redfire
Oct 26, 07:12 PM
My Week 36 MacBook runs quietly, coolly and reliably. Should I apply the update?
Yes. It fixed my week 21 Macbook that just got RSS two days ago. Even if your Macbook runs nicely now, it could get RSS in the future and when you call Apple all they're going to tell you is to install the firmware update.
Yes. It fixed my week 21 Macbook that just got RSS two days ago. Even if your Macbook runs nicely now, it could get RSS in the future and when you call Apple all they're going to tell you is to install the firmware update.
JackSYi
Nov 7, 01:03 AM
My 2 cents: The MacBook are definitely going to be updated this month. Most likely tomorrow. Why do I think this? AppleInsider has reliable sources, they have never completely been wrong. The MacBooks will get Core 2 Duos (1.83, 2.0, 2.16), 802.11n cards, and possibly hard drive & RAM increase. Realistically we won't be getting a dedicated graphics card, bigger screens, or firewire 800.
Enjoying my Core 2 Duo MBP.
Enjoying my Core 2 Duo MBP.
GregAndonian
Mar 29, 01:41 PM
I think Apple's strategy has always been to delay implementing new technology until it functions seamlessly.
Apparently, Blu-ray doesn't function seamlessly yet. :rolleyes::D
Apparently, Blu-ray doesn't function seamlessly yet. :rolleyes::D
briansolomon
Aug 8, 01:04 PM
Does anyone else find it strange/ridiculous that AirPort Express and Bluetooth come standard on every system except the high end Mac Pro?
rcread
Aug 3, 04:56 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYF3BpbFI9c
hulugu
Aug 19, 12:26 AM
The macbook was hacked in 60 seconds. Why it was hacked or whoose software was responsible is irrelevant. The macbook was HACKED, PERIOD!.
End of story.
:eek: :mad:
That the MacBook was hacked using a third-party card and third-party drivers isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. :rolleyes:
There's an important difference between standard configuration and this set-up which makes it so much easier for the MacBook to be hacked. Your cheerleading aside, no Mac is hack-proof, but there's a big difference between breaking a lock and opening it because someone left the keys in the door.
End of story.
:eek: :mad:
That the MacBook was hacked using a third-party card and third-party drivers isn't irrelevant, it's the whole point. :rolleyes:
There's an important difference between standard configuration and this set-up which makes it so much easier for the MacBook to be hacked. Your cheerleading aside, no Mac is hack-proof, but there's a big difference between breaking a lock and opening it because someone left the keys in the door.
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
hexx
Mar 25, 03:17 PM
Can anyone who has done the update confirm whether or not PING is ON by default or not?
it's on and btw disabling ping didn't fix battery drain for me. restart did
it's on and btw disabling ping didn't fix battery drain for me. restart did
macUser2007
Nov 4, 10:14 PM
We need to get developers to use open standards and flash is not!...
...
What we all need to do is educate / demand that web developers / sited eliminate flash and use open standards.
Yeah!!! You forgot the part about world peace and end of hunger....
Personally I do not use sites that require flash for operability - one of my favorite hotel chains "upgraded" their site to a flash based reservation system - it looks great but is slow and un-reliable, - so I stopped staying there and emailed them telling them they lost a customer due to their bad flash based reservation system!
Yeah!!! You against the world! I suppose you also write to fashion magazines, complaining that all their models have perfect, skinny bodies....
But all kidding aside, without Flash, you must be having a pretty poor and limited web experience. Or, you just hang out on the Apple site.... :D
...
What we all need to do is educate / demand that web developers / sited eliminate flash and use open standards.
Yeah!!! You forgot the part about world peace and end of hunger....
Personally I do not use sites that require flash for operability - one of my favorite hotel chains "upgraded" their site to a flash based reservation system - it looks great but is slow and un-reliable, - so I stopped staying there and emailed them telling them they lost a customer due to their bad flash based reservation system!
Yeah!!! You against the world! I suppose you also write to fashion magazines, complaining that all their models have perfect, skinny bodies....
But all kidding aside, without Flash, you must be having a pretty poor and limited web experience. Or, you just hang out on the Apple site.... :D
gekko513
Aug 2, 08:17 PM
Interesting... I was about to edit my last post that Apple's site doesn't claim the Macbook has any slots... I can't see any in the Macbook QTVR images either.
It's a usb wireless card, I presume. He holds it up, flicks out the (usb) connector and plugs it into the left side of the Macbook. While he sticks in the card he says:
Don't think, however, just because we're attacking an Apple, the flaw itself is in an Apple. We're actually using a 3rd party wireless card.
I hope you're not referring to me when you say "people are so quick to call this an unfair attack on Apple". :confused:
It's a usb wireless card, I presume. He holds it up, flicks out the (usb) connector and plugs it into the left side of the Macbook. While he sticks in the card he says:
Don't think, however, just because we're attacking an Apple, the flaw itself is in an Apple. We're actually using a 3rd party wireless card.
I hope you're not referring to me when you say "people are so quick to call this an unfair attack on Apple". :confused:
Thunderhawks
Apr 12, 01:54 PM
Is that why Primark never display it on the labels of their clothing?
There is a legal requirement when importing to show the country of manufacture, BUT if a company changes the character of the product it imports it qualifies as made in USA.
Depending on the product the manufacturer then lists something like Made in USA with some parts from (put in Country)
Peopel don't rea dthat stuff anyway.
They read:
Today only $ 1.99. Buy one get one FREE!
and then throw the packaging away.
There is a legal requirement when importing to show the country of manufacture, BUT if a company changes the character of the product it imports it qualifies as made in USA.
Depending on the product the manufacturer then lists something like Made in USA with some parts from (put in Country)
Peopel don't rea dthat stuff anyway.
They read:
Today only $ 1.99. Buy one get one FREE!
and then throw the packaging away.
AidenShaw
Sep 6, 08:20 AM
In case you guys were wondering (I had to search around a little), the res on the 24"er is 1900x1200.
1920 x 1200 - so it's 1080i/p compatible....
1920 x 1200 - so it's 1080i/p compatible....
![is hello kitty evil. Evil Hello Kitty [MSL] MySpace](http://www.layoutlocator.com/limages/5d0b42299eb34efc2325fcae77aa2b74_medium.jpg "Evil Hello Kitty [MSL] MySpace")
stabsteer
Apr 14, 01:01 AM
No clue. I bet it would run but not all that well. I hope these comments on the rest of the Studio will calm some of the "sky is falling" pessimists. I'm not saying that FCPX is a home run yet but I'm more than happy to leave my torch and pitchfork in the shed based on what's been demoed so far.
Don't know what these people are talking about. It will run fine on a maxed out 13" air. It's not nearly the same as a maxed out Mac Pro, but it will work fine. These people are just blowing steam without a clue. No one really knows but you should be fine. That's what I have after all!
Don't know what these people are talking about. It will run fine on a maxed out 13" air. It's not nearly the same as a maxed out Mac Pro, but it will work fine. These people are just blowing steam without a clue. No one really knows but you should be fine. That's what I have after all!
Keleko
Mar 3, 07:03 AM
Loving the detail in these pictures and the others you have been posting from this museum trip. I assume it's a museum of some sort and that it was all in the same trip at least...
Yes, it is the Fernbank Museum in Atlanta, GA. They allow photography as long as you don't try to make money from it. They had no problem with me bringing in my tripod, either, which allowed me to get the long exposures necessary for these pictures.
Today's image should be familiar to everyone. My problem was figuring out how to frame this shot. The unicorn was too big to get the whole thing, and there were too many people around to try to get it isolated without people. The horn was over 3' long, so I was forced to let it get cut off if I wanted to show anything up close on the rest of it. Since I have a membership at the museum I may go back and try some other angles to see what else I can do with it.
There was also a dragon, but I flubbed the shot because it came out blurry when I got home and looked at it. I guess I moved the camera a little, and I was in a hurry because people were trying to get past, so I only took one pass at it.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5485528814_dbdd0461dc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5485528814/in/set-72157626160204246/)
Yes, it is the Fernbank Museum in Atlanta, GA. They allow photography as long as you don't try to make money from it. They had no problem with me bringing in my tripod, either, which allowed me to get the long exposures necessary for these pictures.
Today's image should be familiar to everyone. My problem was figuring out how to frame this shot. The unicorn was too big to get the whole thing, and there were too many people around to try to get it isolated without people. The horn was over 3' long, so I was forced to let it get cut off if I wanted to show anything up close on the rest of it. Since I have a membership at the museum I may go back and try some other angles to see what else I can do with it.
There was also a dragon, but I flubbed the shot because it came out blurry when I got home and looked at it. I guess I moved the camera a little, and I was in a hurry because people were trying to get past, so I only took one pass at it.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5251/5485528814_dbdd0461dc_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5485528814/in/set-72157626160204246/)
megapopular
Nov 12, 01:08 PM
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=818566
I really hope Apple makes some changes, anyone who has developed or listren to developers knows what a stupid process this is to get an app approved.
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/11/11/facebook-app-developer-is-through-with-the-iphone-blames-app-st/
The original article, which makes a really great recommendation for Apple to remedy the absurdity of the review-process:
That can be abused, too!
I really hope Apple makes some changes, anyone who has developed or listren to developers knows what a stupid process this is to get an app approved.
http://www.tuaw.com/2009/11/11/facebook-app-developer-is-through-with-the-iphone-blames-app-st/
The original article, which makes a really great recommendation for Apple to remedy the absurdity of the review-process:
That can be abused, too!
Minimoose 360
May 5, 05:16 AM
As long you have the option to toggle it, I don't see a problem. If anyone can do 3D right, it'll be Apple.
If it's hurting your eyes, that means you're old.
If it's hurting your eyes, that means you're old.
dstrauss
Mar 28, 01:16 PM
Great, another store that carries iPad 2 but won't ever have any in stock. LOL.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
The ONLY way to stop this would be an in-store activiation requirement - no more "New in Box - Unopened" sales and then they'd also have to deal with the warranty switch-over.
Unfortunately I think 80% of iPad 2 supply is going to scalpers and resellers, the moment Apple stores get them in stock they sell out and craigslist is then flooded with heavily marked up iPads. It's kind of ridiculous.
On a related note, isn't it a bit weird Apple hasn't announced any sales figures yet? They're usually quick to brag when devices hit a million sales in a short amount of time.
The ONLY way to stop this would be an in-store activiation requirement - no more "New in Box - Unopened" sales and then they'd also have to deal with the warranty switch-over.
chabig
Sep 6, 09:47 AM
Rubbish. There is a Jupiter sized gap in Apples product "matrix". They have no desktop for frig sake!
Where else would you sit your iMac?
Where else would you sit your iMac?
fitinferno
Sep 4, 01:11 PM
Again, agreed. Who cares when an announcement happens, as long as it happens soon. So far, no one is right, at least not until it actually happens and someone is proven correct.
Well...I'd care to see it more later today or tomorrow than in the next week and a half :P I can have my ordered placed sooner then :)
Well...I'd care to see it more later today or tomorrow than in the next week and a half :P I can have my ordered placed sooner then :)
Eidorian
Sep 6, 09:17 AM
I could have saved a little more money on my iMac. I did NEED it a month ago though. Merom is nice but Core Duo (Yonah) isn't devastated by it.
russomd
Apr 17, 08:38 AM
Woot got a 32 gb black! at tru. Thank you macrumors
JAT
May 5, 03:38 PM
Here's my guess as to how it will work based on how simple Apple likes to make things for the end user:
jellomizer
Oct 15, 03:22 PM
In a word, no. I've seen the demonstrations on the Internet about how you can find another person using a Zune and give them a song they can play three times. It takes forever. By the time you've gone through all that, the girl's got up and left! You're much better off to take one of your earbuds out and put it in her ear. Then you're connected with about two feet of headphone cable.
So in other words. With Zune you can share music wirelessly. With an iPod you can increase the chances of getting to the next base! That is a great feature!
So in other words. With Zune you can share music wirelessly. With an iPod you can increase the chances of getting to the next base! That is a great feature!
fcortese
Mar 9, 08:45 AM
http://img854.imageshack.us/img854/2755/sbaptism120110305111111.jpg
No comments:
Post a Comment