che guevara tattoo
sebastianlewis
May 15, 02:30 PM
I do still prefer my titles as they are more user-friendly and product centric rather than type centric. For example with your way is that iPod Touch software would be in a different place from iPod Touch hardware. But your layout does have the advantage of less options to click on and it is still a lot better than the existing layout.
The point was to be type-centric rather than product centric because it can be used as a net for all future products as well, while with your proposal, we might need to be adding or removing categories depending on how Apple changes their product lineup, and this way, we can cover the individual pieces of each product, so for example, the iPod touch software is essentially the same as the iPhone software minus the drivers for a few other pieces of hardware and minus a couple of phone specific applications. So if Apple were to create ANOTHER product that used the same software, we can just add the differences between the software to the "iPhone OS" page. The iPod touch as a subset of the iPhone shouldn't even have it's own page, but instead should be mentioned in the main iPhone article in it's own section and we can set the iPod touch page to automatically redirect to that section.
I don't believe that either nail it on the head. While they're both a vast improvement, the proposals still need a little work in my view.
While I don't have anything to lay on the table right now, I'll come back and post when I've had thinkies.
Hmm, well I think mine was simple and to the point, but I look forward to your proposal as well, but if you're looking for ideas here's a brief outline of why I proposed a type specific approach:
1. Minimize Confusion by minimizing categories and subcategories.
2. Minimize clicks by minimizing categories and subcategories
3. Maximize the usefulness of the Macrumors Guides to everybody, not just the average user, and not just Macrumors users (it would still drive traffic to Macrumors though).
4. It would cover a network of related technologies and not just Apple's products and services helping new users get the most out of their new hardware purchase (as I understand it, many new Mac users and maybe iPhone users now also end up on Macrumors looking for help, advice, and to join the Mac User community).
5. Also serve as a reference for older and experienced users.
Sebastian
The point was to be type-centric rather than product centric because it can be used as a net for all future products as well, while with your proposal, we might need to be adding or removing categories depending on how Apple changes their product lineup, and this way, we can cover the individual pieces of each product, so for example, the iPod touch software is essentially the same as the iPhone software minus the drivers for a few other pieces of hardware and minus a couple of phone specific applications. So if Apple were to create ANOTHER product that used the same software, we can just add the differences between the software to the "iPhone OS" page. The iPod touch as a subset of the iPhone shouldn't even have it's own page, but instead should be mentioned in the main iPhone article in it's own section and we can set the iPod touch page to automatically redirect to that section.
I don't believe that either nail it on the head. While they're both a vast improvement, the proposals still need a little work in my view.
While I don't have anything to lay on the table right now, I'll come back and post when I've had thinkies.
Hmm, well I think mine was simple and to the point, but I look forward to your proposal as well, but if you're looking for ideas here's a brief outline of why I proposed a type specific approach:
1. Minimize Confusion by minimizing categories and subcategories.
2. Minimize clicks by minimizing categories and subcategories
3. Maximize the usefulness of the Macrumors Guides to everybody, not just the average user, and not just Macrumors users (it would still drive traffic to Macrumors though).
4. It would cover a network of related technologies and not just Apple's products and services helping new users get the most out of their new hardware purchase (as I understand it, many new Mac users and maybe iPhone users now also end up on Macrumors looking for help, advice, and to join the Mac User community).
5. Also serve as a reference for older and experienced users.
Sebastian
avamiser
Apr 24, 08:52 AM
Is there a way to have contents (home folder, applications, settings, preferences etc) of my Macs (one in the office and one at home) have any exact content.
So I can leave my MacBookPro at work but at home pick up on where I left off on my MacBook? - have access to all the same apps and settings.
My only guess is to SuperDuper the drive once I have the final HD and keep adding on both as I add apps/content along to both.
Thanks.
So I can leave my MacBookPro at work but at home pick up on where I left off on my MacBook? - have access to all the same apps and settings.
My only guess is to SuperDuper the drive once I have the final HD and keep adding on both as I add apps/content along to both.
Thanks.
scorpio1973
Apr 12, 05:44 PM
I chose Verizon for my iPad 2, but I have AT&T for my iPhone 4. I figured that would give me the best of both worlds. I haven't had any issues with my iPhone 4 service, but I think Verizon is more reliable on the whole. And, for what I do on my iPad 2, Verizon speeds are good for me.
skunk
Mar 15, 08:03 PM
Satan appears as an angel of light and he's got two posters hear on this thread at least, but not the other poster.WTF? :confused:
TheRealTVGuy
Jan 4, 10:02 AM
I thought there were some free map/gps/turn-by-turn direction apps out there (ala Google Maps). Is this not the case? Can anyone tell me why you would want to purchase one of the Garmin/Tom-Tom apps?
cupcakes2000
Mar 28, 03:32 PM
No. Lens focal length is a function of the lens, not the body. I can take a lens with a focal length of 17mm from a full frame camera and put it on a crop camera, and the lens will keep the same focal length of 17 mm. Now, the amount of the imgae circle recorded on the crop camera vs. the full frame camera will be different. However, this has nothing to do with the focal length of the lens.
In short. LENS FOCAL LENGHT DOES NOT VARY WITH SENSOR SIZE.
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
In short. LENS FOCAL LENGHT DOES NOT VARY WITH SENSOR SIZE.
I think you both just said exactly the same thing, so I'm not sure why Full of Win is arguing?
If I shoot my 50mm 1.8 II through my 7d I am effectively multiplying the lenses focal length with the cameras crop factor to give the photographs field of view. ie 50x1.6=80.
So focal length 50mm= field of view 80mm. (On a 1.6 crop)
Well, no, you will not. You are not using the FULL image circle on the EF lens on the 60D. Take that same EF 17-40 and put it on a 5D and your image will be composed differently. NOTE: the Lens has not changed it's focal length, but your image HAS changed.
The common misconception is that your field of view is what the CAMERA records. In actuality, it is what the LENS TRANSMITS to the camera. Since your 1.6 crop camera does not utilize the FULL lens image circle on an EF lens, it has the effect of zooming the transmitted image. SO your 17mm is not 17mm on a crop camera, it is the equivalent of a 27.2mm (28mm) EF-S lens. 17 x 1.6 = 27.2. On a 1D camera, that same 17mm is the equivalent of 22.1mm, where a 5D as a FULL FRAME camera is using the full image circle from the EF lens, so it is a true 17mm.
Allthough...This statement from thatisme 'So, you WILL get different focal lengths from 2 identically marked lenses where one is an EF-S lens and the other is an EF lens.' is false.
You will, in fact, get two different Field of Views but the same Focal Length.
MikeTheC
Nov 3, 01:19 AM
I'd like to tackle a few points in the discussion here.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
Dirt-Cheap vs. Reasonable Economy (a.k.a. "The Wal-Martization of America"):
Apple has always had the philosophy that their name needs to mean a superior product. They have tended to shy away from producing bargain-basement products because it tends to take away from the "high-quality" reputation they are otherwise known for and desire to continue cultivating.
At direct odds with this is the pervasive and continually-perpetuated attitude in the U.S. (and elsewhere, perhaps) that the universe revolves exclusively around the mantra of "faster, cheaper, better", with emphasis on the latter two: cheaper and better. What I have noticed in my own 34 years on this planet is a considerable change in attitude, most easily summed up as people in general having their tastes almost "anti-cultured". It isn't "... cheaper, better" for them, but rather "cheaper = better". You can see this at all levels. Businesses, despite their claims to the contrary, tend to prioritize the executives specifically and the company generally making money over any other possible consideration. They try and drive their workforce from well-paid, highly competent full-time people, to part-time, no-medical or retirement-benefits-earning, low-experience, low-paid domestic help; and the second prong of their pincer movement is to outsource the rest.
Or, in short, "let's make a lot of money, but don't spend any in the process."
My goal here is not to get into the lengthy and well-trod discussion of corporate exploitation of the masses; rather it is to show the Wal-Mart effect at all levels.
More and more over the years I find that people have no taste. Steve Jobs accuses Microsoft of having no taste (a point I am not trying to argue against); I think however that he's hit a little low of the mark. The attitude out there seems to be one of total self-focus -- and not merely "me first", but rather "me first, me last, and ******* everybody else". They're the "I don't want to know anything", "all I want to do is get out of having to do anything I can, including not using my brain except for pleasure-seeking tasks," and "For God's sake, I surely don't want to have to spend more than the minimum on a computer" bunch.
Now, clearly, not everyone in the U.S. is like this; obviously, if they were, Apple would have no customers at all. But this is a real and fairly large group. Short of Apple practically giving away their computers, it's hard to imagine them being all that specifically attractive to that demographic. Moreover, those people are not merely non-enthusiasts; they want all of the benefits of having this trendy computer thing, but wish to be encumbered by none of the responsibilities.
To my way of thinking, frankly however large this group of people is, I would encourage Apple to avoid appealing to them whenever and wherever possible. If this means continuing the perception mentioned above of being a computer "for yuppies", then so be it.
Market Share Percentage and it's Perception:
Clearly, there is something to be gained by having the perception that "everyone's doing it". It's part of the reason why smoking, drinking, under-age sex, and drugs are so amazingly popular with us human beings the world over. It's part of the reason (maybe even a significant part) that iPods are so incredibly successful. Now, before someone here puts forth the argument that, "Well, you know, Apple's got a better design, and that's what attracts people to it," -- and that's quite true in it's own right -- let's break things down a bit.
Many animals develop and learn through a process called "patterning", and through imitation. Humans are not psychologically exempt from this; we do it all the time, and particularly so when we're younger. It's the fundamental force behind fashion, fads, and trends. There are definitely positive benefits to this. Kids, as they develop their social skills, learn from others the socially approved ways of behaving and interacting. Please note I did not use the term "correct" nor "right", but merely the "approved" (or, one might call it the "accepted") way. We also learn and learn from such things as casualty (actions have consequences), and other factors too numerous to pursue here.
Anyhow, all of these factors are in operation when it comes to buying technology (which is the boiled-down essence of what we're talking about here). Microsoft has learned this game, and has played it well for many years. Regardless of the "technically, we know it's bulls**t" truth, the reality of it is (and has been) when an unsavvy person walks into a store to buy a computer, and they see ten Windows-running computers on the shelf, and only one or two Mac OS-running computers there, they get the prima-facia notion that most computers are Windows computers, and by extension that statistically most people must be running Windows; therefore they should buy a Windows computer, too. There's a whole other subject here about how the ignorant sales people in electronics stores essentially use the same process to unwittingly deceive themselves into thinking the same thing. This is one of the factors which helped catapult Microsoft into the major, successful company they became. In truth, this specific scenario is a bit more 1994 than but it helps to explain why most people today who own a computer have only known life in a Microsoft world. As enough people attained this status, it became the dominant developmental factor in the world at large, which sort of helped to self-perpetuate the effect.
Let's also not lose sight of the fact that these statistics of percentage of platform used by definition leave out one particular group of people -- those who don't use a computer at all. After all, if you don't own a computer, you can't browse the web, send or receive email, or have your computer platform of choice tabulated in any kind of statistical data sample. One might be tempted to think that such a notion is silly, but it isn't. True, once we get to the point that only a statistically insignificant number of people on this planet don't own a computer (which is still far from the reality of today), counting their numbers won't matter for statistical purposes, it does matter. Why? Well, the statistics as presented make it seem like Macs (or Linux, or anything else) are only used by a subset of people on this planet. Not true! They're only used by a subset of a subset, the latter being the number of people on this planet who have a computer to be counted in such statistics in the first place.
Also, statistics vary depending on a variety of factors. It's also easy to write them off as a business or let them drop "below the radar" by various statistical gathering or reporting agencies; or merely through the informal process on the part of business owners of anecdotal evidence. Here's a perfect example of that very factor.
When the Macintosh came on the scene in 1984, and as it continued through it's early incarnations in the mid 1980s, it entered the fray of lots of non-defacto computer platforms. Or, to put it another way, it "came late to the party". So, you had all these computer dealers who were already trying to sell Apple ][s, TRS-80s, Commodore 64s (and later, C128s), Timex Sinclairs, an assortment of other PCs running proprietary OSs, amongst which were those which ran this thing called MS-DOS, and so forth and so on. Also, people who wound up buying Macs didn't exactly fit the same profile as those who had bought the other computers. You had artists -- literary, graphic, musical, etc. -- buying these things. While they didn't mind being technologically self-sufficent, they were not people who were interested in such things as tearing their computer apart and having a go at it's various electronic innards. Anyhow, they formed their own communities, and for various reasons didn't get a lot of support initially from local dealers and computer software stores. However, Apple did get quite a number of companies to write software or build hardware for their Mac platform. These companies started using mail-order as a significant portion of their sales strategy. Consequently, Mac owners used it as their more-and-more-primary computer-stuff purchasing regimen.
Ultimately, fewer and fewer Mac owners were going locally to buy stuff, due to availability and pricing. What then happened largely was this "perception" on the part of shop owners (and later their suppliers, etc.) that nobody out there used a Mac. As a result of their mis-perception, companies began to simply ignore us Mac users (I was around back then), acting as if we didn't exist; or at the least there weren't enough of us to bother supporting us or even trying to make money from us.
Now, at this point there's no denying there's more Windows boxen out there than Mac boxen, but this is still a valid factor and should not be discounted.
Besides, what number you hear quoted still, as it has for many, many years, depends on what your source is. I've heard numbers within the past month that range from 4.1 percent to 6 percent. Which one is correct? Does anyone even really know?
Since we can run Windows, why run Mac OS? (paranoia of market erosion):
I've been hearing this since before Apple ever disclosed their plans to switch to x86. It was actually one of the topics frequently -- and rather hotly, as I recall -- debated in these forums. However, I think the fear is greatly unjustified, and here's why.
First, let's look at it from an economic standpoint: Buying a Mac to run Windows is hardly the most cost-effective approach.
Second, let's look at it from a socio-economic standpoint: People don't buy a Mac to run Windows so much as they buy it to either try something different, or to escape Windows and the onslaught of problems that, in more recent years, it has brought to them.
Third, and while this really applies more to tech-savvy people: Windows represents a security and stability liability which most other operating systems do not.
In other words, by and large, people out there who are switching to a Mac are doing more than merely switching hardware: they're switching OS platforms. The fact that they can run Windows on a Mac is only slightly more of interest to them than is running an x86-based distro of GNU/Linux.
Bottom Line: Apple will appeal to and convert those that they can, and those are the hearts and minds which are the most vital and important anyhow. Let's not forget the relative merits of dummy-dropping. Sometimes, Darwin's theories of Evolution are more satisfyingly applied sociologically than biologically.
crazzyeddie
Nov 1, 11:18 PM
For the specific Mac models (like the oogles of PowerMac revisions), would it be wise to just link directly to AppleSpec instead of making our own? We already have [[PowerMac]] with links to [[PowerMac_G4]] which then links to [[PowerMac_specificModel]]. Maybe the links on the PowerMac_G4 page should be to the AppleSpec PDFs for those models?
MPD
Sep 29, 09:06 PM
Lucky you.
5D, not so much.
How so. I have shot tethered from 5D to Macbook (RAW & JPG). What software are you using?
I have not tried yet with C1Pro but works with canon remote capture software.
5D, not so much.
How so. I have shot tethered from 5D to Macbook (RAW & JPG). What software are you using?
I have not tried yet with C1Pro but works with canon remote capture software.
kainjow
Oct 26, 07:59 PM
- doesn't work on firefox (1.5) under WinXP
Try upgrading to 2.0. I just tested on Firefox 2.0 on OS X and it worked fine.
Try upgrading to 2.0. I just tested on Firefox 2.0 on OS X and it worked fine.
kavika411
Apr 4, 11:17 AM
How can you discuss tax rates and NOT acknowledge that the rates we have today are the rates that include the Bush tax cuts? How can you discuss deficits and spending when there were surplusses when Clinton left office and he had higher tax rates and spending than Bush? If you ignore history, you are doomed to repeat it. Right?
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
That's all neat; it's got a beat and you can dance to it. But you were, by your choice, responding to itcheroni, and his/her quoted points had nothing to do with your ongoing diatribe against all things even tacitly related to Republicans.
It isn't a matter of spite, it's merely a matter of looking at what works and what doesn't, and cutting taxes does not, in and of itself work. Reasonable spending that targets necessary services, along with reasonably higher tax rates, has worked in the past. The current political climate has us arguing about cutting spending and cutting services and cutting taxes. It's bizarroland. We are undoing decades of progress so that we can push an economic model that has never worked in the past.
It's not Republican vs. Democrat, it's what hasn't worked vs. what has worked. The only reason to continually repeat who is responsible or who is pushing a proposal is to make certain that people don't fall for the economic conservative language being used by the people who are anything but being conservative.
That's all neat; it's got a beat and you can dance to it. But you were, by your choice, responding to itcheroni, and his/her quoted points had nothing to do with your ongoing diatribe against all things even tacitly related to Republicans.
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 03:05 PM
Pages and Number are TRASH compared to Word and Excel(especially excel)
Keynote is actually pretty good!
Dont be a uninformed fanboy. k? Thanks
lol
You too.
Keynote is actually pretty good!
Dont be a uninformed fanboy. k? Thanks
lol
You too.
ccroo
Oct 30, 04:03 PM
Hey, you folks might know...
Will .mac recognize a boot from a different drive (or a different partition on the same drive) as a separate "computer" and sync Mail and iCal, etc. between it and other computers?
Will .mac recognize a boot from a different drive (or a different partition on the same drive) as a separate "computer" and sync Mail and iCal, etc. between it and other computers?
Rodimus Prime
Apr 7, 04:16 PM
Since it seems pretty likely that we will be a government shutdown 2011 might as well start a thread about it.
According to this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in_budget_fight_conservatives_have_put_themselves_in_a_corner/2011/04/06/AFPriirC_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
it seems pretty clear the Tea Partiers do not want to compromise at all. They not only want 33-50bill in cuts but they want to choose were they come from.
I was listening to the new last night and instead of logical choices in cuts they wanted to go after education, Medicare and things that help the core.
refused to say cut money out of oil subsidy and tighten the ropes on agriculture subsidy.
looks like to me the Tea partiers are showing their true colors when that is what they really want.
Either way figure this thread is going to pop up.
As for students hope you have filed your FASFA by now and those who are trying to get Refunds hope you taxes are down.
As for those who have to pay some taxes a shut down could help you because it will take them longer to process the payment so you hold on to your interested longer. remember it has to be post marked by the 18th no matter what.
According to this article http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/in_budget_fight_conservatives_have_put_themselves_in_a_corner/2011/04/06/AFPriirC_story.html?wprss=rss_homepage
it seems pretty clear the Tea Partiers do not want to compromise at all. They not only want 33-50bill in cuts but they want to choose were they come from.
I was listening to the new last night and instead of logical choices in cuts they wanted to go after education, Medicare and things that help the core.
refused to say cut money out of oil subsidy and tighten the ropes on agriculture subsidy.
looks like to me the Tea partiers are showing their true colors when that is what they really want.
Either way figure this thread is going to pop up.
As for students hope you have filed your FASFA by now and those who are trying to get Refunds hope you taxes are down.
As for those who have to pay some taxes a shut down could help you because it will take them longer to process the payment so you hold on to your interested longer. remember it has to be post marked by the 18th no matter what.
wizzerandchips
Mar 25, 04:30 AM
So let me get this straight. Some on this board seem to be saying:
"We Mac users are entirely too sophisticated and intelligent to allow our computers to be used by military neanderthals. Those that join the military are not smart enough to appreciate a Mac. All money spent on the military is wasted and part of a bloated budget. The military should be forced to use inferior equipment rather than offend my sensibilities as an educated, peace loving Mac user."
It is easy to sit in your ivory tower and criticize those who are out risking their lives so you can have your Latte every morning and make fun of those in the military.
If some Apple products would be appropriate, why on earth would you not want your country's military to have the finest equipment available?
you sound like jack nicholson in "a few good men" FFS! The men go out there because there told to! Not because they want to, an army are primarily there to defend you country from invasion, so don't go down the route of we should be proud, we should be embarassed that the effect this alliance is having will have no effect whatsoever, all this patriotic bull makes me sick, I feel for the poor familys on both side hoodwinked into believing any of this is for a good cause! It's not, it's only good for the pocket, unless your a tax payer
"We Mac users are entirely too sophisticated and intelligent to allow our computers to be used by military neanderthals. Those that join the military are not smart enough to appreciate a Mac. All money spent on the military is wasted and part of a bloated budget. The military should be forced to use inferior equipment rather than offend my sensibilities as an educated, peace loving Mac user."
It is easy to sit in your ivory tower and criticize those who are out risking their lives so you can have your Latte every morning and make fun of those in the military.
If some Apple products would be appropriate, why on earth would you not want your country's military to have the finest equipment available?
you sound like jack nicholson in "a few good men" FFS! The men go out there because there told to! Not because they want to, an army are primarily there to defend you country from invasion, so don't go down the route of we should be proud, we should be embarassed that the effect this alliance is having will have no effect whatsoever, all this patriotic bull makes me sick, I feel for the poor familys on both side hoodwinked into believing any of this is for a good cause! It's not, it's only good for the pocket, unless your a tax payer
fourthtunz
Nov 4, 04:31 PM
Wow this is big! I'm not sure but hasn't it been like forever since Mac had 5% marketshare? Over 5% must put them in the top 5 pc makers? Maybe top 3? This is already huge growth, if they get to 10% or more look out!
The jerks who make viruses for windows will take the time to make them for Mac which would suck:mad:
Great time for us Mac owners:D
daniel
The jerks who make viruses for windows will take the time to make them for Mac which would suck:mad:
Great time for us Mac owners:D
daniel
AppleScruff1
Apr 23, 11:44 AM
2010 FXDB (Street Bob). Used to have a 2005 XL1200C (1200 Sportster Custom).
Very nice.
Very nice.
deannnnn
Aug 19, 11:58 AM
Update from Facebook:
http://imgur.com/woD2N.png
http://imgur.com/woD2N.png
fairbanx
Feb 24, 09:26 AM
it says: "Lion Server is now part of Mac OS X Lion." hm, whatever!?
http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/
http://www.apple.com/macosx/lion/
HexMonkey
May 28, 04:59 PM
I don't have much time right now (I'm kind of in class at the moment) but I think I figured out how to edit categories, just edit the category page like any normal page, I'm going to test it out with a new category later when I have more time to figure out how to delete my test category after creating it (yes I'm very new to wiki editing).
Only sysops can delete pages. If you want to create a test category I can delete it when you're done with it.
Only sysops can delete pages. If you want to create a test category I can delete it when you're done with it.
awulf
Jul 5, 09:58 AM
The Macintosh SE has a 68000 processor which limits it to the StyleWriter series (I think up to the StyleWriter II works on it). Laser printers are different and to my knowledge all LaserWirters will work on a Mac SE.
THe Mac SE can have up to Mac OS 7.5.5, which includes the LaserWriter 8 driver and other LaserWriter Drivers.
It depends on what ports are available on your LaserWriter. Tell us the model name.
THe Mac SE can have up to Mac OS 7.5.5, which includes the LaserWriter 8 driver and other LaserWriter Drivers.
It depends on what ports are available on your LaserWriter. Tell us the model name.
edesignuk
Sep 12, 03:14 PM
Don't we all, we neeeeed that G5 ASAP, or NO ONE will switch, hell, they'll end up loosing current users. :(
*LTD*
Mar 25, 10:19 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8F190)
Before all you Apple fannies disagree with this; just remember Apple is trying to sue everyone else too.
It's all ridiculous.
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
Before all you Apple fannies disagree with this; just remember Apple is trying to sue everyone else too.
It's all ridiculous.
When you release the kinds of game-chaining products that Apple does, I'm kind of inclined to look the other way. Why not. Apple's earned special treatment for the time being. That is, for the time being.
Might doesn't make right. But being exceedingly awesome, does.
I know it sounds unfair, but **** it. Apple's changed the entire conditions of the game.
scirica
Mar 30, 04:17 PM
There were about 20 people in line at the Southlake Apple Store this morning at 7am. Manager came out at 8am with cards for available iPads and there were plenty for everyone and some to boot. I wanted the black 32gb, but was forced to go white 32gb when they ran out of that one popular configuration. After 3 months missing my lost iPad, I'm back in business. Oh how I've missed this thing!
0 Yorum:
Yorum Gönder
Kaydol: Kayıt Yorumları [Atom]
<< Ana Sayfa