.JPG "free-tattoo-designs")
Rt&Dzine
Apr 7, 05:19 PM
The secular bible might come off as a silly idea. But i've often pondered what i will tell my kids when the day comes and they ask "some people in my class are christian and some are jewish, what are we?" Kids hate feeling excluded, so i feel like saying we don't have a religion wouldnt go over well because they really don't understand what it means.
They don't usually think that way. They'll just be glad they don't have to endure going to church.
They don't usually think that way. They'll just be glad they don't have to endure going to church.
MacsomJRR
Jul 23, 10:30 AM
I hope that the screen is nice and easy on the eyes. The issues that I've had with devices that try to do this plus other features (i.e. like a palm device) is that: 1) the screens aren't big enough (the iPod mockups look like they will be OK) 2) scrolling is funky (fluid wheel scrolling could be accurate, fun and easy to use and 3) staring at a bright screen for hours of reading is tough on the eyes and feels a little weird.
This is a pretty exciting feature though, can't wait!:D
This is a pretty exciting feature though, can't wait!:D
iJawn108
Sep 12, 08:36 PM
Um free is for a limited time only and you have to buy a $1000+ computer. Anyone who buys a $1000+ Mac should get a break on an iPod too. Also, I'm not complaining about the free iPod deal, I'm complaining that students used to get about a $30 break on all iPods year round. There is a reason why there is a whole education section on the Apple Online Store. Without students support, the iPod wouldn't be anywhere near the cultural icon that it is. Guess what, most students don't have a set income but their patronage is very important to Apple and iPods in general. And I'm 25, Mommy and Daddy haven't payed for me for a long time. So now who is trolling. (Hint: the guy who puts offensive posts up with big upper cased red letters)
Hye guy if you are a registered student and go to anywell known school you get a discount on ipods year round as well as any other apple product.
Hye guy if you are a registered student and go to anywell known school you get a discount on ipods year round as well as any other apple product.
.JPG "Tattoo Design Ideas amp;")
MacBoobsPro
Aug 8, 10:02 AM
Provided they added the BT option.....
Oh yeh... bugger! :o
Oh yeh... bugger! :o
DavidLeblond
Sep 12, 01:57 PM
Going through all the Free TV Show episodes I haven't yet seen and redownloading them in 640x480.
I love every bit of this new iTunes... well except for the annoying fact that all the store views now scroll horizontally.
I love every bit of this new iTunes... well except for the annoying fact that all the store views now scroll horizontally.
dbit
Aug 8, 02:40 PM
For the Desktop
LINK TO CORE 2 DUO DESKTOPS (http://www.intel.com/buy/core2duo.htm)
Ah. I'm drooling for the Merom. Anybody know if it's just not ready yet?
LINK TO CORE 2 DUO DESKTOPS (http://www.intel.com/buy/core2duo.htm)
Ah. I'm drooling for the Merom. Anybody know if it's just not ready yet?
.jpg "Popular Free Tattoo Patterns")
Waldszenen
Mar 11, 05:48 PM
Just for fun, I'm gonna believe that this rumour is entirely true and that we're going to see the refresh next Tuesday. Just to thumb my nose at all the naysayers if it does come true... heh.
cobalt79
Mar 11, 03:29 PM
I just bought a Macbook Pro literally 5 minutes ago. I've been waiting for months and I finally gave up. After the order was completed, I thought I'd check macrumors just for laughs and the first thing I saw was, "new macbook pros tomorrow?" :(
"Giving up" does not mean buying outdated technology for top dollar. If you were truly giving up on waiting, you should have also given up on Apple -- who did not value your interest enough to give you either a discount or some indication as to when updates would be released.
"Giving up" does not mean buying outdated technology for top dollar. If you were truly giving up on waiting, you should have also given up on Apple -- who did not value your interest enough to give you either a discount or some indication as to when updates would be released.
emagdnim015
Sep 12, 03:48 PM
my favorite new feature is the backward syncing:
http://www.apple.com/itunes/sync/transfer.html
http://www.apple.com/itunes/sync/transfer.html
.jpg "Free Tattoo Design Tattoo")
mward333
Sep 4, 07:46 PM
Would the new iMac 23 inch qualify for the back to school promotion?
What about an 8 GB nano?
Of course, the promotion is very specific about models on Macs and iPods:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/bts/bts_faq.html
Unless Apple makes a special exception, my guess is that neither model would qualify. The promotion rules specifically state 17 or 20 inch iMac, and 1, 2, or 4 GB nano. Check the FAQ about the promotion.
Any tips about this? Maybe I'll check with Apple directly by telephone, if a new iMac and new nano are actually introduced next week.
What about an 8 GB nano?
Of course, the promotion is very specific about models on Macs and iPods:
http://store.apple.com/Catalog/US/Images/bts/bts_faq.html
Unless Apple makes a special exception, my guess is that neither model would qualify. The promotion rules specifically state 17 or 20 inch iMac, and 1, 2, or 4 GB nano. Check the FAQ about the promotion.
Any tips about this? Maybe I'll check with Apple directly by telephone, if a new iMac and new nano are actually introduced next week.
sonictonic
Aug 2, 09:57 PM
How can a completely B.S. story like this make it on the front page? :confused:
Can someone explain that to me? :mad:
Can someone explain that to me? :mad:
Eraserhead
Nov 27, 11:33 AM
If I were them I'd go with iTunes as you'll sell more songs, anyway hopefully they'll go out of copyright in 2012 in the UK.
.JPG "Free tribal tattoo designs 70")
JonKean
May 4, 11:29 PM
I'd bet a large part of the negotiations are how the OTA updates would be billed. Apple wants the OTA update transparent and free for metered internet plans. Verizon wants money for each OTA update.
iSamurai
May 4, 10:55 PM
pixel density is way more important than 3D...
mauly
Nov 7, 04:38 PM
Can someone help! is it known that apple put old/previous models on the refurb site? :)
dunc85
Sep 12, 05:25 PM
Holy moley, you mean it starts downloading cover art without asking or letting you turn that off? I don't want cover art, and I sure as heck don't want to use up bandwidth on my connection for cover art downloads, much less send out reports on what I care to keep in my playlists.
No, you turn it on in Preferences.
No, you turn it on in Preferences.
.JPG "Newer: Free Dragon Tattoo")
Mark-Mac-Attack
Oct 14, 04:26 PM
Well i've done updated setups before, but never past and present (as the title of the threads suggests we should post). So, here we are.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/74504cd1.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/efb8d3eb.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/5ea86587.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/36970cf2.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/0deaeeef.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/1fbedf07.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/07dd1166.jpg
Mark.
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/74504cd1.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/efb8d3eb.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/5ea86587.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/36970cf2.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/0deaeeef.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/1fbedf07.jpg
http://i97.photobucket.com/albums/l235/mdjones3000/07dd1166.jpg
Mark.
Max Payne
Nov 7, 08:26 AM
Yet another Tuesday without an MB C2D. Good luck next Tuesday, waiters (people who wait not serve). :)
.JPG "Free tattoo flash.")
jacg
Sep 12, 03:12 PM
I don't know how to include a screenshot in here but can anyone explain what the item in the Preferences > Advanced > General is that says:
'Allow iTunes control from remote speakers'
Also, while looking for iTunes7 I read that v 6.0.5 could send audio to more than one set of remote speakers simultaneously. How do you do that?
'Allow iTunes control from remote speakers'
Also, while looking for iTunes7 I read that v 6.0.5 could send audio to more than one set of remote speakers simultaneously. How do you do that?
gnasher729
Aug 3, 08:14 AM
2) I don't completely understand this business of an external card being used. Can anyone help me out? So an external card was used in OS X, correct? Don't most OS X external cards that do work, work based off the driver that is shipped with OS X and not with a driver provided separately by the card vendor? Installing drivers in OS X is very rare. Does the unnamed external card use the same OS X driver used for the AE card, or does it use a different one? If it uses the same one, it's not clear that the driver in OS X is completely safe.
99.9999% of MacBook and MacBook Pro users don't have an external wireless card. The only reason why you would have an external card is either a meeting of a very clever salesman and an exceedingly stupid customer, who never realised that he doesn't need an external card, or a MacBook with a broken wireless card that is more expensive to repair than buying an external one. But then I think all MacBooks in existence should still be under warranty, so that shouldn't happen.
So why did they use an external wireless card? The only reasonable explanation is that whatever they did doesn't work with the built-in airport.
What I think that happened: They found a wireless card with USB connector that will make wireless connections even when it is not explicitely told to do so. Next, they prepared a Macintosh to allow remote login, which is dangerous if you are connected to any network. Remember, it was their Macintosh, and anyone can make their Macintosh as vulnerable as they like if they know how to. And these two things combined are enough.
No danger for anyone without an external wireless card, and no danger for anyone who hasn't messed around with their Macintosh and made it vulnerable.
99.9999% of MacBook and MacBook Pro users don't have an external wireless card. The only reason why you would have an external card is either a meeting of a very clever salesman and an exceedingly stupid customer, who never realised that he doesn't need an external card, or a MacBook with a broken wireless card that is more expensive to repair than buying an external one. But then I think all MacBooks in existence should still be under warranty, so that shouldn't happen.
So why did they use an external wireless card? The only reasonable explanation is that whatever they did doesn't work with the built-in airport.
What I think that happened: They found a wireless card with USB connector that will make wireless connections even when it is not explicitely told to do so. Next, they prepared a Macintosh to allow remote login, which is dangerous if you are connected to any network. Remember, it was their Macintosh, and anyone can make their Macintosh as vulnerable as they like if they know how to. And these two things combined are enough.
No danger for anyone without an external wireless card, and no danger for anyone who hasn't messed around with their Macintosh and made it vulnerable.
ZbHRP
Apr 2, 07:09 PM
Wait, Sony? Not known for providing sensors to other companies? Are you guys joking?
Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Casio and a whole lot more uses Sony sensors..
Nikon, Pentax, Olympus, Sigma, Casio and a whole lot more uses Sony sensors..
R.Perez
Mar 10, 11:02 PM
I do understand ... very clearly
we do not need to cut corners on things like Helicopters by hanging onto ancient machines like the Sea King Helicopters or as they are known ..."flying coffins"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/seaking.html
Ok Canada spends approx $20 billion on military spending.
My proposed budget for the US military was $100 BILLION, 5 times as much as Canada. Believe me, would do just fine without it.
we do not need to cut corners on things like Helicopters by hanging onto ancient machines like the Sea King Helicopters or as they are known ..."flying coffins"
http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/cdnmilitary/seaking.html
Ok Canada spends approx $20 billion on military spending.
My proposed budget for the US military was $100 BILLION, 5 times as much as Canada. Believe me, would do just fine without it.
fivepoint
Mar 28, 08:19 PM
Take 5 minutes and watch this outstanding response to Obama's speech by Freshman Senator Rand Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
ArainLA
Apr 18, 12:03 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
I work for a respiratory hospital and we have docs using remote desktop app to connect to our Health Info System and do charting or look up patient data, and loving it. Just because your hospital has not setup the means to do it that's why you see more iPads at Starbucks.
I work for a respiratory hospital and we have docs using remote desktop app to connect to our Health Info System and do charting or look up patient data, and loving it. Just because your hospital has not setup the means to do it that's why you see more iPads at Starbucks.
No comments:
Post a Comment