Surely
Sep 13, 11:15 PM
threadless has some cool designs. I've been to the store in Chicago.... it was refreshing to be able to try them on before i bought them!
I bought a pint of frozen yogurt here tonight. Half Ghirardelli Chocolate, half Chocolate Butterfinger. So good.
251561
I bought a pint of frozen yogurt here tonight. Half Ghirardelli Chocolate, half Chocolate Butterfinger. So good.
251561
Squire
Jul 13, 12:40 AM
Those of you who have used both versions of Pages, do you find the '06 version to be significantly quicker? Someone a few pages ago commented on its sluggish performance. I have to admit that I've had sort of a delayed reaction (in terms of the time it takes for a sentence to appear after I've finished typing it) in my limited Pages experience. (Mind you, I do have an older machine.) A performance increase alone would be a worthy upgrade in my book.
-Squire
-Squire
DeathChill
Apr 23, 12:04 PM
But you're dealing with Apple customers, they sacrifice themselves for the good of the company.
Yes, Apple tricks everyone into loving them. That's what is happening; it couldn't be their focus on creating products that people love. Nope.
Yes, Apple tricks everyone into loving them. That's what is happening; it couldn't be their focus on creating products that people love. Nope.
KnightWRX
Apr 24, 10:01 AM
No, it looks like AT&T is going to get ride of T Mobiles 3G so make room for 4G LTE.
Its really not a bad idea....turns the purchase of T Mobile into something more then just one time growth. Also unless everyone followed Nokia with pentaband 3G devices, it would start to become a hassle.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=7762
Did you read my comment ? Rogers and Fido, using the same bands, still haven't merged since Rogers' purchase of Microcell. Any plan to "phase out" the 3G bands of T-mobile are not short term as it would require replacing all the current customer bases' phones.
And again, a AWS compatible iPhone makes sense for the short/mid term. Other carriers (Videotron, Wind) in other countries will benefit and it will open up another US carrier to Apple. So people again : Don't let the AT&T/T-mobile merger plans fool you.
Its really not a bad idea....turns the purchase of T Mobile into something more then just one time growth. Also unless everyone followed Nokia with pentaband 3G devices, it would start to become a hassle.
http://www.phonescoop.com/news/item.php?n=7762
Did you read my comment ? Rogers and Fido, using the same bands, still haven't merged since Rogers' purchase of Microcell. Any plan to "phase out" the 3G bands of T-mobile are not short term as it would require replacing all the current customer bases' phones.
And again, a AWS compatible iPhone makes sense for the short/mid term. Other carriers (Videotron, Wind) in other countries will benefit and it will open up another US carrier to Apple. So people again : Don't let the AT&T/T-mobile merger plans fool you.
more...
ct2k7
Apr 25, 07:53 AM
To give you an idea how mentally backwards this attitude is: In what is probably considered one of the most backward countries in the world, in Iran, the religious leaders are completely Ok with a transgender operation. To them, a man is a man, a woman is a woman, and a man or woman who has the bad luck to be born in the wrong kind of body should get help to get the problem fixed.
Huh? Iran isn't considered a backward country here in the UK...
Huh? Iran isn't considered a backward country here in the UK...
Texas04
Aug 15, 02:01 PM
Granted there are a few changes... and they are pretty nice, (spaces I cant see myself using) and time machine is the only thing i see worth while. They need to fix the Aim/iChat thing with Trinton users... they need easier connection 2.. tabbed is nice... but its not a huge improvement... Its just a lot of little stuff.
But I stand by Apple for now, that they do have some "bigger" features they just aren't showing us....
But I stand by Apple for now, that they do have some "bigger" features they just aren't showing us....
more...
iamthedudeman
May 3, 08:50 AM
Really good to see the update (finally)... but I am disappointed they didn't bring the 24" back :(
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The biggest thing with the 27 is the yellow hue. Fonts. Glossy. And I like to change out my display and own the latest and greatest quite often, say every two years, or every year due to work at home.
Solution for me was I got a HP brightview 25.5. It is a MVA panel not quite as good viewing angles as the imac 27 IPS but with better black levels, deeper black levels, whiter whites, no yellow hue to speak of. Much better for graphical design work. Brightview technology has me hooked. All the benefits of a glossy and some of the benefits of a matte, less glare than the imac 27.
I have my 21.5 as a extra display and use the 25.5 as my main display in dual mode. Fantastic setup.
The 27" is too big, and the resolution on the 21.5 is laughable for an upgrade of this magnitude.
Still, quad core across the range is nice.
The biggest thing with the 27 is the yellow hue. Fonts. Glossy. And I like to change out my display and own the latest and greatest quite often, say every two years, or every year due to work at home.
Solution for me was I got a HP brightview 25.5. It is a MVA panel not quite as good viewing angles as the imac 27 IPS but with better black levels, deeper black levels, whiter whites, no yellow hue to speak of. Much better for graphical design work. Brightview technology has me hooked. All the benefits of a glossy and some of the benefits of a matte, less glare than the imac 27.
I have my 21.5 as a extra display and use the 25.5 as my main display in dual mode. Fantastic setup.
mikethebigo
Apr 28, 07:12 PM
The iPhones kind of look like oreos from those views.
more...
macduke
Sep 30, 09:04 AM
Maybe I should forget to pay my bill 30% of the time.
My wife had VZ and hated them. I doubt that there is actually any network out there that has acceptable quality. The iPhone is essentially a phone straight out of the future. It's like trying to run a RAZR on a network in the late 80's. It's too much data.
My wife had VZ and hated them. I doubt that there is actually any network out there that has acceptable quality. The iPhone is essentially a phone straight out of the future. It's like trying to run a RAZR on a network in the late 80's. It's too much data.
roadbloc
Jan 2, 06:14 AM
If you want to argue that most "Chefs" that love food and make great foods full of flavors and preparation are fat, look really closely at chefs. Most are not fat at all, I'd say the proportion is the same as in the normal population.
I concur 100%. I work as a chef and I was slightly underweight last time I checked. In the two kitchens I work in, no-one is overweight. One girl looks a bit plump, but I doubt very much she is overweight as she is a tall girl. Then again... I don't really love food. Being a chef is just a job for me.
One thing I'm surprised we haven't gone into is the fact that there are starving kids in Africa, and this gluttonous woman is unnecessary gorging food that could really be going to someone else who needs it more. It isn't as if she needs 30k calories to survive.
I concur 100%. I work as a chef and I was slightly underweight last time I checked. In the two kitchens I work in, no-one is overweight. One girl looks a bit plump, but I doubt very much she is overweight as she is a tall girl. Then again... I don't really love food. Being a chef is just a job for me.
One thing I'm surprised we haven't gone into is the fact that there are starving kids in Africa, and this gluttonous woman is unnecessary gorging food that could really be going to someone else who needs it more. It isn't as if she needs 30k calories to survive.
more...
Squonk
Oct 24, 08:06 AM
Apple's headline: "...Seatbelts Sold Separately."
Bad marketing, seatbelts suggests crashing.
I hear you. Maybe, this means installing Windoze is optional... he he he ;)
Bad marketing, seatbelts suggests crashing.
I hear you. Maybe, this means installing Windoze is optional... he he he ;)
KnightWRX
Dec 30, 10:43 PM
Under normal circumstances, you're more or less right.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
No, I'm 100% right. Weight control is about calories. End of story. Calories in < Calories out and you lose weight. Opposite and you gain weight. There's no more or less here, that is the very basic premise. You want to discuss specifics that affect calories in/calories out, but that's flawed. Teach people the base first, and let them balance themselves out. You can very easily test your metabolic rate.
However, many supersize people have participated in crash diets, drugs and other questionable regimens over the years in search of quick-fix thinness. Doing so can, after a while, sabotage the body's normal metabolic rate and endocrine output, making it much harder for these people to find the balance in their caloric equation without depriving themselves of needed micronutrients (vitamins, minerals).
So you're saying these people have abnormally low "Calories out". It still comes down to that very simple equation. These people first have to fix their calories out, get their metabolism back straight, then they can fix their calories in.
It is that easy to lose weight. People don't know this very simple and basic concept, they think "Fat/Sugar" has to do with weight, which is completely false. "Low Saturated Fat!" on a box of cookies means squat if the cookies are 170 calories for 3 vs 180 calories for 3 of the same cookies with normal saturated fat. You still can't eat the whole box in one sitting and think "hey, it's low fat, I can't gain weight from this".
You'd be surprised how many people think this way.
I don't have a dog in this fight, but the question that runs through my mind is: if it's so easy, why do people struggle with it? Why are there entire industries built around people that struggle with losing weight on their own?
People struggle because like someone pointed out, they lack willpower and I'll add that they lack education. Calorie control is the only way to lose weight. There's seriously no other way, since weight is based off of calories and calories alone. To lose weight, you need a calorie deficiency. To be more precise, 3500 calories = 1 lbs, each way. So you need to create a calorie deficiency of 3500 calories before you lose 1 lbs. My metabolic rate is around 1740, that's what I burn each day without lifting a finger. Add in my normal routine, and I'm around the magic 2000 calorie diet. Let's not add in my gym routine. So to lose 1 lbs in 7 days, I need to go on a 1500 calorie diet per day. That's going to give me a deficiency of 500 per day, times 7 days, 1 lbs lost.
There's entire industries because they profit from it. Some people like to buy "instant" solutions. 1 lbs in 7 days ? Bah humbug, too long, I have 100 to lose! There's no instant solutions to weight loss, quite the contrary, the entire weight loss industry makes money by keeping people fat and coming back for miracle cures. Their proposed plans of "1 shake/bar for breakfeast, same for lunch and a balanced diner" is awful. First, it should be the opposite, a good breakfeast and then their bars/shakes for lunch and diner. Breakfeast is where you get your day's energy. Second, that's not calorie control since it doesn't explain that it is trying to create a calorie deficit. So people just still overeat, they compensate the calories they didn't eat at breakfeast/lunch with a huge "balanced" diner.
I'm going to just assume you are young and have time on your hands. Because when I was young and had time staying trim was quite easy., Let's talk when you're in your 30's and are a busy professional :rolleyes:
I'm 32, work 35 hours per week in IT (sitting down on my ass), am on call with tons of pages coming in once every 2 weeks. I have a girlfriend, a mortgage and a dog.
Again, staying trim has nothing to do with having time or being busy or not. If you spend less calories, eat less calories. Balance your calories in to your calories out and you'll stay trim. Sure it means doing a bit more research into what you're eating, but that's not impossible. It also means listening to your body. Feeling "stuffed" means you overate. You should never feel full or stuffed. A donut is not faster to mow down than an Apple. It's not more filling either. It's tons more calories though.
You made an assumption about me and you were wrong. You should look at yourself and what you are or aren't doing that is making you fat, not make up excuses.
look. I'm not trying to make excuses. I'm not THAT out of shape. I do bikram yoga 4 times per week and walk a lot. I just can't be as extensive about it as I was in my youthful years. I'm very healthy but I do need to drop 20ish lbs. per doctors orders. I've completely cut out any sugar drinks other than water and a few organic smoothies and an occaional glass of wine here and there. But at my age and with my busy schedule it's just not as easy as it was when I was 25. Not an excuse, just a simple fact.
But again, it's just because you don't understand your caloric need for a day and you either overeat or eat just the right amount to maintain your weight. You don't even need to exercise to create a calorie deficiency. I think you're the perfect example of what I'm talking about, you don't understand the very basic concept, which has nothing to do with time spent, but rather food ingested.
People need to get it out of their heads that it is about exercise. It's 10% working out, 90% food. Get your nutrition right and you won't need to exercise a day in your life. If you want to get fit however, make sure to balance your nutrition around your added caloric need to not drop weight too fast or at all if your goal is maintaining.
more...
Andrew K.
Sep 12, 08:49 PM
I needed a new backpack for my macbook and my books for school. It holds a lot more than I thought it would!
franky303
Mar 31, 01:39 PM
they should have better added a week view for iphone's ical ...
more...
QCassidy352
Jul 25, 09:50 AM
$70 really isn't that bad. All multi-button bluetooth mice cost a fair amount.
That said, if I were going to buy a new BT mouse (which I'm not, because my 2.5 year old MS one is still kicking) I'd get the radtech BT600 because it has more buttons and can recharge with usb. (it's $60 btw... same range)
That said, if I were going to buy a new BT mouse (which I'm not, because my 2.5 year old MS one is still kicking) I'd get the radtech BT600 because it has more buttons and can recharge with usb. (it's $60 btw... same range)
BigMacnChips
Apr 24, 02:27 AM
The T-Mobile US network uses different frequencies than AT&T's
Acquiring frequencies allocation is a huge premium, and with customer base and existing install too.
Acquiring frequencies allocation is a huge premium, and with customer base and existing install too.
more...
Surely
Sep 13, 07:03 PM
Tried to be good to the mods to reduce their headache. haha..but alas a purchase is a purchase.
I don't think there was anything wrong with what you originally posted (you know, that girl-on-girl DVD).
:D
I don't think there was anything wrong with what you originally posted (you know, that girl-on-girl DVD).
:D
logandzwon
Apr 22, 09:09 AM
yeah, apple are stupid....they havnt got a clue what they are doing have they... :rolleyes:
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
No clue at all. Have you seen that apple phone? It is the most expensive phone in the world and it doesn't appeal to business customers!
Macinthetosh
Apr 22, 04:18 PM
I have never been a fan of the teardrop form factor.
rorschach
Apr 14, 03:49 PM
I'm not a picky person, but it's the fact that it never did this before that's really the problem. Apple is usually one of the few companies that really pay attention to details...things like the rubber banding when scrolling, the subtle volume fade-out when music is interrupted by a phone call/notification, etc are part of what set the iPhone apart.
Apps aren't launching more quickly, they are launching more slowly, btw. Even after a total restore it takes very little time for things to start lagging again. This only started after 4.2/4.3.
Okay, I just reproduced this problem. After which I rolled my eyes and said "What's the big deal?"
I mean really, this is BEYOND picky. No wonder us Apple users have a reputation for being douchebags.
I hadn't even NOTICED this until now, and now that I have, I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to care. Honestly, if it's a choice between fixing this and putting more development resources into iOS 5, I much prefer the latter.
-Z
EDIT: I wanted to add that I'd rather my app launch faster than for time to be wasted playing a silly animation. Based on how fast the app comes up, that may be what's going on here.
Apps aren't launching more quickly, they are launching more slowly, btw. Even after a total restore it takes very little time for things to start lagging again. This only started after 4.2/4.3.
Okay, I just reproduced this problem. After which I rolled my eyes and said "What's the big deal?"
I mean really, this is BEYOND picky. No wonder us Apple users have a reputation for being douchebags.
I hadn't even NOTICED this until now, and now that I have, I'm not really sure why I'm supposed to care. Honestly, if it's a choice between fixing this and putting more development resources into iOS 5, I much prefer the latter.
-Z
EDIT: I wanted to add that I'd rather my app launch faster than for time to be wasted playing a silly animation. Based on how fast the app comes up, that may be what's going on here.
QCassidy352
Apr 15, 06:20 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
4.3.2 feels smoother to me. Take that with as many grains of sand as you like.
Definitely agree. I don't know about the 3rd part app bug, but the UI feels a lot better (eg home screen appearing after you slide to unlock)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
4.3.2 feels smoother to me. Take that with as many grains of sand as you like.
Definitely agree. I don't know about the 3rd part app bug, but the UI feels a lot better (eg home screen appearing after you slide to unlock)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 29, 02:57 PM
can anyone tell me why this market is so important? even at .99 cents a song the margins for the retailer can't be that much.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
well per song not much but it adds up fast. Even if Amazon and Apple only bring in 10-15 cents per song at .99 cents per song. That adds up fast.
Between Amazon and Apple I like Amazon better. Plus I get like 10 bucks a year in free song from Amazon for text books I buy threw them. It is a nice bonus and I can promise you doing that little give away has pushed me to buy more text books from Amazon proving they are the same price as lets say B&N or the campus book store but often times Amazon is the cheapest and I am running on my free Amazon Prime for student member ship 2 day shipping to boot.
Apple pays 70% straight to the record companies, which would be $0.90. If Amazon pays the same, then they have $0.21 loss before they even start. Or Amazon gets different prices than Apple, which would need some explaining.
depends on the song what Apple and Amazon pays.
But as for the explain why Amazon would get a lower price. Record company hate the control Apple has and they are trying to break it and chances are Amazon has other options for those same record company to sell products threw them. like CD and if they owned or own other companies that sell complete different products like Sony which sells TV, dvd players ect.
kirk26
Apr 14, 02:47 PM
as is usually the case after a reboot.
forget it.
It's not worth getting into. Not everyone has the issues with their phones. I reboot mine almost everyday and with this update I notice a speed difference. I don't have an issue with opening youtube vids in safari and I have no lag time with opening 3rd party apps. Get over it.
forget it.
It's not worth getting into. Not everyone has the issues with their phones. I reboot mine almost everyday and with this update I notice a speed difference. I don't have an issue with opening youtube vids in safari and I have no lag time with opening 3rd party apps. Get over it.
NismoRoadster
Mar 17, 11:18 AM
I think so coast got about 15 too. Rent a cop told us loiterers to leave
Was the door already open or did u wait next to the Nordstroms area? I will probably try to go very early tomorrow and show up to work late.
Was the door already open or did u wait next to the Nordstroms area? I will probably try to go very early tomorrow and show up to work late.
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий