the new ones... :p
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.I fear the files will be too big to download. It would be an overnighter to download a 320*240 movie as it is with my connection, anything bigger will just take far too long. And anyway, if they did that, people would have to re-encode it for their iPods.
I certainly hope that the resolution on the Apple Movie Store will be AT LEAST 480x720 (aka 480P). Otherwise, between Netflix and super cheap DVDs these days, I don't see how Apple can compete with lower than DVD resolution.I fear the files will be too big to download. It would be an overnighter to download a 320*240 movie as it is with my connection, anything bigger will just take far too long. And anyway, if they did that, people would have to re-encode it for their iPods.
iGary
Sep 6, 09:43 AM
why does it say 50% faster. i thought merom was only 20% faster than yonah?:confused:
Cause its faster, but it's still not Conroe. :)
Cause its faster, but it's still not Conroe. :)
Warbrain
Nov 8, 09:10 AM
IMHO the white leaves different marks that are just as back...after awhile ull get a bunch of scuff marks that make the finish look more greyish brown...this is why i hated iBooks
I've never seen an iBook that looked grey even after all the scuffing. I've got an iBook and it still looks white under all lighting conditions.
I've never seen an iBook that looked grey even after all the scuffing. I've got an iBook and it still looks white under all lighting conditions.
xUKHCx
Aug 4, 12:00 PM
Well that makes sense, as it costs lots of money for developers to attend... why should they show it for free live :) Thanks.
The devs are paying to go to all the booths and tutorials where they can learn about the new features and how to impliment them into their software. The Keynote is really just a bit of fun for them.
The devs are paying to go to all the booths and tutorials where they can learn about the new features and how to impliment them into their software. The Keynote is really just a bit of fun for them.
fivepoint
Mar 10, 06:22 PM
While Democrats and Republicans bicker back and forth about whether to 'cut' 6 billion or 60 billion, there are a few lone voices in the legislature that actually realize the problem, and are actually willing to talk about it. Rand Paul is one of these voices and he gave a great speech yesterday which I think addresses the problems far more clearly than you'll get from any Elephant or Donkey on the hill. Take a moment and read it through. Many of you don't realize just how bad the problem is, but it's not necessarily your fault. There aren't many leaders out there that are willing to be so blunt and honest about the situation and to openly admit that neither side is trying hard enough to fix it.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
Listen Democrats, listen Republicans... It's NOT Enough! 6 billion isn't enough, 60 billion isn't enough, heck, even 600 billion isn't enough. We've got to cut entitlements, we've got to cut military, nothing is sacred. We must work harder, we must cut more, we must reconsider the scope of government and put ourselves back on a path towards fiscal sanity.
Watch It:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nMqcLQzD-aA
Read It:
We are discussing and debating two different alternatives, one from the other side of the aisle and one from our side, about what we should do about the budget deficit.
We have projected a $1.65 trillion deficit in the next year.
I think both alternatives are inadequate and do not significantly alter or change our course. On the Democrat side, we have a proposal to cut about $5 billion to $6 billion for the rest of the year. To put that in perspective, we borrow $4 billion a day.
So the other side is offering up cuts equal to one day’s borrowing.
I think it’s insignificant and it will not alter the coming and looming debt crisis that we face.
Now, on our side of the aisle, I think we have done more, the cuts are more significant, but they also pale in comparison to the problem.
If we were to adopt the president’s approach, we would have $1.65 trillion deficit in one year. If we were to adopt our approach, we’re going to have a $1.55 trillion deficit in one year. I think both approaches do not significantly alter or delay the crisis that’s coming.
Now, it’s interesting when we talk about cuts, everybody seems to be giddy around here, saying this is the first time we have talked about cuts.
Well, it is better and it sounds good, but guess what? We’re not even really cutting spending. What we’re talking about is cutting the rate of increase of spending. The base line of spending is going to go up 7.3 % according to the CBO.
We’re talking about reducing that increase to 6.7% increase. We’re talking about cutting the rate of increase of government. The problem is it’s not enough.
Our deficit is growing by leaps and bounds. Our national debt is $14 trillion. Our national debt is now equal to our entire economy. Our gross domestic product equals our national debt.
The president, I think, is tone deaf on this.
We had an election, and in the election, the people said we’re concerned about out-of-control spending, we’re concerned about massive deficits, we’re concerned about passing this debt on to our kids and our grandkids.
The president recently proposed a 10-year budget, a 10-year plan for spending. He proposes that we spend $46 trillion. That means they aren’t getting it.
You have – in Washington, official Washington is not getting what the people are saying, and they’re not getting how profound the problems are.
Spending $46 trillion?
The president’s plan will add $13 trillion to the debt, and the Republicans say ‘oh, well ours is a lot better.’ Theirs will add $12 trillion to the debt.
I think it’s out of control, and neither plan will do anything to significantly alter things.
We’re spending $10 billion a day.
In order to reform things, in order to change things around here, we will have to come to grips with the idea of what should government be doing, what are the constitutional functions of government, what were the enumerated powers of the Constitution, what powers did the Constitution give to the federal government, and then examine what we’re actually doing. What are we spending money on that’s not constitutional or shouldn’t be done here or should be left to the states and the people respectively?
Once upon a time, our side believed that education was a function of the states and the localities. It’s not mentioned in the Constitution that the federal government should have anything to do with education.
Does that mean we’re opposed to education? No, we just think it should be done at a state and a local level.
Ronald Reagan was a champion of eliminating the Department of Education. It was part of the Republican Party platform for 20 years. But then we got in charge after the year 2000, and we doubled the size of the Department of Education.
If you are serious about balancing the budget, if you are serious about the debt, you have to look at taking departments like the Department of Education and sending it back to the states and the localities.
You have to look at programs that are growing by leaps and bounds like Medicaid and food stamps, cap them, block-grant them and send them back to the states. The states can manage these things better. The more close they are to the people, the better managed they will be.
The other compromise that needs to occur – and this is something our side needs to compromise on.
Our side has blindly said that the military should get anything it wants, and it’s a blank check.
What do you want? Here it is. We have increased military spending by 120% since 2001. We have doubled military spending.
Now, I’m for a strong national defense. I believe that it is a constitutional function of the federal government to provide for our national defense. I think it is the pre-eminent power, the pre-eminent enumerated power, the thing we should be doing here. But even that being said, we cannot every eight years double the Defense Department, double the military spending.
It’s also ultimately the compromise.
Within the space after few years, everyone here will come to an agreement, not because we want to but because we’re forced to by the events and by the drama of the debt crisis. It will come. It’s come to other nations.
When it comes to us, the compromise that both sides of the aisle will have to work out is, the other side of the aisle will have to admit we cannot have enormous domestic spending, and our side of the aisle will have to admit that we can’t give a blank check to the military.
We will also have to look at entitlements. Everyone’s afraid to say how we reform entitlements, but there are two inescapable facts with entitlements: We’re living longer, and there is a lot of people that were born after World War II that are getting ready to retire. These are inescapable demographic facts. We have to address them. If we simply do nothing, if we do not address the entitlements, within a decade, entitlements will account for the entire budget and interest. There will be no money left for anything.
So right now, the argument is about all these other programs. There will be no money left for any of these programs if we do nothing.
It’s going to take both sides of the aisle grappling with this and admitting that the rules and eligibility will have to change for Social Security, and likely for Medicare.
If you do it now, you can do it gradually. If you start now, you can gradually let the age rise for Medicare and Social Security for those 55 and under. If you do it gradually. I think young people have already acknowledged this is going to happen.
You ask young people anywhere across America, ‘do you think you’re going to have Social Security when you retire? Do you think you’re going to get it at 67?’
Most young people acknowledge that it’s broken, it’s broken so badly that the only way we fix it and the only way it can continue is we have to look at the eligibility.
But so many people have said ‘oh, we can’t talk about entitlement. You will be unelected, you will be unelectable if you talk about entitlement reform.’
The president still makes this mistake. He will not lead us. He will not talk and give a leadership role to entitlement reform. Someone must do it. We must stand up and be bold because the longer these problems fester, the longer we allow them to accumulate, the bigger the problems become. The more dramatic the answers must be.
If you look at Greece and these other nations that have faced debt crises, their problem came to a head all of a sudden and they changed the age on Social Security like that.
If we want to do it gradually and let people plan for their future, you need to start now before we enter into a crisis. My problem with the discussion and the debate at this point is that I don’t think either side recognizes the enormity of the problem or the imminence of the problem.
Even people who would be considered to be those of the mainstream – the former Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan says 50% of chance that there will be some kind of monetary problems, significant monetary problems, even to the point of crisis in the next few years.
Many people have said Japan is locked in crisis, that crisis is coming because of the debt that they’ve accumulated.
When that comes to America, do we want to have government by crisis?
Already we can’t even pass a budget. We can’t pass appropriations bills. Our bills do not even go to the committees anymore. They just come to the floor and we put a patchwork quilt on them and there’s a chance this ends up being two more weeks. It is not the way you should run government.
If you want to have a significant plan for changing things, send things through the committee. If you want to have a realistic way of running government, have appropriations bills.
If you want to be someone who believes in good, responsible government, for goodness sakes, pass a budget. We didn’t pass a budget last year.
This chart shows how big the problem is. I wish I had a magnifying glass because that’s the only way you could see the other side’s proposal: $6 billion in cuts. It’s one day’s borrowing. It’s not even one day’s spending that they’re talking about. It’s insignificant, it’s inconsequential, and it will do nothing to delay or alter the looming debt crisis.
Look at the other proposal from our side.
It’s bigger – you can actually see it without a magnifying glass – but look how it is dwarfed by one year’s problem.
I recently proposed $500 billion in cuts and when I went home and spoke to the people of my state, spoke to those from the Tea Party, they said, $500 billion is not enough and they’re right.
$500 billion is a third of one year’s problem.
Up here that’s way too bold, but it’s not even enough.
But we have to counterbalance and understand the alternatives here.
If we do nothing, all of the programs that people are so fond of, extolling and saying will be gone.
So I implore the American public and those here to look at this problem and say to Congress, we’re not doing enough; you must cut more.
krazzix
Jun 25, 04:05 AM
Not very likely,
I think it's going to be a new apple TV running iOS4 which can be controlled from your ipad/iphone :)
I think it's going to be a new apple TV running iOS4 which can be controlled from your ipad/iphone :)
sixth
Sep 12, 03:12 PM
how do you update your artwork? i have a ton of music on my pod and i want the artwork, how the heck do get the artwork?
bilbo--baggins
Jan 11, 04:32 PM
Maybe they'll announced that they've finally got AirDisk working with the Airport Extreme n, and will apologise for their complete incompetence and track record with this product so far.
If we're REALLY lucky we might even be able to use AirDisk with Time Machine.
Or maybe it will be the smell of ******** when Steve gives some other product the false hype that the Airport Extreme got...
If we're REALLY lucky we might even be able to use AirDisk with Time Machine.
Or maybe it will be the smell of ******** when Steve gives some other product the false hype that the Airport Extreme got...
rhett7660
Nov 13, 11:34 AM
I'm seriously amazed that ANYONE is defending Apple here.
w00master
That is ok, between this post and your previous post, I am surprised you are still here. Because you are offering so much to this conversation by just saying that all of the Apple people are just koolaid drinking fanboys. Really.
w00master
That is ok, between this post and your previous post, I am surprised you are still here. Because you are offering so much to this conversation by just saying that all of the Apple people are just koolaid drinking fanboys. Really.
fkhan3
Mar 25, 12:34 PM
Downloading... no more issues please, fingers crossed
Full of Win
Mar 28, 12:57 PM
Lenox Mall one in Buckhead. Here without a car, so it has to be something I can Marta to. I got there early this morning and the sign was already up that they were out of stock for the day.
If you have an idea where I could look let me know. I'd love a 64 gig black ATT ready Ipad2. Many coworkers have either the original or the newer iPad and I'm ready to hop on that train.
I don�t know if Apple systems take takes this into account for stock distribution, but LS would be one of the last places I�d expect to find an AT&T/GSM based iPad, given the US Headquarters for AT&T Mobility 1500 feet from the mall.
There are other stores, I like the one in North Point. Not too big and not the snobbery found at LS, IMHO. However, if you don�t have a car, I guess its kind of moot.
If you have an idea where I could look let me know. I'd love a 64 gig black ATT ready Ipad2. Many coworkers have either the original or the newer iPad and I'm ready to hop on that train.
I don�t know if Apple systems take takes this into account for stock distribution, but LS would be one of the last places I�d expect to find an AT&T/GSM based iPad, given the US Headquarters for AT&T Mobility 1500 feet from the mall.
There are other stores, I like the one in North Point. Not too big and not the snobbery found at LS, IMHO. However, if you don�t have a car, I guess its kind of moot.
teme
Apr 11, 08:42 AM
Quite greedy strategy. Adobe's prices are so expensive, that you would expect a longer support for your purchase than one year (especially in Dreamweaver and Flash, because they are used in an areas where technology goes forward all the time). And anyway, probably all mid-cycle updates will be so minor that most users won't buy them - Adobe doesn't get money, they just piss off customers with these expensive service pack updates.
CHAOS STEP
Apr 7, 03:20 PM
Don't misunderstand me. I'm not saying we need religion to raise children, but we better have a moral code of some kind to replace it with.
The overwhelming majority of humans are born with a built in 'code' already. It's something called 'empathy'.
The overwhelming majority of humans are born with a built in 'code' already. It's something called 'empathy'.
Westside guy
Aug 2, 11:12 PM
Some of you should consider getting a smug-ectomy - this looks like a proof of concept more than anything else. Depending on exactly where the point of vulnerability is (which is not totally clear, perhaps intentionally) down the road this could have implications for built-in airport cards as well.
A couple years ago a security researcher discovered an Internet Explorer exploit that took advantage of a jpeg vulnerability. For this exploit to work, a user had to drag the image from the browser and onto their desktop, so many people blew it off - I mean, who would be stupid enough to do that? Well, after a bit more time other hackers (please don't bother "correcting" that) figured out how to take advantage of this exploit with some specially crafted script that could leverage the vulnerability without actual user interaction required.
I would agree that, at this moment, it's not a problem most Mac users need to worry about. But blowing it off completely is sophomoric at best.
A couple years ago a security researcher discovered an Internet Explorer exploit that took advantage of a jpeg vulnerability. For this exploit to work, a user had to drag the image from the browser and onto their desktop, so many people blew it off - I mean, who would be stupid enough to do that? Well, after a bit more time other hackers (please don't bother "correcting" that) figured out how to take advantage of this exploit with some specially crafted script that could leverage the vulnerability without actual user interaction required.
I would agree that, at this moment, it's not a problem most Mac users need to worry about. But blowing it off completely is sophomoric at best.
cutsman
Mar 2, 01:07 AM
http://cman.zenfolio.com/img/s3/v26/p822638810-4.jpg
