dbhays
Aug 24, 06:38 PM
On the phone with apple support now. Got right through. No CC required.
cdinca
Jan 11, 05:33 PM
If you look at the picture of the iPhone poster, it seems to have a couple of subtle differences compared to my iPhone:
http://images.appleinsider.com/macworld-banner-7.jpg
3) Look very, very carefully at the top left hand corner: Is there a front facing camera hidden amongst the reflections?
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera.jpg http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera2.jpg
I say no on this one
http://70.47.1.63/imholder/phreflect.jpg
but yeah...it does look like icons on the desktop.
http://images.appleinsider.com/macworld-banner-7.jpg
3) Look very, very carefully at the top left hand corner: Is there a front facing camera hidden amongst the reflections?
http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera.jpg http://www.codefarm.co.uk/userpics/camera2.jpg
I say no on this one
http://70.47.1.63/imholder/phreflect.jpg
but yeah...it does look like icons on the desktop.
%2Bp.JPG "Category Cartoon Cupcakes")
iGary
Aug 24, 12:11 PM
Apple's having a bad day.
Creative and now this.
Creative and now this.
RWinOR
Apr 17, 09:32 AM
When you see them in a kiosk at McDonalds...then they will be nearing global domination. :)
I see them at the Best Buy Kiosk's in all the major airports around the country.
If you have flown anywhere lately you have notice Apple products, IPads, MacBooks are the preferred electronic device on most major flights. I was at JFK last week, The waiting areas had 100's of Ipads built into the seats for all those waiting so they could surf the web.
I see them at the Best Buy Kiosk's in all the major airports around the country.
If you have flown anywhere lately you have notice Apple products, IPads, MacBooks are the preferred electronic device on most major flights. I was at JFK last week, The waiting areas had 100's of Ipads built into the seats for all those waiting so they could surf the web.
jholzner
Nov 27, 09:43 AM
Apple, you have that fixed in iTunes yet? I'd like to see the Cancel button actually work and also the ability to selectively rip or bypass any one song I want to on my disk.
You can do that now. Put in a CD and deselect the check mark to the left for any song you don't want ripped. I do it all the time.
You can do that now. Put in a CD and deselect the check mark to the left for any song you don't want ripped. I do it all the time.
henhowc
Nov 2, 07:10 PM
Flash already runs like ass in Mac OS and Adobe doesn't seem to care about that. I couldn't imagine it running well on the iPhone.
benthewraith
Aug 18, 12:35 PM
And apparently now they admit that it was bull-****.
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/18/secureworks-admits-to-falsifying-macbook-wireless-hack/
;)
Busted. Boy do I hate to be those guys. :rolleyes:
http://www.tuaw.com/2006/08/18/secureworks-admits-to-falsifying-macbook-wireless-hack/
;)
Busted. Boy do I hate to be those guys. :rolleyes:
bear912
Jul 14, 10:50 AM
If that becomes the future (it is starting to feel that way a bit), then I'll be switching back to Windows full time.
And I'd probably switch to Linux.
And I'd probably switch to Linux.
mscriv
Apr 7, 11:53 AM
The Bible says many good things and many bad things. I was highlighting some of the bad things to show how people do pick and choose. Consider Deuteronomy 13-
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
6 If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend, which is as thine own soul, entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods, which thou hast not known, thou, nor thy fathers ...
9 ... thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God.
This is pretty clear, and no amount of fitting in with the rest of the Bible or whatever is going to help. Thankfully, people ignore this today. In other words, people apply a moral standard when reading the Bible. The Bible doesn't lead to morality.
*bold emphasis mine
I'm sorry friend, but you aren't understanding the full context of what you are reading. The old testament, in this case Deuteronomy, does not stand alone, but is correctly interpreted in light of the new testament and the fulfillment of the law that Christ accomplished through the incarnation and his death.
God gave the law in the old testament to serve a specific purpose at a specific time to a specific people. From a theological stand point it's purpose was to show that no amount of work or good behavior can bring one to God. The law serves to highlight our separation from God in that none of us can measure up. The wages of sin are death and thus under the law death was the punishment. Under the new covenant Christ's death has paid the price of sin and we no longer need to live under the law.
So you see, you are guilty of doing what it is you are saying that others are doing. You are picking/choosing a verse out of the old testament and presenting it as if it was a universal command to all believers for all time.
It's like when you tell a child to play in the front yard but not to cross the street. You are giving them a specific command for a specific time with a specific purpose in mind (their safety). It would be silly to say that your intention was for that child to never cross a street in their life. They are forever forbidden from leaving the front yard because at one point you told them not to cross the street.
I'm not trying to pick on you or attack you personally, I'm simply trying to help you better understand. People often make the error of thinking the Bible is written like an instruction manual or a recipie book. It's not that simple. You must read it in context and it's context is the entirety of the 66 books contained within it. Additionally, the books are written in different genres of literature and thus various literary tools are used to correctly interpret them.
For you to quote Deuteronomy as evidence that the Bible "literally" tells believers today they should stone people is incorrect. It's also silly to say "thanfully people today ignore this". This statement highlights your misunderstanding of what you are quoting. Believers don't need to ignore a law/command that was never intended for them. Do you ignore horse and buggy traffic laws that were written centuries ago? You don't need to, those laws were not written for you, but for a specific people at a specific time.
Much of the old testament is narrative historical literature and it allows believers to understand how God has worked throughout history to reveal himself. To take those narratives and claim they are commands for today's people is both silly and a misrepresentation of what the Bible actually says.
@mscriv
I think that my objection to a book like this for atheists is that there is no reason to believe that the author of the book's morals or opinions are anymore important or better than anyone else's.
I'm disagreeing with barkomatic (and do understand what he is saying). I'm saying religion does not provide the basis for modern morality. I'm saying a structured moral code isn't necessary- it is already there as it is in part innate and in part social.
I understand these difference of opinion and thank you for your clarification.
jameshopkins
Sep 6, 09:37 AM
Has anyone ordered a Macbook Pro lately and have the ship times? I think i saw someone post saying its not supposed ship until the 13th....
Macbooks say 5-7 working days
Macbooks say 5-7 working days
kingtj
Apr 27, 11:16 AM
I have to jump back in here, thanks to the comment below, though.
I'm of the opinion that "dangerous" is EXACTLY the right word to use! Look, it's GREAT if you've got a successful marriage where both of you can responsibly share one bank account and manage money in such a way where you always approve of what your partner is doing with it. But that's clearly not possible for ALL relationships!
If you ask people what the biggest factors were when they got a divorce, you'd find that besides the "he/she cheated on me" story, the other TOP reason would be financial issues/stresses.
My partner and I will probably always keep our own separate bank accounts, and it seems to me that's far EASIER to manage than if we lumped everything together. What we've been doing lately is using a PayPal account of mine as a place we can both dump money into, as needed, if we want to pay for something together. (For example, our clothes washer just broke and I went out to get a new one. She put some of her last paycheck into PayPal to help pay for it.) Otherwise, I never leave a balance in that account - so it makes it really easy to use it for this purpose. With other things, we just split up the responsibilities of who is going to pay for what. She takes care of the gas bills that come in, for example, and does all of the grocery shopping. I always pay the mortgage payment myself. She pays for her vehicle payment and I pay for mine.
With this arrangement, both of us know that the money we make is all accounted for. (No way I want to deal with the uncertainty of thinking I have X amount in checking to buy something with, but find out after I write a check that we only had Y amount, because she bought things on the debit card that day I wasn't aware of.) We also get to feel like the things that we buy personally are still our personal purchases.
This isn't about "trying to sneak something past the other person". With this arrangement, that doesn't even come up. If you buy it with money in your bank account, then I don't *care* -- so you shouldn't even need to feel like it had to be "snuck past me" in the first place!
"Dangerous" ... this is junk talk. Who have you been listening to that suggests this? My wife and I have been married 12 years and have shared the same bank account that whole time, no separate accounts. (Jesus, what a nightmare to keep track of!) We've never once had a conflict about spending like you suggest we should. Why? because we live as WeegieMac does, the poster you're ripping on. We have respect for each other and our mutual needs as well as our individual desires. And we make sacrifices when we need to - both of us. Most of the responses in here act like marriage is a competition to see who can get what, or who can sneak this or that past their spouse. It's just shameful. What a tiring life that must be.
I'm of the opinion that "dangerous" is EXACTLY the right word to use! Look, it's GREAT if you've got a successful marriage where both of you can responsibly share one bank account and manage money in such a way where you always approve of what your partner is doing with it. But that's clearly not possible for ALL relationships!
If you ask people what the biggest factors were when they got a divorce, you'd find that besides the "he/she cheated on me" story, the other TOP reason would be financial issues/stresses.
My partner and I will probably always keep our own separate bank accounts, and it seems to me that's far EASIER to manage than if we lumped everything together. What we've been doing lately is using a PayPal account of mine as a place we can both dump money into, as needed, if we want to pay for something together. (For example, our clothes washer just broke and I went out to get a new one. She put some of her last paycheck into PayPal to help pay for it.) Otherwise, I never leave a balance in that account - so it makes it really easy to use it for this purpose. With other things, we just split up the responsibilities of who is going to pay for what. She takes care of the gas bills that come in, for example, and does all of the grocery shopping. I always pay the mortgage payment myself. She pays for her vehicle payment and I pay for mine.
With this arrangement, both of us know that the money we make is all accounted for. (No way I want to deal with the uncertainty of thinking I have X amount in checking to buy something with, but find out after I write a check that we only had Y amount, because she bought things on the debit card that day I wasn't aware of.) We also get to feel like the things that we buy personally are still our personal purchases.
This isn't about "trying to sneak something past the other person". With this arrangement, that doesn't even come up. If you buy it with money in your bank account, then I don't *care* -- so you shouldn't even need to feel like it had to be "snuck past me" in the first place!
"Dangerous" ... this is junk talk. Who have you been listening to that suggests this? My wife and I have been married 12 years and have shared the same bank account that whole time, no separate accounts. (Jesus, what a nightmare to keep track of!) We've never once had a conflict about spending like you suggest we should. Why? because we live as WeegieMac does, the poster you're ripping on. We have respect for each other and our mutual needs as well as our individual desires. And we make sacrifices when we need to - both of us. Most of the responses in here act like marriage is a competition to see who can get what, or who can sneak this or that past their spouse. It's just shameful. What a tiring life that must be.
StokeLee
Sep 12, 05:45 PM
Unfortunately, you can't buy the games separately for the equivalent of 5 bucks each like you can in the US, you have to buy all nine as a bundle for 36 quid!
Marky_Mark
If you click on the game you want, then you can download it, for �3.99
Marky_Mark
If you click on the game you want, then you can download it, for �3.99
yellow
Aug 3, 02:01 PM
Does anyone know the answer to this?
There's precious little details on what the actual exploit is, so no.. I don't think anyone here knows, yet.
There's precious little details on what the actual exploit is, so no.. I don't think anyone here knows, yet.
louis Fashion
Mar 28, 03:42 PM
Your point would be valid IF SHE HAD A FAMILY TO HAUL AROUND ANYMORE. ...Edit...
And yes, I do feel good about myself. I drive a vehicle that gets 95+ mpg.
My diesel SUV will EAT your 95 MPG mini-mini. Hoooya. and when did this become the Auto blog?
And yes, I do feel good about myself. I drive a vehicle that gets 95+ mpg.
My diesel SUV will EAT your 95 MPG mini-mini. Hoooya. and when did this become the Auto blog?
mrsir2009
May 5, 01:54 PM
Quote from the Simpsons: "Wow, 3D is so cool! I wish real life was in 3D..."
wvuwhat
Oct 25, 10:43 PM
Wow nice! That's a slick screen clock you have. What's it called?
I really hope you're being funny. You're a much more active member than I, but it's "fliquo.". Someone even has a sig stating something like, "the screensaver is fliquo, the answer is always fliquo."
I really hope you're being funny. You're a much more active member than I, but it's "fliquo.". Someone even has a sig stating something like, "the screensaver is fliquo, the answer is always fliquo."
Stridder44
Nov 7, 10:27 AM
i don't think it's happening today
Damn you communists. Damn you gay nazis. Damn you all...
Damn you communists. Damn you gay nazis. Damn you all...
arkitect
Nov 3, 03:53 AM
BBC News, New York Times, Le Monde, CNN, CBC, ABC News, Welt Online, El Pais, etc.... (and hundreds of others).
Not to mention trying to book a couple of tickets to the movies�
:o
While I "get by" without Flash on my iPhone I would welcome it with open arms.
Not to mention trying to book a couple of tickets to the movies�
:o
While I "get by" without Flash on my iPhone I would welcome it with open arms.
bbeers
Mar 4, 11:35 AM
http://blurredsight.net/macrumors/bbeers-USNA.jpg
Nikon D3100, Nikkor 10-55mm, ISO 100 , 18mm, f/13 , 1/640
Nikon D3100, Nikkor 10-55mm, ISO 100 , 18mm, f/13 , 1/640
Mammoth
Aug 4, 02:48 AM
Apple can conquer any resolution problems. The only thing they can't fix is how much people bitch.
Print that on a t-shirt and watch the PC fanboys cry. :D
Print that on a t-shirt and watch the PC fanboys cry. :D
bartelby
Aug 24, 02:47 PM
Poo!
I thought I might get a nice new battery.
:(
I thought I might get a nice new battery.
:(
j.mcc
Jul 24, 02:43 PM
If it hooked up to a wiki with the old wireless and allowed approved paid contributors/users to edit and add entries from the magippear keyless keyboard, it would truly become the essential traveller's instructional companion. Pop it in a sock, because you should always know where your sock is. Yes, it's a hitch-hiker's guide, no less...
ricosuave
Jan 11, 05:12 PM
It has to be the long waited iPhone iTunes store now on the Edge network!
HangmanSwingset
Apr 2, 12:35 AM
I would be slightly worried about jailbreaking an iPhone 5 then. Sony might claim ownership of the damn thing and sue you for doing so.
No comments:
Post a Comment