briand05
Mar 28, 04:52 PM
That is so crazy it's ridiculous. There is no evidence to support your statement. Mac OS X is not headed towards the "walled garden" universe that everyone seems to freak out over. Apple's just giving people who don't know anything about computers an easy way to purchase and find applications.
I do agree, however, that by not including applications outside of the Mac App Store Apple is diminishing the value of the award. I believe it is within their right to do so, although I don't like it.
I honestly wouldn't put it past Jobs. I really believe he wants the Mac to be a walled garden just like iOS.
I do agree, however, that by not including applications outside of the Mac App Store Apple is diminishing the value of the award. I believe it is within their right to do so, although I don't like it.
I honestly wouldn't put it past Jobs. I really believe he wants the Mac to be a walled garden just like iOS.
Sdevante
Mar 17, 11:07 AM
Retail theft is on the books everywhere and rooted in old common law. The States only vary on degrees (ie classes of misdemeanors).
Not so. Where I am from (which I guess would be Chicago, Illinois, since I am the President), there is only one theft offense and nothing specific to retail. Under that statute, I'm not sure the OP would be subject to prosecution.
I stand by my initial statement that one should not be so quick to make blanket statements.
Not so. Where I am from (which I guess would be Chicago, Illinois, since I am the President), there is only one theft offense and nothing specific to retail. Under that statute, I'm not sure the OP would be subject to prosecution.
I stand by my initial statement that one should not be so quick to make blanket statements.
![marijuana wallpapers. [Attachment]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_u7de_AD11RgD93UZxSQWcnEii1uM72ua1ERgfE6j51_GajfcMChfflUxQFYlzS4aZfrS5PS1yKA1OHX2w8M2xZd4GGhcPm1H6XtfpPtQhnn7qJEAM6-0ba3LBN2hD9ErCfE1eqpBB6fJ2Vn_pP5ml-hxfk1przHHlUsz2uYq6zG5aeKyGte4s=s0-d "[Attachment]")
gekko513
Nov 16, 04:40 PM
If AMD has cheaper chips than Intel that also fully support Rosetta and all that (SSE3), then I may see it happening.
pudrums
Apr 13, 09:28 AM
Pre-ordered 22 Bullets
http://www.heftig-magazin.de/online/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/22-Bullets.jpg
http://www.heftig-magazin.de/online/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/22-Bullets.jpg
Glideslope
Apr 25, 01:23 PM
Why are you so adamant that they will use 4S instead of 5?
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
The phone will be the 4s. The start of production of the CDMA phone in Aug 2010 threw everything off kilter.
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
The 5 will be out in 2012 with Qualcomms 2nd gen Dual Band Chip which will be ready early 2012. It will will be a complete redesign with LTE. My money is on some type of new chassis with a new hybrid aluminum. The back glass will be gone for sure.
Apple will then produce 1 World iPhone. 5,6,7,8,9.... all Global Phones. :apple:
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
The phone will be the 4s. The start of production of the CDMA phone in Aug 2010 threw everything off kilter.
The 4s will be a 4 with the 3.7 screen, and a A5 chip. That is it. Period.
The 5 will be out in 2012 with Qualcomms 2nd gen Dual Band Chip which will be ready early 2012. It will will be a complete redesign with LTE. My money is on some type of new chassis with a new hybrid aluminum. The back glass will be gone for sure.
Apple will then produce 1 World iPhone. 5,6,7,8,9.... all Global Phones. :apple:
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
dunk321
Mar 17, 01:00 AM
When I was in college years ago I use to work at Circuit City, Black Friday, or any major launch of a product the registers were always a mess or came up short. If you were not very smart or had terrible sales skills they placed you as a cashier, if they could pinpoint it the person usually got chilled out by the manager. Hate to say it but good service is gone, and Best Buy has become one of the last of the big box stores, with a majority of not so knowledgeable staff, and ripping people off with there crappy warranties and overpriced products. It's always a last resort in my book if you absolutely must have something that minute and it's your only option.
KnightWRX
Mar 25, 06:43 AM
<pedantry>
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
Depends what you call an OS. In micro-computer parlance Finder is very much a File Manager, same as Nautilus, Dolphin, Norton Commander (or the Midnight Commander clone), ROX-Filer, Windows Explorer, DOSShell etc just to name a few.
It does very little to "operate" the system. It simply provides a user with a UI to manipulate the files found on a filesystem. Of course, an OS doesn't even need a filesystem per say as not all OSes use the file metaphor for storage.
The OS part of the any modern OS is all contained in the kernel, which can usually operate the system without any kind of assistance from userspace. Finder is a userspace app. You could replace it with any other File Manager and still achieve the same basic functionality.
I think your pedantry wasn't as big as mine (how's your Schwartz ?)
Is Finder an App per se or integral to the OS?
</pedantry>
Depends what you call an OS. In micro-computer parlance Finder is very much a File Manager, same as Nautilus, Dolphin, Norton Commander (or the Midnight Commander clone), ROX-Filer, Windows Explorer, DOSShell etc just to name a few.
It does very little to "operate" the system. It simply provides a user with a UI to manipulate the files found on a filesystem. Of course, an OS doesn't even need a filesystem per say as not all OSes use the file metaphor for storage.
The OS part of the any modern OS is all contained in the kernel, which can usually operate the system without any kind of assistance from userspace. Finder is a userspace app. You could replace it with any other File Manager and still achieve the same basic functionality.
I think your pedantry wasn't as big as mine (how's your Schwartz ?)
WillEH
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
10 years of making history! :)
maclaptop
Apr 17, 07:39 AM
Nice one arsehole. Ruining my industry. I hope you don't get paid for the next few shifts you do at work and then maybe you'll realise how selfish and greedy you're being.
True, that's a huge problem with kids, they have been repeatedly worshiped by their parents, thus and air of entitlement is all they know.
True, that's a huge problem with kids, they have been repeatedly worshiped by their parents, thus and air of entitlement is all they know.
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 08:18 PM
I agree with you on this- the comments were definitely rude.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
theelysium
Dec 13, 01:13 PM
Apple is not going to waste their time making a 4G phone for a network that is literally 35 grains of sand tossed out on to the US map.
There is way too much hardware development, patent fees, marketing costs and other things to consider. Apple would not go through all those costs just for a measly 4G LTE network.
This news is bogus.
Take a look for yourself: http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/verizon-lte-markets.jpg
There is way too much hardware development, patent fees, marketing costs and other things to consider. Apple would not go through all those costs just for a measly 4G LTE network.
This news is bogus.
Take a look for yourself: http://www.droid-life.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/verizon-lte-markets.jpg
ksteele
Sep 25, 03:37 PM
Aperture 1.1.2 runs just fine on my 2 year old 17" Powerbook G4 (1.5Ghz / 1.5GB ram).
I have heard that the graphics hardware on this laptop helps a lot.
It is not as fast doing edits as my my former PhotoMechanic/Bridge/ACR/iView workflow but good enough and has the advantages of a faster workflow when all is said and done.
I've ported 5500 of my D2X raw images into the library. I use a second 23" Cinema Display.
I have heard that the graphics hardware on this laptop helps a lot.
It is not as fast doing edits as my my former PhotoMechanic/Bridge/ACR/iView workflow but good enough and has the advantages of a faster workflow when all is said and done.
I've ported 5500 of my D2X raw images into the library. I use a second 23" Cinema Display.
DevinPitcher
Apr 15, 01:07 PM
Has no one noticed that the camera switches sides in the third image?? LOL
FAKE!!!!!
No it doesn't.
It's in the same spot in all 3.
FAKE!!!!!
No it doesn't.
It's in the same spot in all 3.
conradzoo
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
The Netherlands store is down too. :o
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
Just a broken link though. No Black screen.
synth3tik
Jan 10, 05:17 PM
Thats something that should stay at the hackers convention. not CES and most definitely not MWSF.
roadbloc
Mar 14, 06:54 AM
Garageband is a great product and is pretty innovative.
I disagree. GarageBand is nothing but a mere childs toy compaired to the likes of Pro-Tools and the Ableton Suite. Even Logic (GarageBand for grown ups) is pretty damn basic compaired to what DigiDesign put into their products.
Steve can say "This is not a toy!" in his demos as much as he likes. GarageBand is a toy.
I disagree. GarageBand is nothing but a mere childs toy compaired to the likes of Pro-Tools and the Ableton Suite. Even Logic (GarageBand for grown ups) is pretty damn basic compaired to what DigiDesign put into their products.
Steve can say "This is not a toy!" in his demos as much as he likes. GarageBand is a toy.
.JPG "marijuana wallpapers. that")
Mammoth
Oct 3, 08:40 PM
I'm dreaming for 2 'iPhones'
RAZR Killer: $149, ultra slim. iTunes, iCal, iChat, .Mac, Address Book, Mail, Mobile iWeb, Bluetooth. 2GB flash storage. 2MP camera.
Treo/Blackberry Killer: $299, Treo-like form, full QWERTY, same apps as RAZR killer + 4GB flash storage. 3MP camera.
And of course iTV, Merom updates, and a true video iPod.
RAZR Killer: $149, ultra slim. iTunes, iCal, iChat, .Mac, Address Book, Mail, Mobile iWeb, Bluetooth. 2GB flash storage. 2MP camera.
Treo/Blackberry Killer: $299, Treo-like form, full QWERTY, same apps as RAZR killer + 4GB flash storage. 3MP camera.
And of course iTV, Merom updates, and a true video iPod.
Eye4Desyn
Apr 16, 07:09 AM
I'm calling it B.S. for sure. The shell geometry is insanely archaic and looks nothing like the fluidic form-factor seen on current and previous iPhones as well as the iPad. Creases where edges and surfaces meet are way too harsh for Apple's I.D. standards. FAKE!!
Scarlet Fever
Jan 12, 12:13 AM
i dont think he was arrogant. I think he was genuinely excited about this product, not because it earns the company (and ultimately himself) money, but because it is such a big leap in technology.
And at the start of the keynote, he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time. Just wait a little while, and i'm sure you'll hear people complaining that the new C2Q MPs dont have their name engraved on the side of the machines:p
And at the start of the keynote, he did say that Mac hardware and software will be announced in a couple of weeks time. Just wait a little while, and i'm sure you'll hear people complaining that the new C2Q MPs dont have their name engraved on the side of the machines:p
HarryKeogh
Mar 24, 03:38 PM
Just saw the YouTube videos of Steve unveiling OS X at MacWorld.
So funny at what people cheered for back then like items in the dock magnifying as the cursor goes over them.
Thankfully, we never get excited about little things like that anymore. :D
So funny at what people cheered for back then like items in the dock magnifying as the cursor goes over them.
Thankfully, we never get excited about little things like that anymore. :D
sjo
Oct 28, 04:38 PM
The thin veneer is off the vast majority of people that clamor for OSS.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
OSX as we know it would not exist without the work "OSS crowd" did and does. So it's only appropriate for Apple to contribute back to the community, as it has done and hopefully continues to do.
Whenever I hear the OSS crowd scream "Software should be FREE!" I translate that to mean "I refuse to pay someone for their work, thus I will STEAL it"!
I don't blame Apple. The OSS community abused what they had and turned to piracy by stealing the GUI. Kudos Apple.
OSX as we know it would not exist without the work "OSS crowd" did and does. So it's only appropriate for Apple to contribute back to the community, as it has done and hopefully continues to do.
Surely
Apr 21, 11:18 AM
Who were those two bastards who voted down rdowns' post?
:D
The counter is crap anyway. It goes from -1 to +1 without a 0. And it seems completely random.
My guess is that others have voted while you had already loaded the page, and then when you voted, it updated all votes.
:D
The counter is crap anyway. It goes from -1 to +1 without a 0. And it seems completely random.
My guess is that others have voted while you had already loaded the page, and then when you voted, it updated all votes.
fastbite
Jan 12, 02:19 PM
Giz are just a bunch of prats. They want to play like a punk outfit fine, make music then and forget reporting tech stuff. grow up and buy a shaver.