*LTD*
Mar 7, 07:21 AM
Yes, it's Apples highly erratic priorities that are puzzling.
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
What a crock.
They can't or won't even build a cool running MBP, after years on the market.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1105643
I'm sorry the market and the industry hasn't responded the way you would have liked.
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
What a crock.
They can't or won't even build a cool running MBP, after years on the market.
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1105643
I'm sorry the market and the industry hasn't responded the way you would have liked.
triceretops
Mar 24, 11:01 PM
Wish this post would have gone up earlier. We could have had a cake.:mad:
TraceyS/FL
Oct 7, 07:40 AM
I haven't read the thread..... but i had my first Verizon issue on monday. In my area i couldn't make a call.... i finally when to the Verizon store to see what was up.
48 towers down.
36 towers up.
And a ever so wonderful :rolleyes: saleslady that had the personality of a..... anyway, she was very rude about it. In fact, i told her, "Hey, drop the attitude, i'm a non-contract customer - don't make me want to walk elsewhere."
The analogy i used regarding her.... couldn't sell water to a fish. UGH.
It's been the only major issue with Verizon in the 15 years we've been with them really.... and it wouldn't have been as bad if my stupid Comcast internet had been functional. IT's been up and down since Saturday and i'm starting to lose it.
ANYWAY, the coverage map is the first thing i tell people to check when asking for input on a carrier. Then ask people you know how their coverage is where you live. It's the only thing that matters.....
48 towers down.
36 towers up.
And a ever so wonderful :rolleyes: saleslady that had the personality of a..... anyway, she was very rude about it. In fact, i told her, "Hey, drop the attitude, i'm a non-contract customer - don't make me want to walk elsewhere."
The analogy i used regarding her.... couldn't sell water to a fish. UGH.
It's been the only major issue with Verizon in the 15 years we've been with them really.... and it wouldn't have been as bad if my stupid Comcast internet had been functional. IT's been up and down since Saturday and i'm starting to lose it.
ANYWAY, the coverage map is the first thing i tell people to check when asking for input on a carrier. Then ask people you know how their coverage is where you live. It's the only thing that matters.....
LoneWolf121188
Jan 10, 10:50 PM
Wow- imagine if someone had the button pressing capability of shifting to Steve's next slide during his keynote. He's building suspense, toying with us, and bam. Revealed. On to next slide, hold, next slide, finally A/V guy turns projector off.
No SDK for you! 1 year!
Hahaha, that would be hilarious! C'mon guys, seriously. No harm done.
BTW, in your sig: its spelled "psyche", not "sike". ;) But yeah, I did a double-take at that. :D
No SDK for you! 1 year!
Hahaha, that would be hilarious! C'mon guys, seriously. No harm done.
BTW, in your sig: its spelled "psyche", not "sike". ;) But yeah, I did a double-take at that. :D
more...
dsnort
Aug 1, 10:50 AM
You want to see something really funny!. Look what happpens when you try to Access Sony's online music service on a Mac
"We appreciate your interest in the Connect music store, but our store currently only works with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. You don't seem to be using that particular browser at the moment, so, unfortunately, we'll have to part ways until we support the browser you're currently using or you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer. Please click the Download link below if you'd like to upgrade now.
Thank your for your interest in the Connect music store!"
Upgrade to IE????? Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha. Those silly wabbits
"We appreciate your interest in the Connect music store, but our store currently only works with Internet Explorer 5.5 and above. You don't seem to be using that particular browser at the moment, so, unfortunately, we'll have to part ways until we support the browser you're currently using or you upgrade to the latest version of Internet Explorer. Please click the Download link below if you'd like to upgrade now.
Thank your for your interest in the Connect music store!"
Upgrade to IE????? Bwhahahahahahahahahahaha. Those silly wabbits
PhoneyDeveloper
Apr 26, 10:22 PM
Nekbeth, you didn't thank Philip Endecott, who posted the solution to your problem on the Apple forum about three hours before wlh99 posted essentially the same solution here.
more...
Illuminated
Apr 7, 04:32 PM
Just got a bamboo plant for my desk...not the vase/pebbles...
also a red velvet whoopie pie, and a vanilla cake whoopie pie..
Both things from Reading Terminal Market in Philly...:D
also a red velvet whoopie pie, and a vanilla cake whoopie pie..
Both things from Reading Terminal Market in Philly...:D
technicolor
Nov 24, 10:18 AM
I am looking forward to hear the follow up on this story. I really doubted you can get both EDU and Thanksgiving discount together, even in store.
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
Or you could call the store.
Apple does not suspend normal discounts because they are having a "sale".
Maybe one can just ask the question to a on-line apple-store-chat staff?
Or you could call the store.
Apple does not suspend normal discounts because they are having a "sale".
more...
JForestZ34
Mar 17, 04:29 PM
Hogwash. The cashier made a mistake. At the moment the mistake was made ONE party knew about it and one didn't. The OP, who knew that a mistake had been made said nothing about it. He should have. People can defend this guy all they want, but the fact of the matter is that he deserves the flames he's getting. An ethical person would have said "you forgot to charge my card" and paid the outstanding balance.
And what about if BB over charged his card $300 and didn't say anything about it... That happens all the time and customers don't catch it.... Maybe not that dollar amount but it still happens... I wonder how many BB throw in the warranty and not telling the customer they added it? A lot of people don't check their receipt.. I don't feel sorry for bestbuy or the kid..
It was his problem....
James
And what about if BB over charged his card $300 and didn't say anything about it... That happens all the time and customers don't catch it.... Maybe not that dollar amount but it still happens... I wonder how many BB throw in the warranty and not telling the customer they added it? A lot of people don't check their receipt.. I don't feel sorry for bestbuy or the kid..
It was his problem....
James
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:35 AM
I can hear it now "By the way, Macbooks and Macbook Pro's now come with Core 2 Duo Processors...Now on with the show!"
Eh well, A guy can dream can't he?
Yes, you can dream. Dream it you ********** dreamers.
Eh well, A guy can dream can't he?
Yes, you can dream. Dream it you ********** dreamers.
more...
jbennardo
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
Any chance we could have a App to showcase all the best Flash Banner adverts?
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
Oh no, hang on a minute... ;-)
best flash banner... a bit of an oxymoron :p
SHOOT THE DUCK!
vincenz
Mar 9, 11:11 PM
Don't question the Apple magic, you're supposed to just go with it.
more...
w_parietti22
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
Is there still a chance for an update?
err404
May 2, 09:47 AM
I kinda liked the fact i could look at where I've been with my phone.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
Sorta. Since the db wasn't meant to track you, it was not very good for this task. Any tracking info had to be inferred from the cell location data.
This would be like trying to use the Google Maps caching in Android for location tracking.
more...
ciTiger
Apr 29, 03:57 PM
More great news I hope!
quagmire
Nov 14, 10:37 PM
Actually a crappy story is held against many movies, tv shows, books, and etc. That's why we call them crappy and they fail. Case in recent point, the drubbing that Skyline is getting, besides it's spectacular trailer. It looks good, but it came in fourth in movies this week, and word of mouth may make that as high as it goes. The complaint? Weak stories, characters, and a truly stupid & frustrating ending.
Like I said, most movies, tv show, etc has some sort of ridiculous illogical event going on to move the storyline along. Just as long as it isn't so ridiculous, they can get away with it. I don't think MW2 storyline had anything that was that ridiculous to make it bad.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
Why were you surprised? Black Ops was just a continuation of WaW with a focus on the Cold War this time. Why is it ridiculous to think MW2 would be tied to MW's storyline?
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
MW2 will be remembered for me at least because of the vivid battle scenes in DC since I am from the DC area and constantly passed by the buildings you see in the game. Then you have No Russian because of the shock of what that mission "made" you do( A) They gave you the option to skip it B) You didn't have to shoot to pass the mission).
Like I said, most movies, tv show, etc has some sort of ridiculous illogical event going on to move the storyline along. Just as long as it isn't so ridiculous, they can get away with it. I don't think MW2 storyline had anything that was that ridiculous to make it bad.
I pity anyone trying to figure MW2's story that hasn't played the original MW. I admit I was surprised to find out that MW2's story had something to do with the first one. Not because it was a clever plot twist, but because it was pulled out of thin air. There was no fore shadowing allowing the player a chance to figure things out, as usual stories do, it was just BAM!
Why were you surprised? Black Ops was just a continuation of WaW with a focus on the Cold War this time. Why is it ridiculous to think MW2 would be tied to MW's storyline?
The first MW was more stream lined with only two storylines, eventually dovetailing into one. Things were easier to follow, and the moments far more memorable. That race thru the tilted ship, the crawling thru the grass by the Russian army, holding them off later by yourself, and that final car chase were truly memorable moments. MW2 and now Black Ops are just one forgettable blur, that I only recall the trudging thru, not the fascination of what I saw.
MW2 will be remembered for me at least because of the vivid battle scenes in DC since I am from the DC area and constantly passed by the buildings you see in the game. Then you have No Russian because of the shock of what that mission "made" you do( A) They gave you the option to skip it B) You didn't have to shoot to pass the mission).
more...
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
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.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
stoid
Aug 8, 07:20 AM
Sorry to say this, but you're simplifying things too much. Just because a monitor has the same size/resolution, doesn't mean that the LCD sources are identical.
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
skellter
Apr 5, 03:48 PM
Where can I download this app or whatever it is! :) I really wanna see the iAd stuff.
this is funah
Sep 12, 08:13 AM
i just hope that iTunes 7 has better video handling... the video podcasts tend to overload the CPU, making me just open them in QT
Rocketman
Oct 11, 09:48 AM
and whenever somebody claims to have a "reliable source" I really doubt it, especially those Chinese sites.
Actually the chinese sites are direct sources. These are trade newspapers reporting the contracts the local factories have received. As such they are accurate and timely for forthcoming products.
Of course it does not addrerss specific features of the device, but if 20 truckloads of iPods leave the factory we KNOW about it, then Steve announces them 2 weeks later, when the boat arrives.
The Foxconn announcement on MacBooks indicates Apple is trying to meet demand by adding another factory for a particularly popular item. Switchers join us!
Rocketman
Actually the chinese sites are direct sources. These are trade newspapers reporting the contracts the local factories have received. As such they are accurate and timely for forthcoming products.
Of course it does not addrerss specific features of the device, but if 20 truckloads of iPods leave the factory we KNOW about it, then Steve announces them 2 weeks later, when the boat arrives.
The Foxconn announcement on MacBooks indicates Apple is trying to meet demand by adding another factory for a particularly popular item. Switchers join us!
Rocketman
Eduardo1971
Apr 8, 04:20 PM
Perhaps! New Hardware is coming out (iMacs???) and the promo will be a buy a Mac get an iPad for $X.
One could dream...
One could dream...
!� V �!
Apr 29, 06:56 PM
The main problem with the "slider" idea is that it wasn't intuitive which selection was active (since we're so used to a depressed icon indicating selection). I like the concept of a slider; it reminds me of the old tile games. Perhaps a compromise would have been to have the selected item's text glow, as if a little LED were behind it. That would have made it really clear which item was active.
Exactly what I was talking about. :)
Exactly what I was talking about. :)
Anonymous Freak
Oct 12, 11:56 AM
Nice try, SavMan. But I'm not buying your interesting yet psuedoscientific explanation for why 5G iPods only 'appear' to scratch more easily.
White 5G iPods are just as easily scratched as the black ones, as any disappointed owner will tell you. I've had a 4G iPod for 2 years, carrying it back and forth to work in my pocket. I take it out of a Belkin case to recharge it, then put it back in for transport. The thing still looks practically new. I know someone else who purchased a new white 5G iPod. Within moments of gentle handling, the thing is covered with light scratches.
It seems to me that a softer grade of acrylic is being used on these latest iPods. I'm not the only one who's noticed this problem. I don't believe that it's the result of some optical coincidence. Everyone knows that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints to be found on the net.
Whatever the reason is, a manufacturer who doesn't care what their customers have to say about their expensive products will soon find those customers flocking to other companies' products. Hellooooo Zune!
And no amount of fanboy cheerleading will stop it.
If you have a black nano or 5G iPod, try putting black electrical tape on the sides, covering the 'face' of acrylic. The scratches will seem significantly less obvious. I can attest that my 3G iPod (rounded corners) has just as many scratches as my white nano, and my 3G iPod was very well taken care of (always in its included case,) whereas my nano was usually just thrown in my pocket.
SavMan's explanation seems to be a very good explanation. Not fanboyness. (If I did more than just listen to music on my nano, I'd probably be angry about the more obviousness of the scratches on it. But since I almost never look at the screen, it just doesn't bother me. Just like the scratches on the 3G's screen don't bother me.)
White 5G iPods are just as easily scratched as the black ones, as any disappointed owner will tell you. I've had a 4G iPod for 2 years, carrying it back and forth to work in my pocket. I take it out of a Belkin case to recharge it, then put it back in for transport. The thing still looks practically new. I know someone else who purchased a new white 5G iPod. Within moments of gentle handling, the thing is covered with light scratches.
It seems to me that a softer grade of acrylic is being used on these latest iPods. I'm not the only one who's noticed this problem. I don't believe that it's the result of some optical coincidence. Everyone knows that there are hundreds (if not thousands) of complaints to be found on the net.
Whatever the reason is, a manufacturer who doesn't care what their customers have to say about their expensive products will soon find those customers flocking to other companies' products. Hellooooo Zune!
And no amount of fanboy cheerleading will stop it.
If you have a black nano or 5G iPod, try putting black electrical tape on the sides, covering the 'face' of acrylic. The scratches will seem significantly less obvious. I can attest that my 3G iPod (rounded corners) has just as many scratches as my white nano, and my 3G iPod was very well taken care of (always in its included case,) whereas my nano was usually just thrown in my pocket.
SavMan's explanation seems to be a very good explanation. Not fanboyness. (If I did more than just listen to music on my nano, I'd probably be angry about the more obviousness of the scratches on it. But since I almost never look at the screen, it just doesn't bother me. Just like the scratches on the 3G's screen don't bother me.)
No comments:
Post a Comment