Mord
Apr 27, 12:37 PM
I actually know that many here have shared the same view as mine, that It's painfully obvious she wasn't having a seizure. Must of been a coincidence the seizure happened right at door exit then? Purposely done to avoid being taken outside, where she would of been in severe trouble.
Nice metric you have there, $some people on the internet have said it, thus it must be true.
:rolleyes:
Nice metric you have there, $some people on the internet have said it, thus it must be true.
:rolleyes:
No1451
Sep 16, 11:40 PM
Looking to learn
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/4974677385_668b9ac04e_z.jpg
http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4111/4974677385_668b9ac04e_z.jpg
FloatingBones
Nov 25, 12:34 AM
For the last time, STOP SPEAKING FOR OTHER PEOPLE!!! You have NO right what-so-ever to speak for anyone but yourself and yet you continue to state that EVER SINGLE iOS USER hates Flash and is glad to be rid of it and yet this Skyfire app proves just the opposite.
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
What I said: Users of the 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash plugins is completely true. There are no Flash plugins for this device. Nobody can run a shred of Flash content in their browser on this device.
No amount of nonsensical shouting will change the facts.
You have every right to give your opinion on the matter, but it is your opinion, not the opinion of every single iOS user in existence.
But owners of those 120M+ iOS devices are doing just fine without Flash. Nobody forced them to buy those devices. If they were somehow "disappointed" because there are no Flash plugins available, nobody prevented them from returning them or reselling them.
That is NOT a shortcoming of Flash dude.
Also incorrect. There are huge shortcomings of Flash, and you've never addressed them.
You've never addressed the identity-leaking of Flash cookies: Flash doesn't honor the cookie privacy settings of the browser. More than half of the top 100 websites are now using Flash cookies to track users and store information about them. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt) Do you actually like the fact that those sites do an end-run around the cookie privacy settings by using Flash? I can't find a single rational person that likes the identity-leaking.
You've never addressed the quirkiness that Flash brings to the browser UI. On my Mac, scrolling works differently when my mouse is over a Flash region. Certain keyboard shortcuts cease to work. Text that appears in a Flash window is not searchable with the browser's text-finding feature. My Mac doesn't behave like a Mac inside of a Flash window.
The engineering choice made for iOS is simplicity. Layering Flash on top of the browser would compromise that simplicity. Click-to-flash semantics would add yet another layer of clutter and obfuscation to the UI.
You've never addressed Adobe's inability to deal competently to secure their software. Security experts believe that Adobe is going to surpass Microsoft as the #1 target for security attacks. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-231.htm) Besides Flash, Adobe Reader is a vector for zero day bugs (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt). I really don't know how you do that: it's a PDF reader! The bugs have been around in Adobe Reader for years and Adobe still hasn't fixed them.
If Apple enabled Flash in iOS Safari, they would be farming out the correct operation of their iOS browser to a company that has proven to be one of the least competent companies in dealing with malware attacks. Noted security expert Steve Gibson mocks their cluelessness:
"[Adobe:] how is that quarterly update cycle going for you?" (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-273.txt)
I have yet to find a single Flash enthusiast who can address those issues. I'm hardly surprised that you can't address them, either.
That is a shortcoming of Steve Jobs' choosing.
Nonsense. They are engineering and design choices. If Apple made bad engineering and design choices, they would never have sold 120M+ of these devices.
If you think they are a "shortcoming": there are simple solutions. Don't buy an iOS device. If you did buy one, sell it. Or maybe you can see if it will blend (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAl28d6tbko).
One thing is certain: Apple will not compromise their iOS browser with Flash, and complaining about that is rather silly.
Even if Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete, that doesn't mean people don't want to be able to access the entire Web in the here and now.
Adobe Flash is on the road to becoming obsolete. Even Adobe acknowledges the fact (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999).
Between the 120M+ iOS devices, the click-to-flash plugins disable Flash downloads on Windows, Mac OS X and Linux machines, and Adobe's new Flash-to-HTML5 conversion tools (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1039999), the abandonment of Flash will continue to accelerate.
You just don't seem to comprehend that.
You are correct. Flash is a legacy technology, and its day has passed.
You seem to have this deep seated hatred of Flash
There are fundamental failings in both the design and deployment of Flash. I listed three of those earlier in my reply.
The thing that got my attention was when I realized that Flash was maintaining its own set of cookies and that those cookies did not honor the privacy settings of my browser. I then learned about click-to-flash plugins to minimize my exposure to Flash. The shocking thing to me was how much disabling Flash improved the browsing experience: faster page loads, less flashing advertisements, and far less CPU usage.
and I can tell that if Steve had said "I LOVE Flash" instead you would almost undoubtedly be here fighting against HTML5 and for Flash.
You imply that I blindly agree with Apple's (and Jobs's) decisions. That is not the case.
I strongly disagree with Apple's decision to prevent Hypermac from selling external batteries for Mac computers (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1032695). Hypermac makes a quality product, and they are filling a niche that Apple ignores. Magsafe is a wonderful technology, but they should be licensing this tech to third-party vendors. I fondly hope that Apple addresses this deficiency in their strategy and product accessories soon.
If you search, you can find where I commented on this in the public record weeks ago.
Yes, I honestly believe that. You have no vested interest in either one. You're just being Steve's doormat.
Now you know better.
I see no reason why ANYONE should have to convert to HTML5.
Too many laptop users are tired of the CPU loading and battery suck of Flash apps.
Too many users don't like that Flash alters the UI inside of the browsers: altered scrolling behavior, keyboard shortcuts that don't work in Flash, text searches that don't work with text in a Flash app.
Too many privacy advocates are bothered that Flash maintains a separate set of cookies and those cookies do not honor the privacy settings of the browser. Commercial websites are using those Flash cookies to track users. (http://www.grc.com/sn/sn-209.txt)
Too many security advocates are wary of using Adobe products because of Adobe's poor track record against security attacks.
Even if all those four large concerns were addressed, websites have to deal with the growing number of users that use Flash-blocking plugins. Advertisers that deliver their ads with Flash have no guarantee that users will allow those Flash apps to be downloaded and run on their machines.
Those are the reasons why Flash's viability for delivering web content is in decline. Even if you don't see the reasons, Adobe does (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/10/adobe-demos-flash-to-html5-conversion-tool.html).
YoNeX
Dec 1, 11:10 AM
Has anyone been getting updates at all from VMware? I sent in my request for Discussion Forums (a while back), but haven't gotten access.
Padraig
Apr 22, 06:34 PM
That is the ugliest thing I have ever seen. Obviously, this won't be the next iPhone, because Apple would never come out with something that ugly.
Honestly, the iPhone 4 looks great, an iPhone 4S would be ideal, not this ugly PoS
Ah, memories of the iPod nano 4G rumours.
Honestly, the iPhone 4 looks great, an iPhone 4S would be ideal, not this ugly PoS
Ah, memories of the iPod nano 4G rumours.
lordonuthin
Oct 20, 10:01 PM
check out this thread (http://foldingforum.org/viewtopic.php?t=10697). near the bottom it says about a new binary
I was looking at that and the link just gives me a whole bunch of binary text crap. I'm not sure what to do with that.
I was looking at that and the link just gives me a whole bunch of binary text crap. I'm not sure what to do with that.
digitalbiker
Oct 19, 12:09 PM
Apple didn't update the form factors was to ease people into Intel. Apple had to convince upgraders that they were still using a Mac, and that the inside was the only thing that changed (for the better). Now that Gen 1 Intel is complete Apple can update the form factors as they have proved Macs will always be Macs.
I agree completely.
None of the mac products significanly changed form factor even though the "innards" changed significantly.
This year should be the year we see major style changes. The old line is getting seriously stale.
I agree completely.
None of the mac products significanly changed form factor even though the "innards" changed significantly.
This year should be the year we see major style changes. The old line is getting seriously stale.
SPUY767
Oct 24, 08:49 AM
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wo/0.RSLID?mco=A2AF143F&nplm=MA598Z%2FA
Flight charger adaptor added
You're not the designer of the latest generation of BMW's are you, cause I've got a bone to pick with you. :)
Flight charger adaptor added
You're not the designer of the latest generation of BMW's are you, cause I've got a bone to pick with you. :)
Bwright
Apr 27, 12:10 AM
I bought an iMac April 16. If apple releases a new model May 3rd, will they pity recent buyers and allow exchange/return for the new iMac????
You have until the 30th to return it with the 14 day return policy so I would return it now and just buy the new one when it comes out
You have until the 30th to return it with the 14 day return policy so I would return it now and just buy the new one when it comes out
Reach9
May 2, 12:50 AM
Nah - probably in Heaven with his 70 virgins on the magic mother-of-pearl bed where not even the angels can see what he's doing...
I thought it was 72? :eek: i wonder if he has insurance there.
I thought it was 72? :eek: i wonder if he has insurance there.
Schizoid
Apr 14, 06:12 AM
Well, it is almost time for a new iMac to be released, isn't it? (Or a Mac Mini, Mac Pro, or MacBook for that sake)
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
And I thought Ted Rogers was dead!
Do I win Dusty Bin?
iX... At first you could think about the Roman Number 9. But as you all know, in the upper part of X, you can also find the Roman number V. So that makes 14 then. (IX + V)
Now, the iMac shipped in 1998, while now it's 2011. 13 years of difference. Almost fourteen. Coincidence? I think not. Maybe that's a hint from Apple?
Then you got Mac, with a capital M, and a lowercase a and c. In M you can find I, V, and I, which together make (IV + I) 5. In a you can find c and I, which totals in 11 (C+I). Then you got the c, which of course, just translates in 10.
5 + 11 + 10 equals 26. As much as all letters in the Roman (aka Latin) alphabet.
Which leads us to believe that we have not to count the Roman numbers, but just the Roman letters.
M is the 13th letter of the alphabet.
A is the first letter of the alphabet.
C is the 3rd letter of the alphabet.
TOTAL: 17.
Now we all know Apple's marketing. And you know that's a hint from the name in the title: MarketingName. Big words mean more to Apple than big numbers. "This computer is fantastic" is more advertised than "This computer has 8 GB of RAM". So that can conclude that we'll have to substract the Roman numbers from the Roman letters.
26 - 17 = 9. Nine indeed. Got it?
9 was also the number iX, which we started with. This leads us to believe we have to be on the right track.
Now what are those dots in between the words?
Anyone else can further elaborate this? Thanks for your help.
Edit: I forgot the lower case i in iX. I used it as an uppercase letter. So maybe that only counts as 0.5 instead? So that equals 13.5 with the V included. That only gives Apple 6 months to finish the new unknown thing!
And I thought Ted Rogers was dead!
Do I win Dusty Bin?
zep1977
Apr 22, 12:05 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)
Business.
Business.
fkalwar
Jul 24, 08:35 PM
so would this be incorporated into the upcoming iPod, or the "next" update to the iPod?
mofo-x
May 3, 07:44 AM
Intel QuadCore i%? :)
till
Apr 14, 09:31 AM
The fact that it's showing up on existing apps with no secret changes is a bit odd.
That would seem to rule out anything that involves an Intel processor. So Apple TV, then? Or nothing.
That would seem to rule out anything that involves an Intel processor. So Apple TV, then? Or nothing.
iCrizzo
Apr 15, 02:39 PM
Is there an option to make iCal look normal?
It does look normal.
It does look normal.
Eriden
Mar 15, 01:06 AM
I'll be heading to Spectrum myself. I've got to pick one up for my wife. She thought she'd be happy with my first gen iPad until she started playing around with my white Verizon 32GB.
Fortunately, for some reason, Spectrum sounds like was much less of a mess than Brea. 2/3 of the people in line on launch day were disappointed.
Fortunately, for some reason, Spectrum sounds like was much less of a mess than Brea. 2/3 of the people in line on launch day were disappointed.
snap58
Jul 25, 07:32 PM
sounds interesting, though i have a feeling many people will just ignore the feature and end up touching the screen anyway, lol.
I am not going to read all 110 replies, so this may have already been put out there.
Remember the other patent with the LCD with the built in little photo cells, think these would know when something was above them?
The screen will have a clear scratch proof cover over it that you could touch if you wanted too.
I can't see people Not touching the screen, just hovering mm above it, no way.
I am not going to read all 110 replies, so this may have already been put out there.
Remember the other patent with the LCD with the built in little photo cells, think these would know when something was above them?
The screen will have a clear scratch proof cover over it that you could touch if you wanted too.
I can't see people Not touching the screen, just hovering mm above it, no way.
TUD
Apr 13, 07:37 PM
Who cares! A little too late now, bring on the iPhone 5!
Eidorian
Jul 25, 09:24 AM
On the Software part of the wireless MM page, there is a picture that shows a stack of new options and a slightly redesigned preference pane - I hope those options aren't wireless-only, I just plugged in my MM and they aren't there.
Software Update coming??That's the normal Mighty Mouse pane. It changes to that when you're using one. I can see you've never used one...
Software Update coming??That's the normal Mighty Mouse pane. It changes to that when you're using one. I can see you've never used one...
rubberwheels
Apr 17, 11:32 PM
I love the Macbook Air but I would hate it if they released a new one. Especially since this was only out in 10/2010.
DaBlackMamba
Mar 17, 01:25 PM
2 White Ipads 16GB! :apple:
Had fun in line too.
Waited from 7 AM.
Had fun in line too.
Waited from 7 AM.
Musubi
Nov 3, 08:36 PM
Dont count Parallels out. They will eventually have multicore support in their app, and i am sure will keep getting better over time.
The single core support currently is a design decision. Per a note by Andrew (of Parallels) (http://forums.parallels.com/thread5395.html), "One core is used by Mac OS X and the other core is used by Windows XP - it brings excellent resource management and optimal performance for both systems running simultaneously."
Thus it can be presumed they may end up allowing multicore as an option in future releases.
The good thing about having two companies in this space is the competition will result in two better Mac products. I've just finished installing XP Pro on Fusion but the beta test agreement has a note about confidentiality regarding the discussion of benchmarks/performance data of the beta. Upon starting a VM, a sheet drops down noting there is debug code and logging which affects its performance. Thus, comparing it's current performance against Parallels isn't fair game at this time. Outside of that, the user interface is a bit more spartan (not much configuration options including the ability to tweak an already created VM) than Parallels. The VM setup while not much different than Parallels Desktop feels more streamlined. Fusion also drops down sheets with plenty of information to help make the setup process idiotproof (all of those dialogues can be turned off by checking the provided box).
The single core support currently is a design decision. Per a note by Andrew (of Parallels) (http://forums.parallels.com/thread5395.html), "One core is used by Mac OS X and the other core is used by Windows XP - it brings excellent resource management and optimal performance for both systems running simultaneously."
Thus it can be presumed they may end up allowing multicore as an option in future releases.
The good thing about having two companies in this space is the competition will result in two better Mac products. I've just finished installing XP Pro on Fusion but the beta test agreement has a note about confidentiality regarding the discussion of benchmarks/performance data of the beta. Upon starting a VM, a sheet drops down noting there is debug code and logging which affects its performance. Thus, comparing it's current performance against Parallels isn't fair game at this time. Outside of that, the user interface is a bit more spartan (not much configuration options including the ability to tweak an already created VM) than Parallels. The VM setup while not much different than Parallels Desktop feels more streamlined. Fusion also drops down sheets with plenty of information to help make the setup process idiotproof (all of those dialogues can be turned off by checking the provided box).
Btrthnezr3
Nov 16, 04:04 PM
link?
where you've been? abercrombies lowest quality company has been around almost 10 years lol
Aeropostale is NOT related to, owned by or a subsidiary of Abercrombie and Fitch. Thanks.
where you've been? abercrombies lowest quality company has been around almost 10 years lol
Aeropostale is NOT related to, owned by or a subsidiary of Abercrombie and Fitch. Thanks.
No comments:
Post a Comment