Macula
Jan 7, 06:41 PM
Is it possible to download the entire keynote file (.avi) to my hard disk instead of viewing it streamed? Is it possible at all with Safari, or do I need Firefox and some extension/plugin?
Thanks.
Thanks.
puckhead193
Sep 7, 10:19 PM
Kanye West does not care about mac people.
if the price is right he'll care about anything ;)
if the price is right he'll care about anything ;)
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
Doctor Q
Apr 21, 12:11 PM
However, without actually counting towards something, it's kind of pointless.
Correct. But we have to add the feature to produce the data before we can start to make use of it! See the first post of this thread.
Correct. But we have to add the feature to produce the data before we can start to make use of it! See the first post of this thread.
CQd44
Apr 17, 12:19 PM
so you're a common dirty thief who steals from people..and proud of the fact? Under Sharia law they'd chop your hands off....
Under sharia law a woman who was raped would need like 9 witnesses to prove the man guilty. And her testimony in other cases would be half that of a man's.
Sharia law isn't a very good thing to bring up ;)
Under sharia law a woman who was raped would need like 9 witnesses to prove the man guilty. And her testimony in other cases would be half that of a man's.
Sharia law isn't a very good thing to bring up ;)
Eidorian
May 3, 11:28 PM
The reason why I didn't buy an Ipad yet. I would only browse on Safari and play games. Something that is available on my Macbook Pro.Since I am the local technology guru, people are just shy of harassing given the constant barrage of questions just asking if I own one. They are amazed that I do not own an iPad or tablet since they are "popular".
I can afford one but the lack of MKV playback is the deal killer. So that makes it $499 to browse the internet.
I can afford one but the lack of MKV playback is the deal killer. So that makes it $499 to browse the internet.
joelom
Apr 15, 10:15 PM
that is a render. notice how the back isnt rounded, and kinda has those "pinches." those are from a bad loft in a rendering program. i do agree with that design. the next iPhone is going to defiantly resemble the iPad...but more so the 3G iPad. like the other said, the aluminum messes with the signal.
munkery
Apr 17, 06:36 PM
How does Gnome 3.0 on Linux compare to the new UI in OSX Lion?
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
That's a pretty sick OS. I haven't ever run Fedora on a computer of mine, but my uncle swears by it. That video has convinced me to run it on my next box.
I like fedora over ubuntu. I haven't run fedora for a while, I think I'll take second look when the new version comes out.
I wish Ubuntu went with Gnome 3 over Unity. Fedora is great but it is more "free" than Ubuntu as Fedora includes fewer/no? proprietary drivers by default so it is a little bit more work to get running on some hardware.
The next Fedora may be worth the extra effort.
Here is a link for those looking to stay up to date on Win 8. http://www.winrumors.com/
Or, at least looking to retaliate?
I've been playing around with Gnome 3.0, and it seems like the designers have a similar philosophy about desktop navigation.
Gnome 3.0 Preview (This is not my video):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=joBXc3IGRBw
That's a pretty sick OS. I haven't ever run Fedora on a computer of mine, but my uncle swears by it. That video has convinced me to run it on my next box.
I like fedora over ubuntu. I haven't run fedora for a while, I think I'll take second look when the new version comes out.
I wish Ubuntu went with Gnome 3 over Unity. Fedora is great but it is more "free" than Ubuntu as Fedora includes fewer/no? proprietary drivers by default so it is a little bit more work to get running on some hardware.
The next Fedora may be worth the extra effort.
Here is a link for those looking to stay up to date on Win 8. http://www.winrumors.com/
Or, at least looking to retaliate?
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
parapup
Apr 15, 07:13 PM
Google (http://opendotdotdot.blogspot.com/2011/04/why-google-should-buy-music-industry.html), Apple and Amazon could just freaking buy the music industry.
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
I heard EMI is up for sale (http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=3&ved=0CC8QFjAC&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.businessweek.com%2Fnews%2F2011-02-02%2Femi-sale-may-fetch-2-billion-narrowly-covering-citigroup-debt.html&rct=j&q=EMI%20sale&ei=Et-oTZOKJNSUtwfDuozeBw&usg=AFQjCNGuek0PlovF-tZP-Fsuim250os43Q&sig2=l0Ljn2Yy9Q083At-Vr-eKw&cad=rja).
MattSepeta
Apr 27, 04:32 PM
missed that one. fully agree.
why? men and women can't share a basin to wash their hands? many places already have unisex restrooms. As long as it is known, there shouldn't be any problem.
I really don't see any reasons, other than people being stuck in their old conventions. it would surely simplify my life when I am around town with my kids.
In a dreamland, sure, it works out great.
Reality: Guy and a woman in adjacent stalls. Man drops his phone on the ground. Picks it up. woman assumes he is taking photos of her under the stall. Etc.
why? men and women can't share a basin to wash their hands? many places already have unisex restrooms. As long as it is known, there shouldn't be any problem.
I really don't see any reasons, other than people being stuck in their old conventions. it would surely simplify my life when I am around town with my kids.
In a dreamland, sure, it works out great.
Reality: Guy and a woman in adjacent stalls. Man drops his phone on the ground. Picks it up. woman assumes he is taking photos of her under the stall. Etc.
NAG
Jan 12, 08:40 PM
Thats a loaded demand since you already agreed with my later statement that they need to learn how to vet online sources like they do print sources. I can list off any number of magazines or whatnot that would do such things if given the chance, though. It isn't like gizmodo invented pranking, guys.
mrsir2009
Mar 9, 09:51 PM
You do realise that's a Touch screen on that Asus all-in-one right ? You also realise HP's all in one has had a touch screen for a while. Yet the day Apple ships a touch screen iMac, you can bet a lot of people here will think they were the first to do it.
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
joefinan
Apr 9, 10:51 AM
It was amusing at first but when you think how much effort went into all those presentations it's not too fair.
How would gizmodo feel if their site kept randomly going offline...?
They had it coming...
What did who have coming?
How would gizmodo feel if their site kept randomly going offline...?
They had it coming...
What did who have coming?
mab920
Apr 5, 03:20 PM
orrrrrrrr maybe this is a good way for those looking to develop iAds to look at some of the ways other companies are using this new platform for marketing.
chrmjenkins
Apr 25, 12:06 PM
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
From a realistic standpoint too, I think that increasing the size to 3.7" or even 4.0" isn't going to make a difference because few users would be able to tolerate closer than 1' for extended periods.
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
From a realistic standpoint too, I think that increasing the size to 3.7" or even 4.0" isn't going to make a difference because few users would be able to tolerate closer than 1' for extended periods.
Lennholm
Apr 16, 09:09 AM
People talk about a so-called 'reality distortion field' about Steve Jobs and yet everyday we get people blatantly ignoring truth because it doesn't fit with their own personal world view.
Yes, there were Palms, and Blackberries, Nokia's, Sony-Ericssons, and Panasonics etc before the iPhone but when we all saw the iPhone everyone instantly knew that was the future; touch-screen, icon based, intuitive, with an emphasis on both design and usability.
You might not like the fact that Apple revolutionized the phone market but history says otherwise.
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
Yes, there were Palms, and Blackberries, Nokia's, Sony-Ericssons, and Panasonics etc before the iPhone but when we all saw the iPhone everyone instantly knew that was the future; touch-screen, icon based, intuitive, with an emphasis on both design and usability.
You might not like the fact that Apple revolutionized the phone market but history says otherwise.
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
likemyorbs
Apr 25, 04:30 PM
I won't watch the video because i'm faint of heart, i even had to close my eyes for half of American History X (everyone should watch that movie btw). But this is really messed up that the employees not only did nothing but encouraged it. I would have punched one of those nasty little teenage bitches in the face.
Dear McDonalds: Boom. You just lost a whole lot of customers.
That's not fair. It's not the company's fault. It's called individual responsibilities and these employees should be fired.
Dear McDonalds: Boom. You just lost a whole lot of customers.
That's not fair. It's not the company's fault. It's called individual responsibilities and these employees should be fired.
173080
Oct 7, 08:09 PM
Wonder what the stairway leads to?
Heaven. Oh wait... :D
Heaven. Oh wait... :D
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
jayducharme
Oct 6, 10:32 AM
The only drawback for Verizon is that they still don't have the iPhone ... yet.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
I like how the commercial gives a little taste of the coming augmented reality craze.
Whyren
Sep 7, 08:25 PM
Jobs in 2008 is that what i am hearing. YAY president Jobs.
Ha ha, well he's already got the Mac crowd. Advertise he's CEO of Pixar and you've got a good portion of the parental/Disney crowd too. :D
Ha ha, well he's already got the Mac crowd. Advertise he's CEO of Pixar and you've got a good portion of the parental/Disney crowd too. :D
Yakuza
Apr 16, 08:58 AM
What about if the Apple logo lights up white briefly to act as the inbuilt flash?
that would be very cooooool, even if it wasn't a flash, the apple logo light up when playing around with the phone would really be nice
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
The iMac is all aluminum, and it needs the wi-Fi signal, and it seems to work fine.
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
That's my thought. a prototype. a very first prtotype
that would be very cooooool, even if it wasn't a flash, the apple logo light up when playing around with the phone would really be nice
agree. it would be a neat design for the phone but im hoping its differnt than that. plus if it were all metal the signal would be horrible.
The iMac is all aluminum, and it needs the wi-Fi signal, and it seems to work fine.
I don't see how the writing on the iPhone is crooked or whatever, maybe I'm blind. The photo looks real. But I hope it's not, and if it is real, I hope that's just a prototype, because I don't like the square shape and the angular edges on the back.
That's my thought. a prototype. a very first prtotype
dongmin
Jan 9, 09:21 AM
Mac:
-MacBook Touch = thin MacBook
-processor bump on the MBPs
iTunes/iPod/iPhone:
-iTunes 8 with movie rentals
-AppleTV 2.0
-Airport Express 2.0 with HDMI and support for movie rentals
-iPhone 1.1.3 with support for movie rentals
-preview of iPhone SDK
-MacBook Touch = thin MacBook
-processor bump on the MBPs
iTunes/iPod/iPhone:
-iTunes 8 with movie rentals
-AppleTV 2.0
-Airport Express 2.0 with HDMI and support for movie rentals
-iPhone 1.1.3 with support for movie rentals
-preview of iPhone SDK
No comments:
Post a Comment