dmunz
Mar 25, 10:07 AM
I snagged an open box 16G from Best Buy for $388 all in last week.
When this popped up I decided to pick one from VZ and return the Best Buy unit. While I was at Verizon rchecking out with their last 16G some other guy came in looking for one.
Doing the math I was looking at saving $65 bucks minus the hassel of wiping and reboxing the thing; driving back to Bast Buy; loosing the six months no interest and setting up the new one. Not such a huge deal in my world so I offered it to the guy and he took it instead.
Maybe I scored some karma points...
FWIW
DLM
When this popped up I decided to pick one from VZ and return the Best Buy unit. While I was at Verizon rchecking out with their last 16G some other guy came in looking for one.
Doing the math I was looking at saving $65 bucks minus the hassel of wiping and reboxing the thing; driving back to Bast Buy; loosing the six months no interest and setting up the new one. Not such a huge deal in my world so I offered it to the guy and he took it instead.
Maybe I scored some karma points...
FWIW
DLM
mcrain
Apr 4, 11:12 AM
Where did itcheroni mention Republicans or Democrats or (your personal favorite) George Bush? Best I can tell, he/she is talking calmly, non-partisanly about (1) whether the article's conclusion is proper in light of other, relevant economic factors, and (2) how income tax affects his/her decision on where to reside.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
Mcrain, I honestly am starting to think you awaken two or three times every night, screaming, "GOP!!! Bush!!! Ahhh!!!"
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
dipenmehta
Mar 10, 03:04 AM
I have no word about that facebook is doing well and he deserve the best
drewyboy
Mar 23, 01:53 PM
License for $4?
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
Apple should license it for *free*.
They pretty much will. They do it w/ Airplay audio. $4 is only to cover extra cost of overhead needed to provide it to OEM's. No profit being made.
more...
louis Fashion
Mar 27, 02:45 PM
Typical of a company that has no business model right now; become a patent troll. Kind of a shame, Kodak used to be a great company, but they got left behind by the digital revolution.
Hey if they win this one, they will make 1B this year!!!
Hey if they win this one, they will make 1B this year!!!
alent1234
Apr 15, 12:39 PM
no you don't, exchange 2003 and later supports push email like blackberries and no need for pop/imap. and it's probably more supported than using zimbra on the iphone.
it's relative cost. almost everyone uses exchange. if zimbra wants the market they need to price themselves very low or offer killer features MS doesn't. how do you even back up zimbra since exchange has agents available from every major backup application allowing you to do online backups
it's relative cost. almost everyone uses exchange. if zimbra wants the market they need to price themselves very low or offer killer features MS doesn't. how do you even back up zimbra since exchange has agents available from every major backup application allowing you to do online backups
more...
s.hasan546
Apr 9, 03:53 PM
Trafficking is a felony any way you look at it. So the 130,000 will pass on to his attorney's hands. In the end they all get caught.
it's not trafficking. Its importing merchandise that you legally purchase from a foreign company. There MIGHT be patent infringement; etc. But you can read my above comment on how easily that could be dealt with. Attorney fees would not be $130k. you guys are dreaming. And notice there were no lawsuits filed. Just a "PI"
it's not trafficking. Its importing merchandise that you legally purchase from a foreign company. There MIGHT be patent infringement; etc. But you can read my above comment on how easily that could be dealt with. Attorney fees would not be $130k. you guys are dreaming. And notice there were no lawsuits filed. Just a "PI"
wizard
Oct 6, 02:19 PM
I mean really people do you think iPhone and by extension Apple is permantly tied to just one screen size? Do you realize how stupid that would be from the standpoint of running a competitive business? Beyound that should Apple give up potential sales, to people with different needs, just to keep a bunch of thin skinned people happy with respect to their iPhone purchase?
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
In anyevent please stop the whinning about developers, if they followed Apples guide lines their apps would work fine on the new model. In fact many people in these forums really should just shut up until they read the developer documentation.
Second; I personally find the idea of a slightly larger iPhone to bevery attractive. Considering the comments in the thread many other people do too. Why is pretty straight forward, more info on screen or real estate. This doesn't even have to lead to a massively bigger device either. Length might be impacted only modestly and maybe an 1/8 to a 1/4" wider. Adding one or two rows of text while editing and cutting down on scrolling would be huge. In the end the aspect ratio would be wider and allow for better video play back.
The important thing is enhanced usability which i think many here are underestimating in importance. For many the current iPhone screen represents a compromise in size (most cell phone screens are) but as technology moves forward supporting bigger screens becomes far easier. The GPUs in the ARM SoC are now to the point where they can drive just about any sized screen (pixel count). So technology has removed many of the barriers to larger screens. It then becomes an issue of salability of the device. Comments in this thread indicate strong demand for a slightly larger model so I don't see a problem.
Conversely the ability to produce a smaller cell phone is like wise driven by technology. The demands and requirements are different here though. I suspect many would be willing to give up some of iPhones smart phone features but yet retaing some of the advantages. One big one is the very clean syncing that a small iPhone would have to support. Honestly the device doesn't even needs to support the same GUI as the market is different. Here customers are more interested in ultra portable small devices. Apple can be as successful here as they are with smart phones simply by paying atention to details. The should be as the market for these devices is huge, far larger than smart phones.
Dave
more...
bella92108
Apr 1, 01:40 PM
What they do in other countries has nothing to do with how they would do it in the USA. Do you seriously think the cable companies would introduce a choice where they stand to lose money? There's no way, unless the FCC forced them, that this would happen.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Also, $1/channel is way too low. Just because you can get 10 channels for $60, doesn't mean each channel would be priced at 60 cents. IIRC, a popular channel like ESPN costs the cable provider $4/subscriber ... and that's with Disney forcing the whole ABC/ESPN/Disney package of channels onto the cable co.
If ALC does happen, I would guess that most people would pay the same or more than they currently do. A small percentage may pay less, but it really depends on what channels they pick (and whether those channels survive).
It's a con when channels that focus on specific programming are forced to close up or offer the same old crap that everyone else does. For instance, a channel like BET may not survive to provide focused programming to the African American community because they would likely lose over half their subscriber base.
This isn't the goal of diverse television programming. Take a look at Obama's position on ALC. This is what I'm referring to.
As for letting the less popular networks whither, I do see this as a con. Networks will need to appeal to a broader audience in order to compete. Get ready for 15 channels showing the same formuliac sitcom. 20 channels of reality TV shows. 10 channels of daytime/social talk shows. 15 channels of sports. And 13 channels of news. No room for channels like History Channel or Discovery Health ... as they'll morph into a TNT or SpikeTV.
So I pay $60 a month and get all of the channels you mentioned above:
SpikeTV - Unsubscribe Please
TNT - Unsubscribe Please
History Channel - Unsubscribe Please
Discovery Health - Unsubscribe Please
BET - Unsubscribe Please
ESPN - Unsubscribe Please
ABC Family - Unsubscribe Please
Disney - Unsubscribe Please
I'll take:
Discovery
TBS
Comedy Central
A&E
CNN
HGTV
I'd gladly pay $5 per channel knowing those channels are supported and any funding is stripped from the others. That'd half my monthly bill, and $5 a channel is more than fair, right?
If the others can't appeal to their subscribers, bye bye crap channels.
But PS - All of the above is utterly irrelevant. These cable channels are ADVERTISEMENT supported, like newspapers, NOT subscription supported.... so they'd fail because they could no longer sell false numbers of "potential viewers" anymore, so they'd fail because they suck, not because they don't make money from subscribers.
Cliff3
Mar 29, 12:18 PM
This is getting WAY off topic, but...
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
There is no need to speculate when the manuals are freely available for download. The D3/D3S has additional crop options, but those options reside on the same menu I mentioned in my previous post. I replaced my D2X with a D700 a little over 2 years ago and so I am very familiar with both cameras.
@Cliff, my bad I remember seen the high speed crop also on the D3 series but I might be wrong. The D700 however does have a crop but also allows you to shoot your DX lens on full frame (which will vignette) but has no speed increase over the full frame mode.
There is no need to speculate when the manuals are freely available for download. The D3/D3S has additional crop options, but those options reside on the same menu I mentioned in my previous post. I replaced my D2X with a D700 a little over 2 years ago and so I am very familiar with both cameras.
more...
bigjobby
Apr 13, 02:35 PM
Doesn't work for me either. Turning to Time Machine now after messing up all of my calendars in the wasted time with this. :mad::mad::mad::mad:
Yep. This so called and touted Outlook Calendar/iCal sync feature has been a huge FAIL. Simply does not work and there's a bit of noise about it growing on the www. What a huge failure in their testing department!!! :mad:
Yep. This so called and touted Outlook Calendar/iCal sync feature has been a huge FAIL. Simply does not work and there's a bit of noise about it growing on the www. What a huge failure in their testing department!!! :mad:
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 26, 08:46 PM
Yeah but it's still �99 or $99 in the States!!
AND GMail is still free!
AND GMail is still free!
more...
Huntn
Mar 12, 09:49 AM
They don't come any sexier than an American Corvette
My favorite 1966 Vette:
http://www.precisionmotive.com/img/customer_rides/1966_corvette_pat.jpg
I also liked the 1966 Camaro:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb0szUhB4bZWzKKWaSkuvu-8rjvddX0A84wms28VmIzLjwCENbRw&t=1
Honestly, I'm looking around my room right now and the only things that I think were made in America are books and software...
Pretty much everything was made in Japan or China.
I remember 1965 when made-in-Japan was viewed with derision. Not to imply Japanese made products were shabby, it was mostly prejudice. My first made-in-japan product was a small battery powered transistor radio. Regarding home-made US products, it's been down hill ever since.
My favorite 1966 Vette:
http://www.precisionmotive.com/img/customer_rides/1966_corvette_pat.jpg
I also liked the 1966 Camaro:
http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQb0szUhB4bZWzKKWaSkuvu-8rjvddX0A84wms28VmIzLjwCENbRw&t=1
Honestly, I'm looking around my room right now and the only things that I think were made in America are books and software...
Pretty much everything was made in Japan or China.
I remember 1965 when made-in-Japan was viewed with derision. Not to imply Japanese made products were shabby, it was mostly prejudice. My first made-in-japan product was a small battery powered transistor radio. Regarding home-made US products, it's been down hill ever since.
Nomadski
Jan 6, 04:51 PM
Apart from the streaming fail, Garmin are way too late to the party. Even when everyone was criticising TomTom, I went and bought it and it (for me) is the ultimate GPS navigator. Free map and service updates, no streaming involved, full multitasking support, been flawless in its navigation, accurate in its info (time of arrival is almost always spot on) and there's traffic when I want it for longer journeys, albeit not free.
The mapping display also doesn't look like a Scooby Doo 'toon unlike the Garmin app, judging from these screenshots...
The mapping display also doesn't look like a Scooby Doo 'toon unlike the Garmin app, judging from these screenshots...
more...
jelloshotsrule
Sep 19, 10:38 AM
well, i'll agree with the majority that say it doesn't seem too hopeful. however i'll also say.... what do you have to lose? i don't know of a "best" approach, but it seems ideally that you go in there to buy something, she's there.... you get her to help or at least not run away. and after you buy something (or at least prove interest in the store besides seeing her), you ask her if she'd like to hang out sometime.... preferably in the course of a conversation, but worst case, get your questions answered and move on.
my brother asked two girls out who we saw in mall stores... he was 50%. worth a shot!
my brother asked two girls out who we saw in mall stores... he was 50%. worth a shot!
Blakeco123
Apr 14, 01:56 AM
i live in danville california and prices are like 4.60 for diesel. 4.20-ish for regular not really sure i don't look at it when i buy gas since i own a diesel truck.
EDIT: Most i have ever paid to fill it up was summer of '08, i was at my cabin at lake shasta and diesel was 5.50 a gallon cost me $160
my mom used to tell me how when she was starting to drive gas was 80 cents a galllon
EDIT: Most i have ever paid to fill it up was summer of '08, i was at my cabin at lake shasta and diesel was 5.50 a gallon cost me $160
my mom used to tell me how when she was starting to drive gas was 80 cents a galllon
more...
WiiDSmoker
Mar 25, 10:27 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) Mobile/8F190)
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
What if I came along and stole all of Apples patents and used them in a way that were above and beyond anything Apple created with them?
You're thought process of this situation is completely horrible.
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
What if I came along and stole all of Apples patents and used them in a way that were above and beyond anything Apple created with them?
You're thought process of this situation is completely horrible.
kuebby
Apr 25, 08:56 PM
Only the contemporary GOP would think that running a fat obnoxious trust-fund billionaire who is most famous for firing people, as a populist candidate would be a good idea.
Keleko
Mar 3, 06:45 AM
Ooo, I'm gonna be first. I took this during the Fernbank Museum (in Atlanta) visit that I'm posting my mythical creatures photos. I was rather self conscious taking this photo, and I wanted to make sure I was not seen doing it. When I saw this scene I was struck by more than one contrast going on. The one I didn't include was with the kids that were also with the couple, but I didn't feel comfortable getting a shot with the kids, too.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5484204892_9c3057b56a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484204892/in/set-72157626160204246/)
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5295/5484204892_9c3057b56a_b.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/22077805@N07/5484204892/in/set-72157626160204246/)
glennp
Sep 25, 11:00 AM
According to the sidebar, my 1.6GHz G5 with NVIDIA GeForce FX 5200 Ultra now makes the cut to run Aperture. Didn't think either of those met the minimum requirements with 1.1.
bousozoku
Sep 27, 02:17 PM
I just hope Apple have fixed a lot of ridiculous little problems with Cocoa and the Task Switcher, etc. that they introduced with 10.4.7. I'm tired of quitting one application in Task Switcher and seeing another application's name in the menu bar while it's quitting.
micahR
Jun 21, 07:42 AM
...I bought a Wii because of the virtual console games from old systems and the Zelda: Twilight Princess game available at launch. It was also $250 at the time versus like $400 and $600...
I bought the wii for the same reason you did, 250 is much cheaper than 400-600 and the virtual console sounded like an awesome idea.
I bought an xbox when it dropped to 200 and haven't touched the wii since. Also, the xbox live arcade games (a lot of them are also on the PSN) trounce the virtual console games.
I bought the wii for the same reason you did, 250 is much cheaper than 400-600 and the virtual console sounded like an awesome idea.
I bought an xbox when it dropped to 200 and haven't touched the wii since. Also, the xbox live arcade games (a lot of them are also on the PSN) trounce the virtual console games.
Stevamundo
Feb 18, 11:12 AM
This is the photo is full size:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/sizes/o/in/photostream/
He does look scarily thin�
Steve Jobs has always looked �scarily thin� ever since his liver transplant.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/whitehouse/5455525432/sizes/o/in/photostream/
He does look scarily thin�
Steve Jobs has always looked �scarily thin� ever since his liver transplant.
Zephi
Mar 22, 01:04 PM
I hate those. Or when I hear people talking about it. How do they expect that to do anything?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
Making them be more competitive on prices, or something? Its not that they make hardly any profit on petrol, you know. I assume its a helluva profit, and the prices depend on some kind of lobby decisions, thats for sure. So if you dont complain about the amount of money you pay for a litre, why would they lower it?
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar