jackc
Oct 15, 03:07 PM
Yeah, that's a good move. Do you think some girl will want to listen to Metallica with me?
zildjansg
Oct 16, 02:11 AM
No sir. Only the vertical screen is connected to the MBP via a Monoprice Miniport to HMDI connection. The other two screens are connected via Dual Link DVI to my PC that you can kinda see under the table (green lights).
oh I see,thanks
oh I see,thanks
mtwilford
Mar 28, 03:40 PM
Because getting your iToy within eye sight of a 300 Lb round-belly hillbilly or 400 Lb woman in pink stretch pants and camel toe does not make for the best experience.
Karma sucks!!!
Karma sucks!!!
Ugg
Sep 12, 02:53 PM
It looks incredible, although the dark grey sliders are sort of hard to see. Very sleek and much less junky than 6. All the features are great if somewhat overdue. I like having movies, music and podcasts all separate.
williamsonrg
Oct 26, 07:19 PM
The later option involves an ugly screw in the middle of your macbook.
I just had my heatsink replaced last weekend, and I just now noticed the screw. Oh well...:cool:
I just had my heatsink replaced last weekend, and I just now noticed the screw. Oh well...:cool:
mrkjsn
Oct 16, 01:56 AM
Hi, did u use a ViBook to connect those monitors?
No sir. Only the vertical screen is connected to the MBP via a Monoprice Miniport to HMDI connection. The other two screens are connected via Dual Link DVI to my PC that you can kinda see under the table (green lights).
No sir. Only the vertical screen is connected to the MBP via a Monoprice Miniport to HMDI connection. The other two screens are connected via Dual Link DVI to my PC that you can kinda see under the table (green lights).
ThunderSkunk
Mar 28, 01:25 PM
$4 a gallon
Hah. Approaching $4/Gal? It's been four & a half bucks here since forever & we're eyeballing $5/Gal & this is still the US. People who obsess about a dollar a gallon need to get a more efficient car.
I will say seeing Apple start distributing to 500 radioshack locations when they've already got thousands of people on backorder lines almost shows a contempt for their loyal customers... almost. Course on the other hand you now have one more location to go camp out in front of, & cancel your online order afterward...
Hah. Approaching $4/Gal? It's been four & a half bucks here since forever & we're eyeballing $5/Gal & this is still the US. People who obsess about a dollar a gallon need to get a more efficient car.
I will say seeing Apple start distributing to 500 radioshack locations when they've already got thousands of people on backorder lines almost shows a contempt for their loyal customers... almost. Course on the other hand you now have one more location to go camp out in front of, & cancel your online order afterward...
revjay
Nov 7, 02:28 PM
imho the reason why apple hasnt filled the void of a 12"powerbook equivilent is because they plan on expanding their overall product range. more portable notebooks, tablets, etc. all in the scope of vision
This thread has, to the best of my knowledge, managed to stay tablet free up until now...thanks for contaminating a great thread with pie in the sky. :D
I agree, however, that for Apple to gain a faster growth of market share gain, they will need to continue to expand their various lines.
eg. 24" iMac: Did anyone really believe that that one would become a reality? (don't answer that...it is a redundant question).
This thread has, to the best of my knowledge, managed to stay tablet free up until now...thanks for contaminating a great thread with pie in the sky. :D
I agree, however, that for Apple to gain a faster growth of market share gain, they will need to continue to expand their various lines.
eg. 24" iMac: Did anyone really believe that that one would become a reality? (don't answer that...it is a redundant question).
benthewraith
Sep 12, 02:34 PM
The iTunes Store is SLLLLOOOOOWWWWW!!!!
Dreadfully slow. It took all of a minute to open Safari, go to Macrumors, go to the iPod/iTunes discussion section, come to this thread, and get all the way up to the word "slow" in order for it to come up. :(
Dreadfully slow. It took all of a minute to open Safari, go to Macrumors, go to the iPod/iTunes discussion section, come to this thread, and get all the way up to the word "slow" in order for it to come up. :(
webman2k
Apr 12, 06:38 AM
And this fake and completely improbable guy scenario can't ask his boss to use the legally licensed copy at work after hours or just use an older version version ? Or can't do without the FULL CS suite and just buy the portions he needs ? Or... just use another tool than Adobe's that is cheaper ?
No seriously, not an excuse or valid scenario. A freelancer would find a way if he's motivated enough.
Unfortunately not. This extremely tired and overworked theoretical man cannot ask his boss, because the freelance work conflicts with the corporate work. He also just uses photoshop. He's looked for cheaper tools - really wants to love pixelmator, but it just falls too short, and doesn't offer the compatibility he needs to work with his colleagues. He'd love to buy an older version of the suite - CS3 would be fine - if he could find it at a reasonable price, which he can't.
This guy - like I imagine many other "pirates" - isn't a bad guy. He WANTS to buy it, but it's tough to swallow that kind of an asking price. One day soon, when he can afford to, he'll pay the price. He just can't right now.
No seriously, not an excuse or valid scenario. A freelancer would find a way if he's motivated enough.
Unfortunately not. This extremely tired and overworked theoretical man cannot ask his boss, because the freelance work conflicts with the corporate work. He also just uses photoshop. He's looked for cheaper tools - really wants to love pixelmator, but it just falls too short, and doesn't offer the compatibility he needs to work with his colleagues. He'd love to buy an older version of the suite - CS3 would be fine - if he could find it at a reasonable price, which he can't.
This guy - like I imagine many other "pirates" - isn't a bad guy. He WANTS to buy it, but it's tough to swallow that kind of an asking price. One day soon, when he can afford to, he'll pay the price. He just can't right now.
wordoflife
Apr 1, 11:55 PM
Cool I want a better camera. Should be a nice upgrade from 3mp
iGary
Aug 3, 02:47 PM
I actually remember you mentioning that. I should have screen capped that post. :rolleyes:
Not like anyone would want to see me run around my complex naked, but I don't think we will ever see a phone out of Apple, especially at WWDC.
And no Conroe in iMac. Evar. ;)
Not like anyone would want to see me run around my complex naked, but I don't think we will ever see a phone out of Apple, especially at WWDC.
And no Conroe in iMac. Evar. ;)
imutter
Mar 25, 07:17 PM
You guys need to find a different forum to talk about Asbergers and autism I can suggest some if you need them .......I hope not that you have a child or family member with a PDD.
Popeye206
Mar 28, 08:30 PM
Are we under the assumption that the Lion upgrade will be $29?
I haven't been around for a release past Snow Leopard so I'm not sure what to expect.
Past upgrades have been very reasonable. Unlike Microsoft that depends on the price to help pay for development, Apple's hardware helps subsidize the OS development. So, it's assumed it will be a very reasonable upgrade price.
I haven't been around for a release past Snow Leopard so I'm not sure what to expect.
Past upgrades have been very reasonable. Unlike Microsoft that depends on the price to help pay for development, Apple's hardware helps subsidize the OS development. So, it's assumed it will be a very reasonable upgrade price.
mikeschmeee
Mar 6, 01:55 AM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5219/5501305809_173b5b0a99_z.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/mikeschmeee/5501305809/)
edk99
Mar 25, 03:19 PM
Seems like Verizon isn't getting the love as AT&T is getting. :cool:
With the most likely combined CDMA/GSM iPhone 5 the iPhone 4 on Verizon is going to be Apples red headed stepchild.
With the most likely combined CDMA/GSM iPhone 5 the iPhone 4 on Verizon is going to be Apples red headed stepchild.
Nipsy
Oct 13, 09:44 PM
Server burped
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.
PCtoMAC?
Sep 22, 12:01 PM
I just finished it the other day, on heroic, and I really enjoyed it. Im in the minority of people who don't like Halo multiplayer other than the occasional match but the single player was fun and i like the epic story arc. At the end of the game it kind of made me want to play the original Halo.
Has anyone beat it on legendary? Is there a different ending?
Has anyone beat it on legendary? Is there a different ending?
LouieSamman
Oct 17, 03:50 PM
In the process of moving so my setup is located squarely on my coffee table. Will post new pic once I am moved into my new place and set up the office.
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
Hows the magic trackpad working for ya? you use it more than the Magic Mouse?
Not shown in photo is the mountain of boxes just to the left.:D
Hows the magic trackpad working for ya? you use it more than the Magic Mouse?
hob
Aug 24, 01:54 PM
Ok, my earlier exclamation may have been premature. I'm also having problems - the battery for my 12" PB is in the range on both the press release and the apple support site, but when I put all the numbers in, it says "no mate" - seems a lot of people are getting this?
rigoni
Nov 27, 11:25 AM
And waterproof down to 100 metres! :)
That would be perfect!
That would be perfect!
cleric
Mar 21, 01:30 PM
Served.
2nyRiggz
Sep 12, 02:15 PM
This is what the iPod nano always should have been: a radically slimmer iPod mini.
Love the colors. Love the new (old) shape. Love the new (old) aluminum scratch-free design.
I want one. ;)
Indeed....the mini is back. The 8gig in black only is the killer though.
Bless
Love the colors. Love the new (old) shape. Love the new (old) aluminum scratch-free design.
I want one. ;)
Indeed....the mini is back. The 8gig in black only is the killer though.
Bless