DiamondMac
Apr 7, 11:39 AM
I've been getting "Call Failed" on about 25% of my phone call attempts since 4.3.1. It's really, really annoying.
That seems about right for AT&T service
That seems about right for AT&T service
Clive At Five
Nov 29, 01:41 PM
That's the problem. The industry thinks that they can set the rules, when in fact it's the law makers and the judges that decide and implement them. I just wish the they (the politicians/judges, etc) would show a bit more understanding and concern for the consumer. After all, we're the ones who need protecting.
I'm not sure if I agree with you. Broadening "Fair Use", treads a fine line between justice and public abduction of creative property. The real answer is to boycott Hollywood until they start offering reasonable solutions... and the easiest (albeit illegal) way to send them a message is piracy. If you're not cool with that, then you're just going to have to go without movies, and convince your friends to do the same.
-Clive
I'm not sure if I agree with you. Broadening "Fair Use", treads a fine line between justice and public abduction of creative property. The real answer is to boycott Hollywood until they start offering reasonable solutions... and the easiest (albeit illegal) way to send them a message is piracy. If you're not cool with that, then you're just going to have to go without movies, and convince your friends to do the same.
-Clive
brwnTiger
Oct 11, 12:54 AM
Anyone know of an easier way to refresh direct messages? Other than that, it's a very nice app...loving the new nearby interface.
rezenclowd3
Apr 19, 09:09 PM
^^^ Really? I think as usual it looks like a booring American car....
joeshell383
Nov 20, 04:45 PM
I'm beginning to think out this will come out about when the Powerbook G5 does...
Next Tuesday, Sweet!
Next Tuesday, Sweet!
URFloorMatt
Apr 28, 08:56 AM
The key will be when Verizon gets the iPhone 5, as many have already said. But I don't see how contract commitments would be holding back current Verizon customers. Verizon customers have never bought a phone en masse like AT&T users with iPhones. Current AT&T customers looking to switch, however, would presumably be locked in to a 3GS contract for at least another couple of months, though at this point the ETF on a June or July 2009 contract is substantially less than another month of service. But they probably also believe a new iPhone will be coming in June, which might explain why they're content to sit tight.
Nothing about the CDMA iPhone matters until the new edition is released. Then we'll get a clearer picture of iPhone interest.
Nothing about the CDMA iPhone matters until the new edition is released. Then we'll get a clearer picture of iPhone interest.
rprebel
Sep 1, 12:07 AM
Nothing much. A little geektool and a modified bowtie theme. Original on the right.
DisMyMac
Nov 19, 08:07 PM
Someone call the WAAAAA-Ambulance..... The emailer is most likely an early adopter who feels cheated... So is this guy going to write to Steve Jobs every time he finds an iPad on eBay for $100 less than retail? How about 1� auctions?
Hah.
It will be satisfying as an abused/ex- mac fan to see Steve's latest toy quaintly arranged on a folding table by a tired old woman -- right next to beard trimmers and wine-bottle sleeves.
Hah.
It will be satisfying as an abused/ex- mac fan to see Steve's latest toy quaintly arranged on a folding table by a tired old woman -- right next to beard trimmers and wine-bottle sleeves.
AWallen90
May 2, 12:52 PM
Have you tried the green bubble in the top left of the window?
toddybody
Mar 25, 11:55 AM
That's a great idea! I'd love to see that for when I'm traveling and don't want to turn on international data roaming for the internet, but can still use cell towers for triangulation of my position.
+1
That would ROCK
+1
That would ROCK
hulugu
Mar 17, 03:28 PM
...
Note that this is most likely from where the representative from Florida got her information and was paraphrasing, albeit with poor word choice....
I guess the Times was stuck between blaming the victim and having another Jena 6 story on their hands.
A poor word choice is not to go from this: They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said...
to this:
...There was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gangraped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute....And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it�s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn�t happen to our students.
The Times described a situation; Rep. Passidomo used that horrible situation to justify her stance on school uniforms by making the pernicious inference that wardrobe choices could lead to rape.
Similar thinking in Afghanistan and Iran leads women to wear burkhas, lest men become so incensed at the shape of an ankle or nape that they cannot help themselves. These cultures hold women, and not the rat bastards who commit the act, responsible. And Passidomo is using the exact same logic.
Note that this is most likely from where the representative from Florida got her information and was paraphrasing, albeit with poor word choice....
I guess the Times was stuck between blaming the victim and having another Jena 6 story on their hands.
A poor word choice is not to go from this: They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said...
to this:
...There was an article about an 11 year old girl who was gangraped in Texas by 18 young men because she was dressed like a 21-year-old prostitute....And her parents let her attend school like that. And I think it�s incumbent upon us to create some areas where students can be safe in school and show up in proper attire so what happened in Texas doesn�t happen to our students.
The Times described a situation; Rep. Passidomo used that horrible situation to justify her stance on school uniforms by making the pernicious inference that wardrobe choices could lead to rape.
Similar thinking in Afghanistan and Iran leads women to wear burkhas, lest men become so incensed at the shape of an ankle or nape that they cannot help themselves. These cultures hold women, and not the rat bastards who commit the act, responsible. And Passidomo is using the exact same logic.
a1rflow
Jan 10, 10:26 PM
Are you sure the mp3 file isn't corrupted? (are you able to play the whole file in iTunes past the first 10 seconds?)
FX4568
Apr 4, 10:24 PM
Phew. Thanks for clearing that up for us. Until you explained it so well I was really worried.
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
Well, this is macrumors and i try to stay away from economic theories, but you asked for it, so here we go:
Monopolies cause "allocative deadweight loss" (although its main argument applies towards state-owned enterprises)
What does that mean?
In a competitive market, producers dont have the freedom to set a price because the rival can always undercut them until the point where lowering the price will cause in a loss.
BUT the monopolist firm can decide the price it charges by varying the quantity it produces, so it will produce only up to the quantity where its profit is maximized. UNDER NORMAL CIRCUMSTANCES, the level of output is lower than the socially optimal one, which is where the max price a consumer is willing to pay is the same as the minimum price that the producer requires in order not to lose money.
When the amount produced is LESS than the socially optimal quantity, it means not serving some consumers who are perfectly willing to pay MORE than the minimum price that the producer requires but who are unwilling to bear the price at which the monopoly firm can max its profit. The unfulfilled desire of those neglected consumers is the social cost of monopoly.
So basically, monopolies will start losing more money when they start raising the price since consumers will either 1) not be able to access such services (since they will only make the MIN amount for MAX price and by using calculus, you would rather spend a little more in the amount produced and make a little less profit rather than having an EXACT amount although you would make the best profit IF you sold ALL items) or 2) consumers will just stop using it since cell phone devices are not a NECESSITY but instead a WANT. do you think you will pay whatever cellphone company if the price exceeds a certain comfort zone in your income bracket? you wont.
Furthermore, I will take it one more step. Monopolies can be good. If you look at the Mexican carrier, Telcel. The year Telcel was monopolized by Carlos Slim (riches man in the world now) coverage in Mexico grew more than it did in the hands of the state. According to the "monopoly=bad" argument, service in Mexico should have dropped in every other city that is not important in Mexico's economy while service should have exploded in cities such as Mexico City and Puebla. No, it exploded in the main cities while it also exploded with the whole country
In conclusion, monopolies are only dangerous IF the monopoly is a necessity based. i.e. lets say one man owned the whole united states food supply. Then yes, monopolies would be the worst. But not cell phone companies, cmon if monopolies were SOO good for the company why would Bell even break up his own company? just for the lulz? I dont think so. Because the government told him so? I certainly dont believe it since Bell probably would have had the power to lobby his way out and in case nothing worked he couldve just brought it up to the Supreme Court.
Anyways, enough with the economics jargon. Enjoy your economics class :P
kdarling
Apr 27, 04:36 PM
We’re an engineering-driven company. When people accuse us of things, the first thing we want to do is find out the truth. That took a certain amount of time to track all of these things down. And the accusations were coming day by day. By the time we had figured this all out, it took a few days.
As someone who has to track down things like this constantly, I'm pretty unimpressed at the (lack of) speed of their code checking. This was not an obscure bug or complicated. It was just a too-large buffer definition and an execution path that always downloaded info.
And people think Apple can check binary app store submissions for bugs or trojans in just a few minutes, when they can't even find their own bugs in a few days with commented source code.
Then writing it up and trying to make it intelligible when this is a very high-tech topic took a few days.
Again unimpressed. There've been accurate explanations posted here before Apple spoke up, that took just minutes to compose.
And here we are less than a week later.
Although I've defended Apple over and over again on this topic, this just smacks of hoping it would blow over.
The right thing to do would've been to immediately say a week ago, "we're looking into it".
As someone who has to track down things like this constantly, I'm pretty unimpressed at the (lack of) speed of their code checking. This was not an obscure bug or complicated. It was just a too-large buffer definition and an execution path that always downloaded info.
And people think Apple can check binary app store submissions for bugs or trojans in just a few minutes, when they can't even find their own bugs in a few days with commented source code.
Then writing it up and trying to make it intelligible when this is a very high-tech topic took a few days.
Again unimpressed. There've been accurate explanations posted here before Apple spoke up, that took just minutes to compose.
And here we are less than a week later.
Although I've defended Apple over and over again on this topic, this just smacks of hoping it would blow over.
The right thing to do would've been to immediately say a week ago, "we're looking into it".
coolfactor
Apr 30, 07:25 PM
I have a couple of thoughts here:
1) Apple developers are forgetting about their own UI guidelines. Rather than using a button like "Upgrade" or "Open MobileMe Preferences", they use the generic OK label that could mean anything.
2) They are being lazy during development, and the wording will be changed before the official release.
1) Apple developers are forgetting about their own UI guidelines. Rather than using a button like "Upgrade" or "Open MobileMe Preferences", they use the generic OK label that could mean anything.
2) They are being lazy during development, and the wording will be changed before the official release.
Praetorian�
Sep 6, 07:49 AM
http://img.skitch.com/20100906-e9k7a4iiiuxwy1s5h946gf2wep.preview.jpg (http://skitch.com/praetorian/dij66/bmw-wallpaper)
Click for full size (http://skitch.com/praetorian/dij66/bmw-wallpaper)
Click for full size (http://skitch.com/praetorian/dij66/bmw-wallpaper)
mcmlxix
Mar 25, 11:42 AM
I've been thinking about that: remember when there were rumors of OS X delays because the Mac team was pulled onto the iOS team in order to get 3.0 out? I'm wondering if the opposite is happening now - the iOS team has been pulled onto the Lion team in order to get Lion ready for a summer launch.
This begs another question.
I know Apple likes to have very agile teams that can be pulled into whichever project needs the most attention at the time, but if OS X is taking a hit because of iOS, iOS is taking a hit because of OS X, iWork hasn�t been refreshed, let alone iWork for iOS, etc, etc, it sounds like Apple just needs more engineers.
This begs another question.
I know Apple likes to have very agile teams that can be pulled into whichever project needs the most attention at the time, but if OS X is taking a hit because of iOS, iOS is taking a hit because of OS X, iWork hasn�t been refreshed, let alone iWork for iOS, etc, etc, it sounds like Apple just needs more engineers.
DJsteveSD
Apr 7, 12:52 PM
TEmpest
TEmpest
TEMPEST!
TEmpest
TEMPEST!
jwdsail
Dec 1, 08:54 AM
Not when there are plenty of people who don't know/don't care about such restrictions. You may refuse to do business with the studios due to their draconian rights management, but all the higher end services are covered with them. The result is you're one of the lowest spending consumers on the entertainment industry's radar.
The sad fact is, you don't want to play ball and they could care less when you're in the minority.
Do you ever wonder why you cable company doesn't offer any special limited time rates on basic cable service?
But I'm *NOT* one of the lowest spending customers... I'm constantly buying DVDs from Amazon... I don't have room for the DVDs I have as it is... My cable bill makes me want to puke.. I'd hold my entertainment spending up against any on this forum..
I'm refusing to buy the latest CRAP-laden disks, possible-broadcast flag-filled broadcasts, and downloads they're trying to shove down our throats in the future... I'm saying if they want to keep my future business at anywhere near my current rates, they better make the future DRM/Crap/etc more like what we have now, or they will loose sales..
How can that NOT be on their RADAR?
Shrug
jwd
The sad fact is, you don't want to play ball and they could care less when you're in the minority.
Do you ever wonder why you cable company doesn't offer any special limited time rates on basic cable service?
But I'm *NOT* one of the lowest spending customers... I'm constantly buying DVDs from Amazon... I don't have room for the DVDs I have as it is... My cable bill makes me want to puke.. I'd hold my entertainment spending up against any on this forum..
I'm refusing to buy the latest CRAP-laden disks, possible-broadcast flag-filled broadcasts, and downloads they're trying to shove down our throats in the future... I'm saying if they want to keep my future business at anywhere near my current rates, they better make the future DRM/Crap/etc more like what we have now, or they will loose sales..
How can that NOT be on their RADAR?
Shrug
jwd
yintaibing
May 4, 10:40 PM
Collections, may be used on future
mpw
Sep 26, 11:39 AM
...I just don't understand this whole "he's 18 and and adult" routine. He may be 18 in the eyes of the law, but with no real life experience behind him I hardly think he can be considered mature enough to make adult decisions. What's with this whole "hey presto the law says your an adult so you your all grow up now" ??...
You may not have been but I was perfectly able to make adult decisions about my life before I was 18years old.
At 18 the law recognised that I should be capable of behaving like an adult. It is the job of parents (and society) to make sure that there children are ready to be adults by 18years, which means they should've been preparing them for these sort of decisions for years. A parent shouldn't treat a son like a child until they're 18years and then from their 18th birthday treat them as an adult.
...I walked in on mine...
As an early teen I was in the room next to mine and had to endure a night of their role-playing passion. (They�re normally quite straight laced).
Then a couple of years later when I was maybe 16/17years old I walked in on them at around 11pm in the living room. Mum sat in the arm-chair with a leg over each arm and Dad kneeling going down on her.
***shudders***
Embarrassed? Yes, all of us. Disgusted? No, couldn�t see a reason to be. Ever sat in that chair again? No ***king way! Eww.
You may not have been but I was perfectly able to make adult decisions about my life before I was 18years old.
At 18 the law recognised that I should be capable of behaving like an adult. It is the job of parents (and society) to make sure that there children are ready to be adults by 18years, which means they should've been preparing them for these sort of decisions for years. A parent shouldn't treat a son like a child until they're 18years and then from their 18th birthday treat them as an adult.
...I walked in on mine...
As an early teen I was in the room next to mine and had to endure a night of their role-playing passion. (They�re normally quite straight laced).
Then a couple of years later when I was maybe 16/17years old I walked in on them at around 11pm in the living room. Mum sat in the arm-chair with a leg over each arm and Dad kneeling going down on her.
***shudders***
Embarrassed? Yes, all of us. Disgusted? No, couldn�t see a reason to be. Ever sat in that chair again? No ***king way! Eww.
Multimedia
Nov 2, 11:33 AM
Not much point. Try these from the AppleInsider "High-quality photos of Apple's second-gen iPod shuffle" article (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2195) taken by Jeremy Smith of Pleasanton CA instead...Thank you so much Heimi. Just what I was looking for.
G5Unit
Apr 5, 08:36 PM
Man, I never look at the finer detials
webznz
Apr 27, 04:10 PM
if they are not tracking people then why have the feature? maybe the information is for someone else??... who knows but one thing is for sure its an invasion of privacy..... even if I do stay home all day and night.