flyfish29
Aug 24, 01:32 PM
didn't see this mentioned- but I guess there are 1.1 million in US and 700,000 abroad so that of course totals the 1.8 mentioned on some reports.
So now we know exactly why apple didn't post their own link yet- site can't handle 1.8 million hits at once huh?:D
So now we know exactly why apple didn't post their own link yet- site can't handle 1.8 million hits at once huh?:D
ChrisA
Apr 12, 03:30 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
OK they build it. Would YOU work there? I think after screwing the rear cover into my 100,000th iPhone I'd go nuts.
it's about friggin time apple build a serious volume manufacturing plant in the US! end of story!
OK they build it. Would YOU work there? I think after screwing the rear cover into my 100,000th iPhone I'd go nuts.
msandersen
Jul 22, 10:20 PM
Integrate motion sensors! With a flick of the wrist, the page will turn. Hot Damn!
Heh, and just like a real book, if there's a sudden draft, all the pages will flick past and you'll lose you place.
Considering that one of the first uses for most new technologies (such as the "book" and "moving pictures") has traditionally been porn, why not have an emergency "boss" or "wife" button to flick to a boring business report or something else preconfigured. Of course that might only work if they don't know of the feature themselves. iPorn. Gotta Love It.
Heh, and just like a real book, if there's a sudden draft, all the pages will flick past and you'll lose you place.
Considering that one of the first uses for most new technologies (such as the "book" and "moving pictures") has traditionally been porn, why not have an emergency "boss" or "wife" button to flick to a boring business report or something else preconfigured. Of course that might only work if they don't know of the feature themselves. iPorn. Gotta Love It.
Groovey
Nov 8, 06:18 AM
Finland store still up as well, even though our neighbours in Sweden have their store down already. C'mon Finland & U.S. stores, give up! :D
Finland down. Aye.
Finland down. Aye.
Stevamundo
Apr 17, 01:58 PM
Toys R' Us? I though they only sold video games and...toys!?
They do. LOL!
They do. LOL!
frozencarbonite
Aug 3, 02:40 PM
They are (http://blog.washingtonpost.com/securityfix/2006/08/followup_to_macbook_post.html).
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
Powerbook drivers? hahaha
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.
Compile 'em all
Jan 11, 05:02 PM
No...I think the focus will be on the Macintosh at this year's MacWorld. Therefore I vote for #3. Imagine every new MacBook equipped with an AirPort card that can access AT&T's 3G network. No more searching for WiFi spots. You could access the Internet at fast speeds while cruising down the highway! Pretty cool. It would definitely catch the competition off guard.
THis is one of the most ridiculous posts I have read on this thread. Sorry. So you want Apple to go around the world creating contracts with all mobile operators in the world, so you can use 3G FOR FREE???!! Which isn't even available everywhere??!!.
THis is one of the most ridiculous posts I have read on this thread. Sorry. So you want Apple to go around the world creating contracts with all mobile operators in the world, so you can use 3G FOR FREE???!! Which isn't even available everywhere??!!.
JPark
Mar 29, 09:53 AM
This would be nice. I'd like to be able to tell my phone to read an email or text to me when I receive one while driving. However, I get into arguments all the time with the Siri app. We weren't on speaking terms for about a month after the last fiasco, (she kept telling me she couldn't help me because she didn't know my home address even though I wasn't at home and I couldn't see how knowing that would help me find a Taco Bell), but we recently made amends and the relationship, although tenuous, is improving.
partyBoy
Oct 11, 06:18 PM
No, I am working in Japan. I am an AET here.
What's AET ? (american eagle t-shirts):p
What's AET ? (american eagle t-shirts):p
citizenzen
Mar 15, 02:08 PM
Top 10 defense contractors employ over 1 million people. If you cut their federal contracts by 40%, how many people will they have to lay off, 40%? 30% 20%. Do the math. Defense cuts need to be slow and steady over many years so we can absorb these workers.
Excerpts (http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military) from Le Monde Diplomatique, february 2008 ...
Why the US has really gone broke
Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life.
There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.
Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.
Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.
Fiscal disaster
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
More to follow.
Excerpts (http://mondediplo.com/2008/02/05military) from Le Monde Diplomatique, february 2008 ...
Why the US has really gone broke
Global confidence in the US economy has reached zero, as was proved by last month’s stock market meltdown. But there is an enormous anomaly in the US economy above and beyond the subprime mortgage crisis, the housing bubble and the prospect of recession: 60 years of misallocation of resources, and borrowings, to the establishment and maintenance of a military-industrial complex as the basis of the nation’s economic life.
There are three broad aspects to the US debt crisis. First, in the current fiscal year (2008) we are spending insane amounts of money on “defence” projects that bear no relation to the national security of the US. We are also keeping the income tax burdens on the richest segment of the population at strikingly low levels.
Second, we continue to believe that we can compensate for the accelerating erosion of our base and our loss of jobs to foreign countries through massive military expenditures — “military Keynesianism” (which I discuss in detail in my book Nemesis: The Last Days of the American Republic). By that, I mean the mistaken belief that public policies focused on frequent wars, huge expenditures on weapons and munitions, and large standing armies can indefinitely sustain a wealthy capitalist economy. The opposite is actually true.
Third, in our devotion to militarism (despite our limited resources), we are failing to invest in our social infrastructure and other requirements for the long-term health of the US. These are what economists call opportunity costs, things not done because we spent our money on something else. Our public education system has deteriorated alarmingly. We have failed to provide health care to all our citizens and neglected our responsibilities as the world’s number one polluter. Most important, we have lost our competitiveness as a manufacturer for civilian needs, an infinitely more efficient use of scarce resources than arms manufacturing.
Fiscal disaster
It is virtually impossible to overstate the profligacy of what our government spends on the military. The Department of Defense’s planned expenditures for the fiscal year 2008 are larger than all other nations’ military budgets combined. The supplementary budget to pay for the current wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, not part of the official defence budget, is itself larger than the combined military budgets of Russia and China. Defence-related spending for fiscal 2008 will exceed $1 trillion for the first time in history. The US has become the largest single seller of arms and munitions to other nations on Earth. Leaving out President Bush’s two on-going wars, defence spending has doubled since the mid-1990s. The defence budget for fiscal 2008 is the largest since the second world war.
But there is much more. In an attempt to disguise the true size of the US military empire, the government has long hidden major military-related expenditures in departments other than Defense. For example, $23.4bn for the Department of Energy goes towards developing and maintaining nuclear warheads; and $25.3bn in the Department of State budget is spent on foreign military assistance (primarily for Israel, Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, the United Arab Republic, Egypt and Pakistan). Another $1.03bn outside the official Department of Defense budget is now needed for recruitment and re-enlistment incentives for the overstretched US military, up from a mere $174m in when the war in Iraq began. The Department of Veterans Affairs currently gets at least $75.7bn, 50% of it for the long-term care of the most seriously injured among the 28,870 soldiers so far wounded in Iraq and 1,708 in Afghanistan. The amount is universally derided as inadequate. Another $46.4bn goes to the Department of Homeland Security.
Missing from this compilation is $1.9bn to the Department of Justice for the paramilitary activities of the FBI; $38.5bn to the Department of the Treasury for the Military Retirement Fund; $7.6bn for the military-related activities of the National Aeronautics and Space Administration; and well over $200bn in interest for past debt-financed defence outlays. This brings US spending for its military establishment during the current fiscal year, conservatively calculated, to at least $1.1 trillion.
More to follow.
pip11
Sep 12, 01:37 PM
iTunes 2 had the blue note--v1 had three notes of varying colors. iTunes icon timeline:
http://www.techmanifesto.com/archives/2005/09/08/the-itunes-icon-timeline/
http://www.techmanifesto.com/archives/2005/09/08/the-itunes-icon-timeline/
berkleeboy210
Sep 4, 04:26 PM
p.s. does anyone know if they will webcast the event?
probably not live, usually a few hours after it'll be posted on apple.com for viewing.
probably not live, usually a few hours after it'll be posted on apple.com for viewing.
MrFrankly
Aug 24, 03:39 PM
Is there anyone who actually got his serial number to be confirmed as a faulty one? I keep getting a " This serial number is invalid or does not qualify for the program."
While my serial number starts with 6C5353... which as far as I can check fits into the range of valid iBook battery serial numbers.
While my serial number starts with 6C5353... which as far as I can check fits into the range of valid iBook battery serial numbers.
Thataboy
Aug 4, 11:55 AM
No its not. There will be live text coverage on MR, and their will be a video of the keynote on apple's site within a couple hours after it ends.
Well that makes sense, as it costs lots of money for developers to attend... why should they show it for free live :) Thanks.
Well that makes sense, as it costs lots of money for developers to attend... why should they show it for free live :) Thanks.
Warbrain
Aug 10, 06:50 PM
Is it me, or is the internals of the Mac Pro not as sexy as the internals of the PowerMac G5? It just doesn't feel the same.
Maybe it's just me.
Maybe it's just me.
spicyapple
Oct 15, 08:15 PM
A little off topic but would = Ctrl-Alt-Delete on a Mac?
Command+Option+ESC or holding down the Power button.
Command+Option+ESC or holding down the Power button.
hansiedejong
Oct 25, 01:06 PM
https://dl-web.dropbox.com/get/Screenshots/iPhone/Photo%20okt.%2025%2C%207%2049%2001%20PM.jpg?w=08862ee9
Philips Living Colors. MacBook Pro 13''. iPad (in Apple iPad case).
Taken with iPhone 4.
Philips Living Colors. MacBook Pro 13''. iPad (in Apple iPad case).
Taken with iPhone 4.
tremlock
Nov 2, 05:43 PM
how is this new news? This message has been popping up for months
touchtone561
Mar 18, 02:11 PM
Japan perhaps.
Maybe it is a reflection of a parts shortage to be?
I still love my Classic.
Maybe it is a reflection of a parts shortage to be?
I still love my Classic.
AvSRoCkCO1067
Sep 6, 10:12 AM
Is it just me, or a 24" iMac would've been nice to show on stage with whatever that "Showtime" thing might be? That would, at least, have made some sense to at least start by showing that.
Which means the september 12th presentation must be really packed with new stuff if they couldn't even announce the 24" iMac at that event. They've also bumped the CPUs on the Mac mini today, so that makes two updates on the same day too.
It's also weird to see new releases on a wednesday...
...why do people keep thinking it's so weird?
It was Labor Day on Monday. Apple ALWAYS has Wednesday updates on holiday-weeks.
Although if you're not from the U.S....I could see why it would be weird...
Which means the september 12th presentation must be really packed with new stuff if they couldn't even announce the 24" iMac at that event. They've also bumped the CPUs on the Mac mini today, so that makes two updates on the same day too.
It's also weird to see new releases on a wednesday...
...why do people keep thinking it's so weird?
It was Labor Day on Monday. Apple ALWAYS has Wednesday updates on holiday-weeks.
Although if you're not from the U.S....I could see why it would be weird...
xxBURT0Nxx
May 5, 01:08 AM
So you think because it's wireless it will allow you do that? That's a big assumption. Charging was about the fact that wireless syncing at least for me only makes sense if you can charge at the same time (induction charging) otherwise it will be slow and battery draining. I sync my iPhone at least once a weak and i put 10-12 GB of music and videos on it everytime. For such amounts wireless sync is pointless. Of course people sync different amounts of data and at different frequencies, but they sync.
i think you are confused my friend... where did i ever say that? In fact earlier in this thread i said...
i feel like this would be a real battery killer... maybe not if you are just adding a few apps and cd's but when i sync ~6gb of music, contacts, calanders, apps, etc. it's a pretty long process over USB... don't even want to know how long it would take over wi-fi, nor would I want to sit around the house for a few hours to finish updating my phone all while the battery is getting raped.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
later in the thread another poster said
Tying it to a single computer's iTunes has been a nuisance from time to time.
and you replied
So you never charge your iPhone or iPod?
what does being tied to a single iTunes account have to do with charging your iDevice?
______________________________________________________________________________________
As for wireless sync and inductive charging... dumb idea imo
so i can sync over wifi, which is going to be slow as hell, and i still have to keep my device on a charging pad or in a dock? Why wouldn't i just plug it into the damn computer to speed up the process?
i think you are confused my friend... where did i ever say that? In fact earlier in this thread i said...
i feel like this would be a real battery killer... maybe not if you are just adding a few apps and cd's but when i sync ~6gb of music, contacts, calanders, apps, etc. it's a pretty long process over USB... don't even want to know how long it would take over wi-fi, nor would I want to sit around the house for a few hours to finish updating my phone all while the battery is getting raped.
__________________________________________________________________________________________
later in the thread another poster said
Tying it to a single computer's iTunes has been a nuisance from time to time.
and you replied
So you never charge your iPhone or iPod?
what does being tied to a single iTunes account have to do with charging your iDevice?
______________________________________________________________________________________
As for wireless sync and inductive charging... dumb idea imo
so i can sync over wifi, which is going to be slow as hell, and i still have to keep my device on a charging pad or in a dock? Why wouldn't i just plug it into the damn computer to speed up the process?
Apple OC
Mar 12, 08:45 PM
You make some great points and I think the key to a successful reduction in military spending is to reduce it over time. A sudden 30-50% cut in the budget would be horrific and not just for a military program but in any program. But why not aim to reduce it from 600 billion today, to 400 billion fifteen years from now? The key is discipline but such a trait is not something I have seen Washington demonstrate. :(
Even I would support something along these lines ... can't argue with this sort of rational reductions :cool:
Even I would support something along these lines ... can't argue with this sort of rational reductions :cool:
maclor
Mar 28, 06:44 PM
You can see all the RadioShack locations carrying iPads 2 tomorrow on a map: http://www.ipad2locator.com/
Anyone planning on trying to get one? Any guesses on how many per store?
Anyone planning on trying to get one? Any guesses on how many per store?
No comments:
Post a Comment