TheMacBookPro
Apr 24, 01:50 AM
seriously just shut ur pretty faces with the tired backlit keyboard anthem.
Bit rude don't you think?
this is like the least desirable feature
In your opinion.
esp since it has a direct impact on battery life.
Not on my Pro or VAIO Z.
so simple really:
-more power
-longer battery life
-IPS display
-less weight
-runs cool
the new x220 does the mba better in three items above today for a fact. time for apple to step it up again.
Fair enough.
Bit rude don't you think?
this is like the least desirable feature
In your opinion.
esp since it has a direct impact on battery life.
Not on my Pro or VAIO Z.
so simple really:
-more power
-longer battery life
-IPS display
-less weight
-runs cool
the new x220 does the mba better in three items above today for a fact. time for apple to step it up again.
Fair enough.
timmillwood
Oct 16, 05:31 PM
I would love to see a 4gb nano phone which qwerty keyboard, 3mp camera, wi-fi and GPS
iPhone Pro would be a good name
iPhone Pro would be a good name
GregR
Apr 19, 11:12 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPod; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
Also the guy is pointing to the camera/LED flash in the second video. And the camera looks different, maybe a little smaller? And there is a little screen around the two, which catches the light at one point.
Also the guy is pointing to the camera/LED flash in the second video. And the camera looks different, maybe a little smaller? And there is a little screen around the two, which catches the light at one point.
jayP1201
Jan 6, 05:17 PM
Should be in:
Settings > Notifications > Facebook
Although I still get NO notifications no matter what, so I can't guarantee that'll work :(
Thanks.. I'll also try resetting the phone...
Settings > Notifications > Facebook
Although I still get NO notifications no matter what, so I can't guarantee that'll work :(
Thanks.. I'll also try resetting the phone...
more...
OllyW
Feb 19, 07:01 AM
I prefer to think that it is just another example of how Microsoft is becoming more and more irrelevant in the consumer market. They will be the IBM of the '10s.
Obama (and the Chinese Premier) had a high profile meeting with Balmer only last month (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006226.html).
Why was Steve Jobs snubbed? ;)
Obama (and the Chinese Premier) had a high profile meeting with Balmer only last month (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/10/AR2010121006226.html).
Why was Steve Jobs snubbed? ;)
CaoCao
Apr 14, 11:34 PM
Y has a right under your Constitution to be treated equally to anybody else. You can refuse to serve Y because Y is abusive, intimidating, shifty or unreasonable, but not simply because Y is black, gay, "Muslim-looking" or trans-gendered.
Statistically African American youth are far more likely but it would be wrong to discriminate right?
Statistically African American youth are far more likely but it would be wrong to discriminate right?
more...
ivan2002
Apr 12, 04:52 PM
The 3G graph just shows how ignorant people are when choosing between ATT and Verizon.
ATT has the fastest 3G network
ATT has GSM, the standard chipset around the globe
Dropped calls and data plan are not the same thing
All this equals that people are ignorant
You seem to be... ahem... unaware of the fact that Verizon has a much wider 3G coverage than AT&T, and that real world network speeds depend on the use of the network at a given location (especially in densely populated areas) which hurts AT&T network more (as it is the more popular carrier for all the smartphones everyone has).
ATT has the fastest 3G network
ATT has GSM, the standard chipset around the globe
Dropped calls and data plan are not the same thing
All this equals that people are ignorant
You seem to be... ahem... unaware of the fact that Verizon has a much wider 3G coverage than AT&T, and that real world network speeds depend on the use of the network at a given location (especially in densely populated areas) which hurts AT&T network more (as it is the more popular carrier for all the smartphones everyone has).
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
more...
cvaldes
Apr 5, 09:32 AM
I'm really sorry, but I gotta say :woosh:
You're supposed to use smilies when you're being sarcastic on the Internet.
This is the Worldwide Web and not all readers here are native English speakers. If you don't clue others to your sarcasm, your words will often be taken at face value. You have much to learn about effective online communication.
Thank you.
You're supposed to use smilies when you're being sarcastic on the Internet.
This is the Worldwide Web and not all readers here are native English speakers. If you don't clue others to your sarcasm, your words will often be taken at face value. You have much to learn about effective online communication.
Thank you.
PlipPlop
Mar 24, 04:16 AM
Dnla?
more...
cshen
Apr 29, 12:26 PM
Are your APN entries correct, or your carrier file installed?
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
Carrier is Starhub 10.0. The phone was perfectly working before. I've never jailbroke this phone before. I'm still under contract with Starhub.
I've tried to reset the network setting already. Also reset the phone as well. Nothing is working. :(
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
Carrier is Starhub 10.0. The phone was perfectly working before. I've never jailbroke this phone before. I'm still under contract with Starhub.
I've tried to reset the network setting already. Also reset the phone as well. Nothing is working. :(
Manic Mouse
Jan 7, 02:22 PM
I got the 3.1 update yesterday, and I was getting push notifications with badges and alerts but not sound or vibration. I am positive that my silent/ringer switch was set to allow sound.
This morning I got the new 3.1.1 update. Immediately, I noticed that I started getting sound alerts and vibration in addition to the badges and alerts. Yay!
Oooh, what sound does it make? I'm always intrigued by new push notifications. I hope it's the noise the website makes. Pop!
This morning I got the new 3.1.1 update. Immediately, I noticed that I started getting sound alerts and vibration in addition to the badges and alerts. Yay!
Oooh, what sound does it make? I'm always intrigued by new push notifications. I hope it's the noise the website makes. Pop!
more...
laidbackliam
Aug 14, 01:01 PM
When Apple aired those Intel ads of the Intel fab plant talking about dull PCs, a lot of PC users got angry over that. There was quite a backlash against Apple when they do negative advertising like that, simply making PC users look stupid (which they are of course ;)).
that ad was directed at apples base customer though. not all the new ones they plan on getting.
that ad was directed at apples base customer though. not all the new ones they plan on getting.
nbs2
Oct 9, 06:47 PM
I'm getting really sick of companies that complain whenever they're met with competition. They love capitalism until it's working against them. Target and Wal*Mart are acting like little children who don't get their way.
Under the Sherman Act, what Target and Wal*Mart are doing falls under the category of antitrust. Attempting to manipulate the market through the use of contracts and threats aimed towards hurting competitors is defined as antitrust. If Target and Wal*Mart go along with this, a class-action lawsuit can be filed against them for forcing us to pay their prices for DVDs without a lower-priced alternative.
Since people seem to have missed my earlier point when the claim was the failure of the free market:
this is the market in play. This appears to be a business dispute, not governmental involvement. The free market requires communication between businesses to maximize profits.
As for the Sherman, the Act was designed to protect consumers from the leveraging of monopoly power to conspire to control a market. Here, there is no conspiracy to control the market. Rather, there is a complaint by one business entity regarding the activities of another with which it does business. If Target and Wal-mart were conspiring to split the market (or if the industry conspired with T and WM), that would trigger the Sherman.
Grow up local mom and pop store. This isn't a communist nation, we have a little something called Capitalism that's basically social darwinism: Compete or shut up.[emphasis added]
Under the Sherman Act, what Target and Wal*Mart are doing falls under the category of antitrust. Attempting to manipulate the market through the use of contracts and threats aimed towards hurting competitors is defined as antitrust. If Target and Wal*Mart go along with this, a class-action lawsuit can be filed against them for forcing us to pay their prices for DVDs without a lower-priced alternative.
Since people seem to have missed my earlier point when the claim was the failure of the free market:
this is the market in play. This appears to be a business dispute, not governmental involvement. The free market requires communication between businesses to maximize profits.
As for the Sherman, the Act was designed to protect consumers from the leveraging of monopoly power to conspire to control a market. Here, there is no conspiracy to control the market. Rather, there is a complaint by one business entity regarding the activities of another with which it does business. If Target and Wal-mart were conspiring to split the market (or if the industry conspired with T and WM), that would trigger the Sherman.
Grow up local mom and pop store. This isn't a communist nation, we have a little something called Capitalism that's basically social darwinism: Compete or shut up.[emphasis added]
more...
wildmac
Nov 14, 04:40 PM
It sounds really nice, but... perhaps someone got out the press release too soon. The Dutch airline KLM, one of the partners mentioned in the article, are apparently not aware of the deal and respond in surprise to the news. They also say Air France, KLM's owner, nows nothing.
The article, in Dutch: http://www.nu.nl/news/885979/54/%27iPod-aansluiting_in_vliegtuigen%27.html
(Translation by me. I'm not quite sure if the spokesman means 'now', ie. since the announcement, or 'at the moment', ie someting went wrong at the talks.)
It's more likely that one part of the airline isn't talking to the other part.
Also, if figures that anything related to France would surrender first. :D
The article, in Dutch: http://www.nu.nl/news/885979/54/%27iPod-aansluiting_in_vliegtuigen%27.html
(Translation by me. I'm not quite sure if the spokesman means 'now', ie. since the announcement, or 'at the moment', ie someting went wrong at the talks.)
It's more likely that one part of the airline isn't talking to the other part.
Also, if figures that anything related to France would surrender first. :D
likemyorbs
Apr 12, 03:16 PM
As for what I meant- I am trying to illustrate how silly and unrealistic and inherently flawed "anti-discrimination" laws are. Lets say I do not hire a guy because he is black. That is my ONLY reason. HOW is that any different than not hiring a guy because he is not intelligent? He can't help his intelligence, it was passed on to him from his parents.
That's completely different. Intelligence is not fully genetic. You can become intelligent by obtaining an education.
That's completely different. Intelligence is not fully genetic. You can become intelligent by obtaining an education.
more...
likemyorbs
May 2, 11:08 PM
The Liberals deserved it, they need a new leader and this is a big wake up call. The NDP deserved what they received as well. But thankfully we won't waste more of taxpayers money on elections until 2015!
I don't follow canadian politics much, can someone tell me aboot the main ideological differences between liberals and conservatives in canada? eh?
I don't follow canadian politics much, can someone tell me aboot the main ideological differences between liberals and conservatives in canada? eh?
Hrududu
May 2, 01:47 PM
I had opted in on Blizzard's website, but I haven't seen anything about downloading it. I really just want to know if my MBP is going to be capable of playing it. Anyone have an original Core 2 Duo MBP with the 128MB Radeon X1600 thats tried it out?
xyz1534
Mar 10, 10:26 PM
Still undecided on whether to go to the Apple Store or BB...
Either way will probably head over to Stonebriar since I don't think there's a BB near Willow bend....
Either way will probably head over to Stonebriar since I don't think there's a BB near Willow bend....
mrspoons
Mar 14, 08:57 AM
I'm picking up a g4 mini in the next couple of days that has been completely wiped clean.
I don't have any sort of monitor at home and was looking at hooking it up to my Panasonic plasma to set it up from scratch using a DVI - HDMI cable.
Will I actually be able to see anythiing without having an OS already installed or is it going to be a pointless exercise?
I don't have any sort of monitor at home and was looking at hooking it up to my Panasonic plasma to set it up from scratch using a DVI - HDMI cable.
Will I actually be able to see anythiing without having an OS already installed or is it going to be a pointless exercise?
AlphaAnt
Dec 28, 09:28 AM
2) which other carriers will Apple partner with.
If it's Verizon or T-Mobile, I wouldn't consider it a step up. I might consider going back to Sprint now that they've considerably improved their customer service and prices. For me, Verizon would be a lateral move, as their customer service, prices and billing are a serious detractor, and their network is actually worse that AT&T's here where I am.
Verdict: All American cell companies are garbage, period. Just another reason I'm considering moving overseas.
If it's Verizon or T-Mobile, I wouldn't consider it a step up. I might consider going back to Sprint now that they've considerably improved their customer service and prices. For me, Verizon would be a lateral move, as their customer service, prices and billing are a serious detractor, and their network is actually worse that AT&T's here where I am.
Verdict: All American cell companies are garbage, period. Just another reason I'm considering moving overseas.
orangephoto
Sep 20, 10:13 AM
ok the first one is all i needed
the smc said it was already up
now if they would only fix the airport issues...
i hate internet sharing with my powerbook
the smc said it was already up
now if they would only fix the airport issues...
i hate internet sharing with my powerbook
Deputy-Dawg
Sep 25, 10:55 PM
Kimberly Clark fought, and lost, the same battle over 'kleenex' becoming a generic noun for facial tissue. Bayer lost it over 'asprin' as the name for sodium acetosalcylate. And there are numerous other examples. All were lost because the owners of the trade name did not vigorously defend their trade name. Apple is doing what it must. Will they suceed? If history is any clue probably not
Jetson
Aug 14, 10:13 PM
I thought Justin Long was great in Jeepers Creepers, along with Gina Phillips (who played his sister) and of course Jonathan Breck (The Creeper).
That is one scary flick. :eek:
That is one scary flick. :eek:
No comments:
Post a Comment