Eolian
Mar 23, 02:18 PM
I'm not even going to justify that with a response.
Fail :)
Fail :)
gotzero
Oct 15, 12:24 AM
The website now says not to run two. Is the new version now using all 8 cores?
Apple2
Apr 16, 04:42 PM
It's probably possible, but you'd need to write the game yourself. Also, the mouse wouldn't be able to control the computer, so the game should be able to respecify mouse button actions and controls. It also needs to be optimized for the magic mouse. I'm not sure if the mouse differentiates from the top and bottom of the mouse for expose, but if it does, it will work flawlessly. Its just a matter of finding or writing a game that uses the magic mouse controls differently to control the game.
syklee26
Sep 26, 10:19 PM
.Mac is a load of old BALLS!!! It's absolutely ridiculously. We're paying �99 in Europe really for Mail, iWeb was only added recently, but you have to buy iLife '06 to use it. iChat is free? No it's not! Guess what? You have to pay �99, cause you need .Mac to use iChat. The whole thing is a joke! Way to respect your loyal fans Apple.
/joke..
u don't need .Mac to use iChat. you can use iChat with AIM account. and I keep hearing this rumor that MSN and Yahoo account might be added.
/joke..
u don't need .Mac to use iChat. you can use iChat with AIM account. and I keep hearing this rumor that MSN and Yahoo account might be added.
more...
PlaceofDis
Feb 12, 10:41 PM
congrats guys, i know you all to be good members of the forums so i know that the right choices were made
wPod
Nov 5, 11:59 PM
OK, i finally got my friday afternoon at the apple store. a little disappointed they werent in stock when i showed up at the store opening at 10 in the morning, but oh well. here are a couple pics i have with my new iPod shuffle 2nd gen this weekend.
http://static.flickr.com/111/290278716_35def1a42b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278716/)
http://static.flickr.com/121/290278722_78b483e0ee_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278722/)
http://static.flickr.com/107/290278720_c2446ec92c_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278720/)
its so small, i dont exactly know what to do with it!!!!
http://static.flickr.com/111/290278716_35def1a42b_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278716/)
http://static.flickr.com/121/290278722_78b483e0ee_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278722/)
http://static.flickr.com/107/290278720_c2446ec92c_m.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/99787587@N00/290278720/)
its so small, i dont exactly know what to do with it!!!!
more...
Patdt13
Feb 21, 10:00 AM
Baseball season!
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qkt4c5.png
http://i54.tinypic.com/2qkt4c5.png
skunk
Apr 5, 07:38 PM
You mean the preconception that a business suit is normal attire and has no logical comparison with the topic at hand? Yep.A business suit can make a potential assailant believe you are ripe for the picking, just as "being dressed like a prostitute" (whatever that means) could do. The comparison is apropos.
more...
maclaptop
Apr 28, 09:26 PM
Samsung has an image problem, and even that has only improved in the last few years.
You may think so, but it's not what you think it is. I travel globally and Samsung is very well thought of in the many countries I do business with.
In addition they are not easily replaced as a component supplier. Apple benefits from their quality, high volume capacity, and very good pricing.
I'm not married to either, but I am intimately knowledgeable of their respective operations. They have a mutually beneficial relationship. It would hurt Apple to lose them.
Apples not stupid, just posturing for mind share. Its an American cultural thing. Samsung understands that, thus they are slashing back. Apples working hard to spin this so they look like the victim.
It's what Apple the finger pointer does "you're holding it wrong". Another version "they all do that"
No big deal they've got to blame someone, anyone.
You may think so, but it's not what you think it is. I travel globally and Samsung is very well thought of in the many countries I do business with.
In addition they are not easily replaced as a component supplier. Apple benefits from their quality, high volume capacity, and very good pricing.
I'm not married to either, but I am intimately knowledgeable of their respective operations. They have a mutually beneficial relationship. It would hurt Apple to lose them.
Apples not stupid, just posturing for mind share. Its an American cultural thing. Samsung understands that, thus they are slashing back. Apples working hard to spin this so they look like the victim.
It's what Apple the finger pointer does "you're holding it wrong". Another version "they all do that"
No big deal they've got to blame someone, anyone.
twoodcc
Dec 31, 09:12 AM
man these 2684's are killing me. i didn't make the deadline for the last one b/c of 2 power outages
more...
iThinkergoiMac
Apr 21, 10:11 PM
What kind of connection is it? Does it show up on other computers?
elbirth
Jan 9, 03:37 PM
The keynote was terrible.
It's called "MacWorld" yet there was nothing in there about the mac. Just this little toy that dosn't really interest me that much called the "iPhone" and the "Apple TV".
I completely agree. I'm really wanting them to put up the video stream of the keynote so I can see if MacRumors had it right when they put this on the live coverage feed:
9:18 am we're only talking about the mac today
If Steve really said that, it's a flat out LIE. Nothing was about the Mac, except for devices that can interact with them. When I saw that, I just knew leopard and speed bumped Macs were just moments away.
It's called "MacWorld" yet there was nothing in there about the mac. Just this little toy that dosn't really interest me that much called the "iPhone" and the "Apple TV".
I completely agree. I'm really wanting them to put up the video stream of the keynote so I can see if MacRumors had it right when they put this on the live coverage feed:
9:18 am we're only talking about the mac today
If Steve really said that, it's a flat out LIE. Nothing was about the Mac, except for devices that can interact with them. When I saw that, I just knew leopard and speed bumped Macs were just moments away.
more...
smiddlehurst
Apr 4, 12:03 PM
So because you don't like Financial Times it's okay for everyone that they are holding out iPad subscriptions. This is exactly what's wrong with you Apple fanboys.
You should be penalizing Apple for allowing this to happen. but instead you jump for joy.
Okay let's look at this clearly shall we? The Financial Times (and they're far from the only one) are complaining NOT because of the subscription fee split but because they loose "the direct relationship with subscribers". To put that into simple English they currently sell their customers information to marketing firms or use the demographic data to sell ads in the FT or related materials.
Now Apple aren't actually stopping that, they're just insisting that customers opt-in to the scheme rather than opt-out (or have no choice at all).
No matter how you look at it Apple is on the side of the consumer here. They're not denying that information to the FT, just trying to make sure consumers can choose whether or not they want that information shared with a third party and, more importantly, that the default is NO. That's a great, positive step forward, frankly ALL such marketing and data selling should be opt-in and very clearly marked and I wish Apple all the best.
You should be penalizing Apple for allowing this to happen. but instead you jump for joy.
Okay let's look at this clearly shall we? The Financial Times (and they're far from the only one) are complaining NOT because of the subscription fee split but because they loose "the direct relationship with subscribers". To put that into simple English they currently sell their customers information to marketing firms or use the demographic data to sell ads in the FT or related materials.
Now Apple aren't actually stopping that, they're just insisting that customers opt-in to the scheme rather than opt-out (or have no choice at all).
No matter how you look at it Apple is on the side of the consumer here. They're not denying that information to the FT, just trying to make sure consumers can choose whether or not they want that information shared with a third party and, more importantly, that the default is NO. That's a great, positive step forward, frankly ALL such marketing and data selling should be opt-in and very clearly marked and I wish Apple all the best.
AP_piano295
May 5, 10:08 AM
I did said that I wouldn't support torturing innocent people.
How do we know if they're innocent best torture them to be sure.
How do we know if they're innocent best torture them to be sure.
more...
LimeiBook86
Sep 26, 08:55 PM
Dot Mac's web mail looks like it was pulled straight out of Mac OS 10.2 "Jaguar" I'm very happy that it's being updated since the interface of the web mail looks very dated. Also the new features look like a good perk :D :)
rick snagwell
May 4, 03:42 PM
I use Folder Enhancer to mess with the folders, but it does nothing for the icon...when not using the folder. it has that white border and grey bg.
how to i change the bg and border settings on the folder icon?
thanks
how to i change the bg and border settings on the folder icon?
thanks
more...
ashman70
May 6, 11:15 PM
Says it's coming from China, probably a knock off.
SchneiderMan
Aug 16, 02:19 PM
From time to time I like to post a wallpaper I made here, so to here you go :)
Available in both light and dark versions.
Click to download
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1357/applecodepreview.jpg (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/applecode%20%20adgetmac.com.jpg?pictureId=6414602)
Dark version download. (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/applecode%20stealth%20%20gadgetmac.com.jpg?pictureId=6418589)
Love it. You always produce great wallpapers.
Thank you!
Available in both light and dark versions.
Click to download
http://img651.imageshack.us/img651/1357/applecodepreview.jpg (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/applecode%20%20adgetmac.com.jpg?pictureId=6414602)
Dark version download. (http://www.gadgetmac.com/picture/applecode%20stealth%20%20gadgetmac.com.jpg?pictureId=6418589)
Love it. You always produce great wallpapers.
Thank you!
steve2112
Jan 10, 04:43 PM
Volkswagen has taken a new direction with the design of their Passat.
Whereas most automakers are putting more thought into bringing more and better small cars to the market these days, Volkswagen is making their new Passat bigger and a lot cheaper. (http://jalopnik.com/5729079/the-2011-volkswagen-passat-less-wagen-more-volk)
The engine choices remain good, especially the rare diesel option, but how are they going to shave $7000 off the base price of the Passat AND make it larger without turning it into just another Camry/Malibu/Taurus/Impala/Accord soulless bore-fest McSedan?
Volkswagen's following in the US is built on buyers looking for a more European-flavored car. Volkswagen, however, now seem intent on making their lineup more "American". This seems sure to alienate Volkswagen's core buyers in the US.
Sadly, that is exactly what they are doing. Have you seen the new US market Jetta? They stripped out a lot of the options that used to be standard, lowered the quality of the interior, and made a lot of other cuts in order to lower the price. That "under $16k" price they brag about has the ancient and underpowered 2.0L naturally aspirated four (used to be the 2.5L 5), a solid rear axle (used to be independent rear suspension), and rear drum brakes.
VW figured out that bigger sells better in the mid-size four door sedan market, so they bumped it up. They decontented a bit, and they also moved production to the US (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/09/2012-volkswagen-passat-chattanooga-vw/). I guess VW has decided to move from "affordable German luxury" back to "The people's car".
Whereas most automakers are putting more thought into bringing more and better small cars to the market these days, Volkswagen is making their new Passat bigger and a lot cheaper. (http://jalopnik.com/5729079/the-2011-volkswagen-passat-less-wagen-more-volk)
The engine choices remain good, especially the rare diesel option, but how are they going to shave $7000 off the base price of the Passat AND make it larger without turning it into just another Camry/Malibu/Taurus/Impala/Accord soulless bore-fest McSedan?
Volkswagen's following in the US is built on buyers looking for a more European-flavored car. Volkswagen, however, now seem intent on making their lineup more "American". This seems sure to alienate Volkswagen's core buyers in the US.
Sadly, that is exactly what they are doing. Have you seen the new US market Jetta? They stripped out a lot of the options that used to be standard, lowered the quality of the interior, and made a lot of other cuts in order to lower the price. That "under $16k" price they brag about has the ancient and underpowered 2.0L naturally aspirated four (used to be the 2.5L 5), a solid rear axle (used to be independent rear suspension), and rear drum brakes.
VW figured out that bigger sells better in the mid-size four door sedan market, so they bumped it up. They decontented a bit, and they also moved production to the US (http://www.autoblog.com/2011/01/09/2012-volkswagen-passat-chattanooga-vw/). I guess VW has decided to move from "affordable German luxury" back to "The people's car".
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
Macs R Us
Oct 14, 04:55 PM
Neat site... Now the MSN Users can have fun :rolleyes: ... Well it still is really cool!
wlvn
Aug 7, 09:58 AM
http://i121.photobucket.com/albums/o222/standup_ent/desk.jpg
Link to the original please. Thanks.
Link to the original please. Thanks.
mif
Dec 2, 04:50 PM
girl, girls...
dcv
Oct 1, 04:49 AM
:rolleyes: ...along with many investment banks, accountancy firms, law firms, consultancies...
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar