steadysignal
May 6, 10:20 AM
in reality though, the government is deeply involved in licensing and regulating the practice of medicine. It does so to protect the public from harm by quacks, malpractice, fraud and criminal behavior.
And when it comes to hot button issues, abortion as an example, state governments do indeed tell doctors they have to say and do certain things.
Beer Can Art
While some used eer can
do with an empty eer can?
Beer can art.
famous Beer Can House,
Extreme Beer Can Art
Beer Can art:
Art Sculpture Made By Beer
Beer Can Art
Tags: eer can art,
Beer Can Art is Universal
Beer+can+art
Beer Can Butterflies Art
Beer can art
Beer can art
Beer Can Flower Pin recycled
Butterfly Beer Can and
More Beer Can Art
And when it comes to hot button issues, abortion as an example, state governments do indeed tell doctors they have to say and do certain things.
Cagle
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Steve Jobs describes Apple�s theory in making apps; set a bar for developers to do better...
:eek:
:eek:
applefan289
Apr 2, 11:49 AM
What I like about Apple is not only the great products, but also their professionalism. Microsoft does not give off the "kid in a candy store" vibe, and the Microsoft website just feels clunky.
I guess those were not good examples, but even if Windows 8 beats Lion as far as the OS itself, Windows 8 will not beat Apple's marketing, professionalism, and "with it" mind set.
I guess those were not good examples, but even if Windows 8 beats Lion as far as the OS itself, Windows 8 will not beat Apple's marketing, professionalism, and "with it" mind set.
neiltc13
Apr 23, 07:24 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
This really isn't related to Windows 8, but...
iPhone tracking and storing users' locations isn't really a surprise, nor is it worrying. What is an eye opener is that when Google was asked about the same thing, they gave an immediate response and explained how their phones work. Why hasn't Apple done this?
RP:
All you have shown is a deep-seated fear of advertising. And it's been stated that Apple doesn't actually collect this data, so it isn't even being used for iAds.
How exactly, specifically, will this cell phone tower tracking info compromise your personal safety? What exactly is there to fear? There must be something more than targeted advertising, which is at best an annoyance you have to live with anyway.
This really isn't related to Windows 8, but...
iPhone tracking and storing users' locations isn't really a surprise, nor is it worrying. What is an eye opener is that when Google was asked about the same thing, they gave an immediate response and explained how their phones work. Why hasn't Apple done this?
Balli
Sep 12, 02:51 AM
10am Cupertino (west coast US) time. Just over 9 hours to go.
That's 7pm here in the UK... Just when I get home from work! :)
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
That's 7pm here in the UK... Just when I get home from work! :)
Are any sites offering live feeds, etc?
KnightWRX
Mar 25, 06:43 AM
<pedantry>
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
Depends what you call an OS. In micro-computer parlance Finder is very much a File Manager, same as Nautilus, Dolphin, Norton Commander (or the Midnight Commander clone), ROX-Filer, Windows Explorer, DOSShell etc just to name a few.
It does very little to "operate" the system. It simply provides a user with a UI to manipulate the files found on a filesystem. Of course, an OS doesn't even need a filesystem per say as not all OSes use the file metaphor for storage.
The OS part of the any modern OS is all contained in the kernel, which can usually operate the system without any kind of assistance from userspace. Finder is a userspace app. You could replace it with any other File Manager and still achieve the same basic functionality.
I think your pedantry wasn't as big as mine (how's your Schwartz ?)
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
Depends what you call an OS. In micro-computer parlance Finder is very much a File Manager, same as Nautilus, Dolphin, Norton Commander (or the Midnight Commander clone), ROX-Filer, Windows Explorer, DOSShell etc just to name a few.
It does very little to "operate" the system. It simply provides a user with a UI to manipulate the files found on a filesystem. Of course, an OS doesn't even need a filesystem per say as not all OSes use the file metaphor for storage.
The OS part of the any modern OS is all contained in the kernel, which can usually operate the system without any kind of assistance from userspace. Finder is a userspace app. You could replace it with any other File Manager and still achieve the same basic functionality.
I think your pedantry wasn't as big as mine (how's your Schwartz ?)
gnasher729
Nov 16, 03:21 PM
There is absolutely no, no, no way that Intel did not enter a contractual agreement with Apple that explicitly prohibits or deters Apple from using AMD's competitive products.
Given that there is a major lawsuit between AMD and Intel going on right now where AMD claims that Intel has been using its monopoly through exactly that kind of behavior, you can be assured that no such agreement exists.
That said, there is value in having a good relationship with a supplier, and there is value in being able to use the same designs in all products. AMD would have to produce something quite amazing for Apple to switch over.
Given that there is a major lawsuit between AMD and Intel going on right now where AMD claims that Intel has been using its monopoly through exactly that kind of behavior, you can be assured that no such agreement exists.
That said, there is value in having a good relationship with a supplier, and there is value in being able to use the same designs in all products. AMD would have to produce something quite amazing for Apple to switch over.
obeygiant
Apr 17, 10:09 PM
We should add left handed history ahead of gay history,
Or maybe people with uncontrollable flatulence (http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10240701.aspx).
Or maybe people with uncontrollable flatulence (http://www.thesmartset.com/article/article10240701.aspx).
localoid
May 3, 03:12 PM
Two points...
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
bpaluzzi
Apr 16, 01:07 PM
I just want to sync my music. **** itunes **** what ever. I love bit torrent. I refuse to pay for music or movies.
Proving, once again, you're an absolute wanker.
Proving, once again, you're an absolute wanker.
Evmanw
Apr 21, 12:11 PM
It is against forum rules to simply reply "+1": what on earth is the difference between that and clicking a button to say "+1"?
I never knew that... Oops I have done that once or twice (but only once or twice) just to say that I agree.
Could have been worse guys, they could have put in a Facebook "Like" button. :D
Yes, Facebook really needs a dislike button!!!!
P.S. (I finally figured out how to do multiple quotes in a post!) :rolleyes:
I never knew that... Oops I have done that once or twice (but only once or twice) just to say that I agree.
Could have been worse guys, they could have put in a Facebook "Like" button. :D
Yes, Facebook really needs a dislike button!!!!
P.S. (I finally figured out how to do multiple quotes in a post!) :rolleyes:
ironsienna
Apr 30, 09:23 AM
more like late 2012. milestone 2 already leaked
Late 2012??…. I think we finally found what the cause of the doomsday will be…!
And even if they are not the cause, they have to be 2012-end-of-the-world proof safe :D
Late 2012??…. I think we finally found what the cause of the doomsday will be…!
And even if they are not the cause, they have to be 2012-end-of-the-world proof safe :D
localoid
May 3, 03:12 PM
Two points...
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
(1) I just checked, and I find that I can still download the app "Wireless Tether" (which only works on rooted phones) on Market.
(2) But since there's an even better app on Market -- that enables tethering on my non-rooted Android phone -- I wouldn't care all that much if "Wireless Tether" wasn't available.
Abstract
Sep 7, 09:27 PM
^^It doesn't suck at all.
Kanye West is one of the most amazing things to happen to hip-hop in the past several years.
Anyone get his new album yet? I haven't ... I need to pick up a copy.
Yeah I've got a copy. Actually, I downloaded it, but I was under the impression that the album itself wasn't out yet.
Or maybe it is in the US, but not in Oz. :rolleyes:
Kanye West is one of the most amazing things to happen to hip-hop in the past several years.
Anyone get his new album yet? I haven't ... I need to pick up a copy.
Yeah I've got a copy. Actually, I downloaded it, but I was under the impression that the album itself wasn't out yet.
Or maybe it is in the US, but not in Oz. :rolleyes:
ct2k7
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
In which case nearly *all* your personal data is vulnerable. Cell tower tracking is not a special case, and relatively not especially more dangerous or compromising than anything else you've got stored on your computer.
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
toddybody
Apr 29, 01:25 PM
...enable trim on 3rd party ssds.
amen
amen
moose0422
Apr 29, 06:42 PM
In System Preferences, Internet Accounts has been renamed to Mail, Contacts, and Calendars.
Full of Win
Mar 28, 02:18 PM
BS. Pure, BS.
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
When did good design become contigent on devs accepting a lop-sided TOS?
tim916
Sep 28, 07:40 PM
Oh i'm sure there will be LOTS of technology in the house.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I'd wager that Jobs will avoid putting superfluous technology into the house. We know he loves simple and existing home control systems are usually anything but.
Filling a home wilth complex technology can actually have a negative effect on a home's value because it requires expensive servicing and, of course, becomes obsolete very quickly.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
I'd wager that Jobs will avoid putting superfluous technology into the house. We know he loves simple and existing home control systems are usually anything but.
Filling a home wilth complex technology can actually have a negative effect on a home's value because it requires expensive servicing and, of course, becomes obsolete very quickly.
mikelegacy
Dec 13, 12:23 PM
We can all dream right? I hope to god this is true. I need better service. To me, it'd be worth the $200 termination fee...
p0intblank
Jan 5, 04:20 PM
I did this for WWDC and enjoyed it more than reading the updates. I'll be doing it again for Macworld. It's just so much more exciting. :D
BornAgainMac
Oct 19, 10:37 AM
It is nice for Apple to get above that 5% in something besides iPods. I wonder if Microsoft will ever have more than 5% in mp3 player sales?
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Sedrick
Mar 19, 07:36 AM
Not that they need to change anything, obviously. Keep the same shatter prone design, horrible ergonomics, 3.5" screen and just bolt on the A5 chip and everyone'll still lap it up ;)
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.
This, actually, is my biggest concern: That Apple will just be smug enough to think they don't need to do anything with the design.