rovex
Apr 15, 02:51 AM
Got an issue with ipad, not sure it's this update but anyway...
The downloaded apps load for like 1 second and then returns to the home screen, can't seem to fix it.
The downloaded apps load for like 1 second and then returns to the home screen, can't seem to fix it.
Vegasman
Apr 26, 12:32 PM
Can you point me to were you are getting your 2TB hard drives for free? :cool:
You need the local drive anyway. Are you saying you will delete all your songs from your local drive once you put them in the cloud? Now that seems impractical.
You need the local drive anyway. Are you saying you will delete all your songs from your local drive once you put them in the cloud? Now that seems impractical.
peapody
Jan 28, 01:26 PM
You can't hack a DS Lite.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
:p
But really, I want that jerky, it looks yum.
Lol I pretty much killed that whole bag in one day. $9 in my belly!
Picked up a 32gb Transcend Class 10 SDHC for the hp mini. $50 is not bad for all that extra storage space.
HasanDaddy
Mar 15, 09:10 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_2_6 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8E200 Safari/6533.18.5)
Folks - get your asses to Fashion Island - no confirmation on anything, but there's a good feeling here
Around 9 or so in line, as of 7 am
Folks - get your asses to Fashion Island - no confirmation on anything, but there's a good feeling here
Around 9 or so in line, as of 7 am
more...
povman
Jul 11, 09:34 PM
I just hope Apple already has the name "xPod" trademarked.
I hope microsoft has the name 'iBox' trademarked.. wouldn't want apple to ever make an iBox...
I hope microsoft has the name 'iBox' trademarked.. wouldn't want apple to ever make an iBox...
digitalbiker
Jul 12, 07:19 PM
Show me where Apple calls Pages a consumer app (http://www.apple.com/iwork/pages/).
Oh come on at least give the guy something!
It is common knowledge that Apple markets two principle lines.
The consumer line which used to be prefaced by an "i". iWork, iLife, iBook, iPod, etc.
And the Pro line which used to be prefaced by power or Pro . Ex: PowerBook, PowerMac, Final Cut Pro. etc.
I am also sure that if you review the introduction of Pages at MacWorld it was intended to compete as a consumer product and not a replacement for Word by Steve Jobs. He is always very careful about how he phrases things so that he doesn't upset, MS or Adobe, when they come out with these apps.
Oh come on at least give the guy something!
It is common knowledge that Apple markets two principle lines.
The consumer line which used to be prefaced by an "i". iWork, iLife, iBook, iPod, etc.
And the Pro line which used to be prefaced by power or Pro . Ex: PowerBook, PowerMac, Final Cut Pro. etc.
I am also sure that if you review the introduction of Pages at MacWorld it was intended to compete as a consumer product and not a replacement for Word by Steve Jobs. He is always very careful about how he phrases things so that he doesn't upset, MS or Adobe, when they come out with these apps.
more...
einmusiker
Dec 31, 12:25 AM
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
ok, I'm sorry but how the hell do you know what I do or don't understand about nutrition?? your presumptions are offensive
obey908
Sep 15, 05:46 AM
http://www.washingtonian.com/page_dbimages/9463/georgetowncupcake.sisters.png
1 Chocolate birthday, 2 chocolate pb swirl, 2 pumpkin spice, 1 red velvet, and 1 vanilla/chocolate. Picking them up tomorrow
1 Chocolate birthday, 2 chocolate pb swirl, 2 pumpkin spice, 1 red velvet, and 1 vanilla/chocolate. Picking them up tomorrow
more...
Rocketman
Apr 13, 09:07 PM
White iPad. White iPhone. White iMac?MacW(h/r)ite.
scruffybear22
Jun 6, 06:29 PM
OMG!!!!!!!!!!! My brother actually did this!!!!!!! This article is about my brother!!!!!!!!!!!! NO JOKE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! By the way, he is 10 not 11
more...
iMeowbot
Oct 23, 08:34 AM
This means you can't use the *same* installation of Vista Home inside a virtualization technology on the "licensed device".
This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.
The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.
This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.
This is incorrect. The license says nothing at all about the "same installation" or any such nonsense. If that's what they meant, that's what they would have written.
The clause is there so that MS can lean on companies that want to buy bargain basement Windows and run multiple instances of it under Linux. They want customers to pony up for the expensive version if they want to do that at all.
This isn't the type of clause that would make sense for them to try to audit personal users, too much cost for too little revenue. Business users really do need to avoid the home versions if they want to run virtually.
clintob
Oct 23, 10:27 AM
Why is anyone surprised about this? It goes without saying that MS will try to squeeze every dime they can out of Vista, and that includes making non-PC users pony up for the most expensive version. It's the way it's always been with MS... nickel and dime all the way. Just yet another checkmark in the "why I can't get away from MS fast enough" column.
Losers.
Losers.
more...
Plutonius
Apr 21, 04:27 PM
Not exactly... -aggie- and I have a history in this forum... so... when we do disagree its usually because its him or me on a mood. Mostly him, since he is old...:D:D:D:eek::D
pfft....
Aggie is a youngin.
pfft....
Aggie is a youngin.
stevegmu
Jan 30, 01:51 PM
[QUOTE=wmk461;4858295]
WELL SAID WMK!!! - I most agree with the fact that the RETARID amount of money bush has spent has caused the decline in faith of the dollar!
I'd also like to add that Apple is by no means the biggest loser in this current stock slide and will come back. google lost $200 a share! so, they'll all come back it's all about confidence in the US not what was released at MW.
Actually, the US Dollar is declining due to the Fed interest rate cuts.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
More to do with paranoid, small-time, inexperienced investors, than anything else.
WELL SAID WMK!!! - I most agree with the fact that the RETARID amount of money bush has spent has caused the decline in faith of the dollar!
I'd also like to add that Apple is by no means the biggest loser in this current stock slide and will come back. google lost $200 a share! so, they'll all come back it's all about confidence in the US not what was released at MW.
Actually, the US Dollar is declining due to the Fed interest rate cuts.
Congress controls spending, not the President.
More to do with paranoid, small-time, inexperienced investors, than anything else.
more...
TUD
Apr 13, 07:37 PM
Who cares! A little too late now, bring on the iPhone 5!
DaBlackMamba
Mar 17, 10:20 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Anyone know about fi or scp?
Anyone know about fi or scp?
more...
Cbswe
Apr 15, 06:47 AM
LOL. White iPhone 4 will be the duke nukem forever of iPhones.
+1 :D
Does anyone have any id�a how come it took such a long time? Isn't the only difference the color of the plastic? oO
+1 :D
Does anyone have any id�a how come it took such a long time? Isn't the only difference the color of the plastic? oO
geekindisguise
Nov 6, 02:36 PM
Well. I am about to buy an iPad myself. So I can't put that...
How about a:
1. Case for my soon to be iPad. :D
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mGaAfcWpL._SS400_.jpg
2. Probably a Dock too, if I don't buy it first.
http://images.apple.com/ipad/accessories/images/accessories_ipaddock_20100225.jpg
3. Hmm... I do NEED a better backup solution for my MacBook. And our WiFi router is doing so good right now. How about a 2Tb Time Capsule. :D
But this is more of the WISH of my Wish List.
http://images.apple.com/timecapsule/images/overview_timecapsule_20091202.png
4. JEANS!! I need them. Really.
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/0115_2917_515_of?$pdp-406-405h$
5. Shirts? :D
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/2151_8154_400_f?$pdp-265$
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/2151_8154_321_f?$pdp-265$
6. Oh. And THESE so I don't have to use my nose to control my iPhone in the winter. :D
http://www.53degreesnorth.ie/images/W/the_north_face_etip_glove_black.jpg
7. Sunglasses. But more importantly, they need to be prescription so I can actually SEE.
http://www.oakley.com/images/catalog/generated/750x350/88/49242fbe50086.jpg
8. Almost forgot! An iTunes card so I can buy some apps for my new iPad. :)
http://www.appscout.com/images/itunes%20gift%20card.jpg
Is this too much? Yeah. But it's a wishlist, so who cares! :D
How about a:
1. Case for my soon to be iPad. :D
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/31mGaAfcWpL._SS400_.jpg
2. Probably a Dock too, if I don't buy it first.
http://images.apple.com/ipad/accessories/images/accessories_ipaddock_20100225.jpg
3. Hmm... I do NEED a better backup solution for my MacBook. And our WiFi router is doing so good right now. How about a 2Tb Time Capsule. :D
But this is more of the WISH of my Wish List.
http://images.apple.com/timecapsule/images/overview_timecapsule_20091202.png
4. JEANS!! I need them. Really.
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/0115_2917_515_of?$pdp-406-405h$
5. Shirts? :D
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/2151_8154_400_f?$pdp-265$
http://pics.ae.com/is/image/aeo/2151_8154_321_f?$pdp-265$
6. Oh. And THESE so I don't have to use my nose to control my iPhone in the winter. :D
http://www.53degreesnorth.ie/images/W/the_north_face_etip_glove_black.jpg
7. Sunglasses. But more importantly, they need to be prescription so I can actually SEE.
http://www.oakley.com/images/catalog/generated/750x350/88/49242fbe50086.jpg
8. Almost forgot! An iTunes card so I can buy some apps for my new iPad. :)
http://www.appscout.com/images/itunes%20gift%20card.jpg
Is this too much? Yeah. But it's a wishlist, so who cares! :D
AlmostJosh
Dec 5, 08:48 PM
A double industrial is all I want :)
flopticalcube
Apr 11, 02:15 PM
Could this be the eventual end of usb altogether?
Unlikely. USB still retains advantages in ubiquity, cost and far more devices supported per connection (128 vs 16). I would see WiFi and Bluetooth as bigger USB competitors.
Unlikely. USB still retains advantages in ubiquity, cost and far more devices supported per connection (128 vs 16). I would see WiFi and Bluetooth as bigger USB competitors.
robeddie
Apr 22, 07:00 AM
Wow, are you this much of a jerk in person?
Absolutely! But only when it's warranted.
Absolutely! But only when it's warranted.
bedifferent
Apr 15, 10:40 PM
Snow Lion? :rolleyes:
Funny fact: All the OS X names match to German tanks:
German tanks and OSX (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-372797.html)
Apple Mac OS X Versions Named After German Tanks? (http://robertnyman.com/2009/09/02/apple-mac-os-x-versions-named-after-german-tanks/)
Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah
Tank: Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer_Gepard) (Gepard in German means Cheetah in English)
Mac OS X 10.1 Puma
Tank: Sd.Kfz. 234/2 “Puma” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Panzersp�hwagen#Sd.Kfz._234.2F2_.22Puma.22)
Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar
Tanks: Jaguar 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_1) and Jaguar 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_2)
Mac OS X 10.3 Panther
Tank: Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank)
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
Tanks: Tiger 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) and Tiger 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II)
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Tanks: Leopard 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1) and Leopard 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2)
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard
Haven’t found the corresponding tank yet, but I’m sure it exists…
Funny fact: All the OS X names match to German tanks:
German tanks and OSX (http://forums.macrumors.com/archive/index.php/t-372797.html)
Apple Mac OS X Versions Named After German Tanks? (http://robertnyman.com/2009/09/02/apple-mac-os-x-versions-named-after-german-tanks/)
Mac OS X 10.0 Cheetah
Tank: Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer Gepard (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flugabwehrkanonenpanzer_Gepard) (Gepard in German means Cheetah in English)
Mac OS X 10.1 Puma
Tank: Sd.Kfz. 234/2 “Puma” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwerer_Panzersp�hwagen#Sd.Kfz._234.2F2_.22Puma.22)
Mac OS X 10.2 Jaguar
Tanks: Jaguar 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_1) and Jaguar 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jaguar_2)
Mac OS X 10.3 Panther
Tank: Panther (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank)
Mac OS X 10.4 Tiger
Tanks: Tiger 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_I) and Tiger 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger_II)
Mac OS X 10.5 Leopard
Tanks: Leopard 1 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1) and Leopard 2 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_2)
Mac OS X 10.6 Snow Leopard
Haven’t found the corresponding tank yet, but I’m sure it exists…
Tones2
Apr 22, 10:26 AM
No thanks.
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
4.0 max whilst retaining current size. It's a phone not a tablet.
Have you used a 4.3" phone. They don't seem that much physically bigger but the screen size is awesome! Apple keeps getting squeezed with adding new technology because of the size limitations of the phone. Giving us a slightly bigger size with the advantage of a bigger screen size AND more components seems like an excellent tradeoff.
Yeah - I know if will never happen because SJ is compulsive obsessive with never making things bigger.
Tony
Willis
Aug 1, 10:48 AM
'Microsoft's Zune - Long Term Effort'... yeah, in R&D. 3-5 years time for a product is crazy. The market wont want what they will have on offer in that time. Its like that origami or whatever it is. Something that cropped up on MR, and then disappeared. no one cares.
0 comments:
Post a Comment