ThaDoggg
Mar 25, 08:35 AM
Greedy or not, if Apple and RIM are part of some patent infringement they have to pay up.
Cerano
Apr 24, 01:44 AM
This comparison is garbage. The reviewer took a 13" MBP 2011 with a 2.3 GHz i5, 4GB and 128GB SSD and compared it to a 11" MBA with 1.4 GHz, 2GB and 64GB SSD. I would have liked to see him put a 13" MBA with 2.1Ghz and 4GB, I don't think the differences would have been so dramatic.
There is no way a decision to purchase a SB MBA should be influenced by such a lopsided comparison.
agreed
he should have done so with an 11" ultimate at least. the 4GB ram makes a hella big difference when opening all the apps. Obviously with 2GB ram it runs the chance of paging to file
There is no way a decision to purchase a SB MBA should be influenced by such a lopsided comparison.
agreed
he should have done so with an 11" ultimate at least. the 4GB ram makes a hella big difference when opening all the apps. Obviously with 2GB ram it runs the chance of paging to file
scaredpoet
Dec 27, 08:35 PM
You're talking about a whole country. As it is right now there are more iPhones in NYC than anywhere else. In order for this to be true it would mean tens of thousands of NYers, at least, are having their personal info stolen.
Why is that not unrealistic? NYC has 8.3 million people as of 2008. Even if 99,999 people had their identities stolen for iPhones, that's only 1.2% of the population. Consider that as of 4.6% of the population were victims of ID fraud according to the Federal Trade Commission.
I think it would take less than 99,999 cases in a concentrated area for AT&T to consider potential fraud a problem. Even 50,000 iPhones and accounts lost due to fraud would cause about $15 million in losses, assuming an average $300 subsidy per iPhone.
Also: it's not just ID theft that could be the issue here. there are other ways to scam iPhones off AT&T and resell them.
Also, why only the iPhone?
Because it's a hot item, and continues to outsell other smartphones quarter after quarter?
Because lots of people are looking to buy "nearly new" iPhones on eBay and cragislist, and are willing to pay more in some cases than retail for them?
Because it's easy to jailbreak and unlock, and can be sold that way at a premium to countries where it's in short supply or not yet sold?
Wouldn't these thieves with all their stolen info just move onto another AT&T phone that costs just as much? Such as BB?
Because BB's aren't as easy to unlock, the BB PINs are traceable by the Blackberry network regardless of carrier, and they're just not as much in demand. People don't stand in lines for Blackberries. They have for iPhones.
Family Guy Mad Libs (Paperback
more...
printable lt;bgt;madlibslt;gt;
a fun Mad-Libs type game
more...
Mad Libs #9
Ted Kennedy Mad Libs
more...
book: wedding mad libs!
Mad Libs from wags3687
more...
First up: mad libs cards!
DIY Printable Wedding Mad-Libs
more...
funny posters, mad libs,
I hate mad libs.
more...
Mad Libs Cat Says: I#39;m in your
Inspired by Mad Libs .
more...
valentine mad libs for kids
this handy mad-libs style
fun mad libs help wanted
Reacent Post
Why is that not unrealistic? NYC has 8.3 million people as of 2008. Even if 99,999 people had their identities stolen for iPhones, that's only 1.2% of the population. Consider that as of 4.6% of the population were victims of ID fraud according to the Federal Trade Commission.
I think it would take less than 99,999 cases in a concentrated area for AT&T to consider potential fraud a problem. Even 50,000 iPhones and accounts lost due to fraud would cause about $15 million in losses, assuming an average $300 subsidy per iPhone.
Also: it's not just ID theft that could be the issue here. there are other ways to scam iPhones off AT&T and resell them.
Also, why only the iPhone?
Because it's a hot item, and continues to outsell other smartphones quarter after quarter?
Because lots of people are looking to buy "nearly new" iPhones on eBay and cragislist, and are willing to pay more in some cases than retail for them?
Because it's easy to jailbreak and unlock, and can be sold that way at a premium to countries where it's in short supply or not yet sold?
Wouldn't these thieves with all their stolen info just move onto another AT&T phone that costs just as much? Such as BB?
Because BB's aren't as easy to unlock, the BB PINs are traceable by the Blackberry network regardless of carrier, and they're just not as much in demand. People don't stand in lines for Blackberries. They have for iPhones.
jessica.
Oct 27, 02:38 PM
Why spend the money if there is no market?
more...
Macaholic G5
May 26, 10:50 AM
Excellent job my good man! Thanks for the Fidget (folding widget)! Now for all those Panther lackeys, you in fact CAN run widgets if you are at version 10.3.9. Check out Amnesty Widget Browser (http://www.mesadynamics.com/amnesty.htm). You don't get the cool dashboard effect, but you can play with widgets. Fold if ya got 'em!
pbh444
Mar 27, 09:01 PM
I scored two 32GB iPad1s from Verizon on Friday in South Portland Maine.
I kept check the online site all day in case the local Verizon store was out, but the Verizon online prices were still at the pre-sale price. ($529, $629, $729).
I just noticed now (Sunday, 9 PM EDT) that the Verizon online iPad LANDING page states that the iPad1-Mifi combos begin at $429 ($100 less than Friday). However, when you click on "Build" package, you are taken to the page with the OLD (pre-sale) prices.
Maybe they are waiting until Monday AM to fix the "build" page, but you can RIGHT now short circuit it and jump right to the individual combo package pages.
16GB-mifi $429
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=165
32GB-mifi $529
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=166
16GB-mifi $629
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=167
The Wifi only versions will probably NOT be offered online.
It is also my assumption is that these prices will NOT be available in the stores, because when I scored my two 32GB wifi only, the clerk told me that there was not a SINGLE mifi to be had in the state of Maine.
I kept check the online site all day in case the local Verizon store was out, but the Verizon online prices were still at the pre-sale price. ($529, $629, $729).
I just noticed now (Sunday, 9 PM EDT) that the Verizon online iPad LANDING page states that the iPad1-Mifi combos begin at $429 ($100 less than Friday). However, when you click on "Build" package, you are taken to the page with the OLD (pre-sale) prices.
Maybe they are waiting until Monday AM to fix the "build" page, but you can RIGHT now short circuit it and jump right to the individual combo package pages.
16GB-mifi $429
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=165
32GB-mifi $529
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=166
16GB-mifi $629
http://www.verizonwireless.com/b2c/store/controller?item=packageItem&action=viewPackageDetail&packageId=167
The Wifi only versions will probably NOT be offered online.
It is also my assumption is that these prices will NOT be available in the stores, because when I scored my two 32GB wifi only, the clerk told me that there was not a SINGLE mifi to be had in the state of Maine.
more...
tazinlwfl
May 2, 01:07 PM
My buddy posted this (http://noeruiz.com/white-iphone-4-not-thicker/), and I tried to tell Engadget -- they wouldn't hear it.
Kind of ridiculous.
Kind of ridiculous.
toddybody
Apr 19, 09:53 AM
Lovin' the white! Doesn't look cheap to me at all. After now having the white iPad 2, I want the white iPhone more than I did before :D
Same Here. The white iPad is total butter...I cant wait to have an iPhone 5 with a brown leather case :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
*drooling
Same Here. The white iPad is total butter...I cant wait to have an iPhone 5 with a brown leather case :eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek::eek:
*drooling
more...
AppleMc
Mar 11, 04:48 PM
I'm 12th in line at willow bend. Can't see the end of the line
I'm at the front of the third part of the line, it goes on forever behind me...
I'm at the front of the third part of the line, it goes on forever behind me...
rdowns
Apr 8, 11:39 AM
the hill (http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/151205-scott-brown-gops-planned-parenthood-cuts-go-too-far)
I think maybe if you're cutting 4 trillion from the budget, every single item would be effected. If we cut defense spending does that mean we want to be attacked?
What are you talking about, 4 trillion? This is an argument over the CURRENT budget (we are half way through this budget year without one). The Tea Party Republicans are holding America hostage over ideology.
I think maybe if you're cutting 4 trillion from the budget, every single item would be effected. If we cut defense spending does that mean we want to be attacked?
What are you talking about, 4 trillion? This is an argument over the CURRENT budget (we are half way through this budget year without one). The Tea Party Republicans are holding America hostage over ideology.
more...
nixd2001
Sep 14, 07:48 PM
Originally posted by onemoof
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
Someone asked the difference between RISC and CISC.
First thing, there isn't that distinction anymore. RISC originally meant that the processor had fixed width instructions (so it wouldn't have to waste time asking the software how big the next instruction will be). CISC mean that the processor had variable width instructions (meaning time would have to be taken to figure out how long the next instruction is before fetching it.) However, Intel has addressed this problem by making it possible for the processor to switch to a fixed-width mode for special processor intensive purposes. The PowerPC is stuck with fixed-width and has no ability to enjoy the flexibility of variable-width instructions for non-processor-intensive tasks. This means that CISC is now better than RISC. (Using the terms to loosely define Pentium as CISC and PowerPC as RISC.)
Originally it was Reduced versus Complex instruction set computer. Making simpler processors go faster is generally easier than making complex processors go faster as there is less internal state/logic to synchronise and keep track of. For any given fabrication technology, this still generally holds true. Intel managed to sidestep this principle by investing massive sums in their fab plants, effectively meaning that the fab processes being compared weren't the same.
The opposite end of the spectrum from RISC is arguably the VAX line. With this instruction set, massive complexities arose from the fact that a single instruction took so long and did so much. It was possible for timers, interrupts and "page faults" to occur midway during an instruction. This required saving a lot of internal state so that it could later be restored. There were examples of performing a given operation with a single instruction or a sequence of instructions that performed the same effect, but where the sequence achieved the join quicker because the internal implementation within the processor was able to get on with the job quicker because it was actually a simpler task being asked of it.
The idea of fixed sized instructions isn't directly coupled to the original notion of RISC, although it is only one step behind. One of the basic ideas with the original RISC processors was that an instruction should only take a single cycle to complete. So a 100MHz CPU might actually achieve 100M instructions per second. (This was often not achieved due to memory latencies, but this isn't the "fault" of the processor core). In this context, having a variable length instruction means that it is easy for the instruction decoding (especially if it requires more than one "word") to require for effort than any other aspect of executing an instruction.
There are situations where a variable width instruction might have advantages, but the argument goes that breaking the overall task down into equal sized instructions means that fetching (including caching, branch predicting, ec) and decoding these instructions becomes simpler, permitting optimisations and speed gains to be made elsewhere in the processor design.
Intel blur RISC and CISC into gray by effectively executing RISC instructions internally, even if they support the apparent decoding of CISC insructions. They only do this for legacy reasons.
Apple will never switch to IA32 (Pentium) because 32 bit processors are a dead-end and maybe have a couple years left. The reason is because they can only have a maximum of 4 GB of RAM [ (2^32)/(1 Billion) = 4.29 GB ]. This limit is very close to being reached in current desktop computers. Apple MAY at some point decide to jump to IA64 in my opinion, and I think they should. Obviously the Intel family of processors is unbeatable unless they have some sort of catastrophe happen to them. If Apple jumped on they'd be back on track. Unfortunately I don't believe IA64 is yet cheap enough for desktops.
I think this "unbeatable" assertion requires some qualification. It may be that Intel will achieve the best price/performance ratio within a suitable range of qualifications, but this is different from always achieving best p/p ratio whatever. Indeed, IA64 versus Power4 is going to be an interesting battle because Intel has bet on ILP (instruction level parallelism) whereas IBM has bet on data bandwidth. Ultimately (and today!), I think IBM's bet has more going for it. But that's if you want ultimate performance. The PC space is often characterised by people apparenntly wanting ultimate performance but actually always massively qualifiying it with severe price restrictions (such as less than 5 digits to the price).
mdntcallr
Oct 26, 02:49 PM
it's weird they made a conscious decision to NOT allow ppc computers to use.
it is like they dont want more customers. maybe with photoshop they will do same.
it is like they dont want more customers. maybe with photoshop they will do same.
more...
trrosen
Apr 17, 04:20 AM
They need to post EVERY SINGLE REQUIREMENT in plain language and say explicitly which of the published policies the app did not meet and give an explanation as to why.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
They do and they did. But the fact is the line between ridicule and a humorous commentary is pretty fuzzy. Expecting a first tier employee to get it right 100% of the time while examining 100 other apps is silly. In fact sometimes the only difference is the reputation of the person making the statement. Fior does push the boundaries in his cartoons.
Also, They should not be able to deny developers access to certain APIs in order to keep their own products more competitive. (pinch to expand for that photo app that got rejected, in-app brightness control, etc.)
If Apple can't compete on their own programming and design merits, then they shouldn't be releasing applications in the store. Your a moron. (see now thats ridicule) Limiting access to APIs is part of Apple's design merit. If you allow people to implement thing outside of approved APIs theres no point in having them. APIs are not created as shortcuts for developers they exist to insure compatibility, reliability and consistency. Without then it would all be DOS. If you don't like the rules just write for a platform that doesn't have any...opps sorry there aren't any. The whole point of a platform and a SDK is to give a consistent set of features and limitations thats why every environment limits some API and the usage of others. Even Android has rules, although few outside Google know them as Google has far less transparency then Apple.
PS you do realize that Apple's photo app is free and comes with the iPad right. That sort of makes they theory of them doing it to prevent competition silly doesn't it.
genshi
Aug 20, 10:45 AM
Though I am well over 30 I had been using Foursquare for the past couple of months only because most of my friends (who are mostly 20 somethings) are using it, but I did get pretty bored with it and always thought to myself "Why am I even bothering." (I know, to unlock the badges for some reason.) Facebook's Places is identical to Foursquare and they will be integrating both apps together soon, apparently.
But I just saw a TedTalk from a guy who has a company called Scvngr (http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_priebatsch_the_game_layer_on_top_of_the_world.html) and they have an app (also called Scvngr: link to app (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scvngr/id323248984?mt=8)) much like Places but with an added layer in which you have very specific goals to achieve in order to make it more fun. For example, if you walk into an American Apparel and check in, you then have the task of taking a photo of yourself posed like the Mannequin in the store window. When you do this [enough times at various locations] you unlock a reward of a badge. Apparently all of these badges (for both Scvngr and Foursquare) are supposed to, eventually, give you discounts at these various stores... it hasn't happened for me yet.
So, security concerns aside, do you think these things add value for the consumer? Of course it does for the companies gathering the market research data (it's a goldmine for them!) but what do these Location Services apps need to do to make this worth opening the app and "checking in" each time you walk into a place? Scvngr seems to have made their's a little more interesting by adding this game layer to the "check in" process (your life as a game) but is it enough?
I recommend watching the TedTalk that I linked to above as it explains it all better, but I still ask myself, "why the hell am I bothering to 'check in' ".
But I just saw a TedTalk from a guy who has a company called Scvngr (http://www.ted.com/talks/seth_priebatsch_the_game_layer_on_top_of_the_world.html) and they have an app (also called Scvngr: link to app (http://itunes.apple.com/us/app/scvngr/id323248984?mt=8)) much like Places but with an added layer in which you have very specific goals to achieve in order to make it more fun. For example, if you walk into an American Apparel and check in, you then have the task of taking a photo of yourself posed like the Mannequin in the store window. When you do this [enough times at various locations] you unlock a reward of a badge. Apparently all of these badges (for both Scvngr and Foursquare) are supposed to, eventually, give you discounts at these various stores... it hasn't happened for me yet.
So, security concerns aside, do you think these things add value for the consumer? Of course it does for the companies gathering the market research data (it's a goldmine for them!) but what do these Location Services apps need to do to make this worth opening the app and "checking in" each time you walk into a place? Scvngr seems to have made their's a little more interesting by adding this game layer to the "check in" process (your life as a game) but is it enough?
I recommend watching the TedTalk that I linked to above as it explains it all better, but I still ask myself, "why the hell am I bothering to 'check in' ".
more...
eshroom
Nov 25, 12:35 PM
Good company. I had an FM transmitter from them. Nice case too.
VulchR
Mar 24, 06:11 AM
I do wish people in this forum stop referring to 'the military' as though they were some sort of alien life-forms. 'The military' are people, and even if you happen to be in the oh-so-unique moral high ground of opposing war and violence from your comfortable desk, soldiers deserve the best kit we can afford to give them. Ditto for the returning veterans. And their families.
more...
Gasu E.
Sep 26, 10:08 AM
OI! APPLE LAWERS!!! YEAH YOU!!! Read some Mintzberg, or Mead, or (and I'd strongly advise this) Andrew Bailey. Basically, get those HBS grads out of your org and stop using crappy outdated Business School Methods. It was once the way to go. But what they don't consider are Gender and Cultures! You wanna piss me off: You loose my custom.
Sorry for the moan, but the litigation era was over in the 90's.
It's about Love Marks now, and your Lawers are hurting your brand!!! Fix it before it's too late!
Oh, calm down and read all the links. There's been no litigation. Apple was pretty damn polite in its one cease-and-desist. Under US law, if you don't defend your trademarks you lose them, and the links discussing their trademark applications indicate that Apple may already be in trouble on that score already.
P.S. I read Mintzberg in business school in 1981. "Gender and Cultures" is a non sequiter right out of a university course catalog. ROFL. YDKWTFYATA.
Sorry for the moan, but the litigation era was over in the 90's.
It's about Love Marks now, and your Lawers are hurting your brand!!! Fix it before it's too late!
Oh, calm down and read all the links. There's been no litigation. Apple was pretty damn polite in its one cease-and-desist. Under US law, if you don't defend your trademarks you lose them, and the links discussing their trademark applications indicate that Apple may already be in trouble on that score already.
P.S. I read Mintzberg in business school in 1981. "Gender and Cultures" is a non sequiter right out of a university course catalog. ROFL. YDKWTFYATA.
cavf88
Apr 19, 10:28 AM
I really like what they have done with the multitasking UI, but I really hope the have something better for WWDC. I'm looking forward for an iPad home page that looks like the Android ones with widgets and better notifications.
Yannick
Sep 27, 09:54 AM
I checked the update pace for Mac OS X 10.4.
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
29/04/2005: 10.4.0
17/05/2005: 10.4.1 (+ 18 days)
12/07/2005: 10.4.2 (+ 56 days)
31/10/2005: 10.4.3 (+ 111 days)
11/01/2006: 10.4.4 (+ 72 days)
14/02/2006: 10.4.5 (+ 34 days)
03/04/2006: 10.4.6 (+ 48 days)
27/06/2006: 10.4.7 (+ 85 days)
27/09/2006 (today) + 92 days
Soon we'll have 10.4.8, and then probably around 3 months later 10.4.9 (January?). I doubt Apple will release 10.4.10, they could but I don't think they ever did it with another OS.
I thought first that it could mean that Leopard would be early, but I don't think so (spring 2007 is March 21 - June 21).
P.K.
Apr 29, 11:56 AM
Are your APN entries correct, or your carrier file installed?
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
Settings > General > About - what is the value for "Carrier"?
Might be worth a reset of your network settings.
Settings > General > Reset > Reset Network Settings
This will also wipe all stored WiFi entries and their passwords and reboot the phone.
London Lad
Nov 22, 03:41 AM
I thought you guys in the USA encouraged free enterprise !!!
Even if these goods came from Foxconn (which I doubt) if Apple ordered some items then rejected them (and I assume didn't pay for them) they would still belong to Foxconn. If Foxconn threw them away then they abandoned title to them and they cant be stolen.
Last time I looked it was not illegal to export to the USA so as long as the tax man gets his share of the profit what's the problem?
I think it's more likely he just had them copied.
Sheesh, what happened to innocent till proven guilty ? Its not for him to prove anything.
Even if these goods came from Foxconn (which I doubt) if Apple ordered some items then rejected them (and I assume didn't pay for them) they would still belong to Foxconn. If Foxconn threw them away then they abandoned title to them and they cant be stolen.
Last time I looked it was not illegal to export to the USA so as long as the tax man gets his share of the profit what's the problem?
I think it's more likely he just had them copied.
Sheesh, what happened to innocent till proven guilty ? Its not for him to prove anything.
jongriff
Oct 6, 11:43 AM
A 4" iPhone would probably replace the 3.5" model so all the current apps would run on it no problem. It might require some tweaking for some apps but the upside is you get to update your app and sell it again.
If they build an iPhone with the same size screen as the iPod Nano then they could invite developers to develop mini-apps for that size screen to be used on the iPod Nano and iPhone Nano, creating a new AppStore category. Would be a huge market and very attractive to developers of news/info related apps.
In my eyes a phone that has a screen as small as the nano would not be a great idea or success. Even making the screen slightly smaller introduces a real difficulty in regards to the keyboard. Even if the screen is the same resolution as the original iPhone, a smaller physical size would make typing extremely difficult. I would love to see some sort of physical keyboard implementation, say a slide form factor like the palm pre, but this is very non-apple and I would be astonished if they went down that route.
A smaller phone is however a very interesting proposition for me, I personally would like to go smaller not bigger as i have my iPad for anything that would be a pain on a small screen. Having had features like sat nav, music, Internet, email etc I couldn't forgoe these in the search for a smaller form factor though so a compromise between the two would be nice. Just my thoughts and probably as likely to come true as this Wu chap's predictions, ie guessing.
If they build an iPhone with the same size screen as the iPod Nano then they could invite developers to develop mini-apps for that size screen to be used on the iPod Nano and iPhone Nano, creating a new AppStore category. Would be a huge market and very attractive to developers of news/info related apps.
In my eyes a phone that has a screen as small as the nano would not be a great idea or success. Even making the screen slightly smaller introduces a real difficulty in regards to the keyboard. Even if the screen is the same resolution as the original iPhone, a smaller physical size would make typing extremely difficult. I would love to see some sort of physical keyboard implementation, say a slide form factor like the palm pre, but this is very non-apple and I would be astonished if they went down that route.
A smaller phone is however a very interesting proposition for me, I personally would like to go smaller not bigger as i have my iPad for anything that would be a pain on a small screen. Having had features like sat nav, music, Internet, email etc I couldn't forgoe these in the search for a smaller form factor though so a compromise between the two would be nice. Just my thoughts and probably as likely to come true as this Wu chap's predictions, ie guessing.
Bern
Nov 11, 02:50 AM
I'm not sure why you guys think the ads are more amusing simply because they're in a foreign language :confused: Not everyone in the world speaks english.
iJohnHenry
Apr 8, 06:04 AM
We need a body count clock, to record the incidence of deaths of pregnant girls, caused by botched 'back-room' abortions. :mad:
0 comments:
Post a Comment