- free wallpaper download,
- free desktop wallpaper Picture
- Free desktop wallpapers : Free
- Free wallpaper desktop
- download free wallpapers.
- wallpaper download nature.
- free-iphone-3g-wallpapers-
- free wallpapers
- Free wallpaper / desktop
- free wallpaper downloads.
- kitty wallpaper downloads
- Free Wallpaper Downloads
- download free wallpapers. free
- Free Wallpaper Download
- Free Christmas Wallpaper
- Free Wallpaper Download
- Download Free Wallpapers
- kitty wallpaper downloads
- Free Wallpaper: Spring is Near
needthephone
Apr 15, 05:43 PM
As much as I like google as a company, as with everything they start I'm sure they will never finish this. I've come to believe google is incapable of releasing a complete, polished project. But maybe I'm just bitter since I own a 40" google tv that is virtually incapable of doing anything worth doing on a tv.
Exactly, I totally agree and have said this before (only to be shot down in flames mind!)
Google hardly every leaves anything stable long enough, its always just about to be finished, always in beta. They always put a disclaimer and never accept any responsibility, hey its just beta use at your own risk.
Google is great and have to be admired just that I wouldn't use them for anything other than adsense or searching the internet
Exactly, I totally agree and have said this before (only to be shot down in flames mind!)
Google hardly every leaves anything stable long enough, its always just about to be finished, always in beta. They always put a disclaimer and never accept any responsibility, hey its just beta use at your own risk.
Google is great and have to be admired just that I wouldn't use them for anything other than adsense or searching the internet
iMeowbot
Oct 28, 04:59 PM
Didn't the Open Darwin project get shut down a few months back already?
Yes, that project closed down, but OpenDarwin, and the associated Web site, and the decision to give up, were all independent of Apple.
I don't like the concept of Apple loosing its open kernel due to someone reading between the lines on what is legal and what is right. Thats sad.
This is really the same thing that was being done by the earlier project. The claim from Apple all this time has been that Darwin (but not the higher level OS X stuff) is open source; this is supposed to be happening.
Yes, that project closed down, but OpenDarwin, and the associated Web site, and the decision to give up, were all independent of Apple.
I don't like the concept of Apple loosing its open kernel due to someone reading between the lines on what is legal and what is right. Thats sad.
This is really the same thing that was being done by the earlier project. The claim from Apple all this time has been that Darwin (but not the higher level OS X stuff) is open source; this is supposed to be happening.
lordonuthin
Apr 29, 06:58 PM
Thanks for posting, looks scary but I like it! You planning on getting GPUs for the AMD systems? How do AMD processors go at f@h? Imagine if you got some GT260s on the 4 AMD systems :eek:
There is only one slot on those AMD machines that would hold a GT260, unfortunately. I may be retiring them soon anyway their output is meager at best. I will keep one of them for an admin machine using Ubuntu to watch over the other machines, maybe, if I can get things set up the way I want to.
I should have a new system (i7 980x) tomorrow, I will get it set up with Ubuntu to do bigadv units.
There is only one slot on those AMD machines that would hold a GT260, unfortunately. I may be retiring them soon anyway their output is meager at best. I will keep one of them for an admin machine using Ubuntu to watch over the other machines, maybe, if I can get things set up the way I want to.
I should have a new system (i7 980x) tomorrow, I will get it set up with Ubuntu to do bigadv units.
emotion
Oct 17, 10:17 AM
As a consumer I'm trying as hard as possible to sit this one out. :mad:
Which isn't that hard though, let's face it.
Which isn't that hard though, let's face it.
iJohnHenry
Apr 13, 05:16 PM
It was so obvious that the little girl was carrying a weapon of mass destruction.
Yes, she slayed me with cute.
Poor child. Now she'll need counselling.
Yes, she slayed me with cute.
Poor child. Now she'll need counselling.
-aggie-
Jul 21, 12:10 PM
The slow pace of messages here shows that this has gone from being important to the masses and the trolls to now be a small problem. Previous threads (those from before the videos and pressconference) added three pages in the time it took to read one, there was just no way to keep up with them. This has still not gotten much over 50.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
Exactly. When the usual suspects don't post, the threads that brought up the reception issue totally die.
It is interesting, but few considers the new iPhone to be broken anymore. No matter what you think of how Jobs handled it, he completely defused a situation that was becoming very hostile. I'm sure this will be taught and dissected at universities for years just as Intels poor handling of PR with the "faulty" processors is taught as the difference between dealing with companies and customers. This was a lesson for all and many key bloggers have already written pieces of how he changed the usual dynamics of apologizing for any perceived issue.
Exactly. When the usual suspects don't post, the threads that brought up the reception issue totally die.
Kieranic
Nov 10, 03:44 AM
I got it for the Xbox 360 yesterday at 8am (in the mail, that was still like 12ish hours before US because I'm in New Zealand) :)
I got the Hardened Edition and I like the game so far. Will still play Modern Warfare 2 occasionally.
I got the Hardened Edition and I like the game so far. Will still play Modern Warfare 2 occasionally.
Mac Dummy
Jan 13, 09:15 PM
That guy was an orphan who made himself into a billionaire with no help from anyone. Until you can do the same he has every reason to be smug.
Even Bill Gates, for what it is worth, grew up in a nice sheltered family with rich parents.
Bill Gates was also a programmer at Apple, when Steve and company visited Xerox Parc and learned about the windows GUI concept. Bill took that concept when he left Apple and started Microsoft, then teamed up with IBM that was looking for a new OS to use with their PC's. Which they would later sell to corporate America, the government, and the military. Also with IBM clones, Windows PC's would become affordable for the average person needing a computer. Hence the reason there are more PC users than Mac users, but that is starting to change as Windows becomes less secure and more bloated.
Even Bill Gates, for what it is worth, grew up in a nice sheltered family with rich parents.
Bill Gates was also a programmer at Apple, when Steve and company visited Xerox Parc and learned about the windows GUI concept. Bill took that concept when he left Apple and started Microsoft, then teamed up with IBM that was looking for a new OS to use with their PC's. Which they would later sell to corporate America, the government, and the military. Also with IBM clones, Windows PC's would become affordable for the average person needing a computer. Hence the reason there are more PC users than Mac users, but that is starting to change as Windows becomes less secure and more bloated.
mikelegacy
Dec 13, 12:25 PM
Haha, nope.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
This is the company that released an EDGE phone as it's first model. No way they're jumping to LTE this early in the game.
Okay? But what 3G competition was out there at the time? There was no Android at that time. The iPhone was competing with Blackberry, and it was a MAJORLY different device. Now they HAVE to compete, so they HAVE to advance. Look for LTE in the next iPhone.
fanboy05
Mar 17, 08:54 AM
:eek:
I feel bad when i forget to return a pen to the bank when I borrow one to write a check ect...
I guess this is a reminder that there are people of all kinds in this world. :(
I feel bad when i forget to return a pen to the bank when I borrow one to write a check ect...
I guess this is a reminder that there are people of all kinds in this world. :(
MorphingDragon
Apr 29, 06:53 PM
You're mixing up your kernels. NT 4.0 doesn't share a kernel with 95/98, NT 3.51 doesn't share a kernel with Windows 3.x...
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
And to think through all those Windows versions there was no significant improvement in the operating system as a whole, just specs on paper. :rolleyes:
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
And to think through all those Windows versions there was no significant improvement in the operating system as a whole, just specs on paper. :rolleyes:
incongruity
Mar 17, 02:07 PM
When does apple charge your credit card for a purchase? ... The total was $829 but I still have yet to be charged the remaining balance. Have they forgotten to charge me or does it not charge until the iPad actually ships?
thanks
Don't worry, you're cool. Just walk out of the store and you'll be fine.
(they charge when it ships)
thanks
Don't worry, you're cool. Just walk out of the store and you'll be fine.
(they charge when it ships)
rowlands
Oct 24, 11:17 PM
If I recall correctly they did formally apologize. I do genuinely like the guys at Gizmodo and I enjoying their blog, its a personal thing. Some of friends can't stand it and prefer Engadget.
I personally hope that they're given a chance to prove that they can make tech journalism fun without going over the top. If they blow it this time, I fully support punishment.
I personally hope that they're given a chance to prove that they can make tech journalism fun without going over the top. If they blow it this time, I fully support punishment.
SeaFox
Oct 3, 10:58 PM
I reaallly don't see Leopard being out in January.
Yeah, I'm thinking March.
Yeah, I'm thinking March.
marksman
May 3, 03:35 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
darkwing
Apr 4, 08:21 AM
I bought the 360 on launch day back in 2005 with cash. Camped out at Wal-Mart for 18 hours for it too. Again, didn't do this so some idiot could steal it :(
I suggest you buy a PS3 instead. With their sales numbers, it's obvious nobody wants one! Therefore, nobody will steal it!
(The PS3 is my favorite console, as everyone knows. I'm just making a joke. No need to move this post to console war. :P)
I suggest you buy a PS3 instead. With their sales numbers, it's obvious nobody wants one! Therefore, nobody will steal it!
(The PS3 is my favorite console, as everyone knows. I'm just making a joke. No need to move this post to console war. :P)
alent1234
Apr 8, 12:43 PM
ok, now i can go back to best buy. they aren't evil anymore and the sales people are the most knowledgeable i've seen
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Optimus Frag
May 4, 06:44 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)
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
I've no real need for an iPad and as such, no need for a tablet. But having had a go with the 'competitor's' including the so called iPad killer, Xoom, I think Apple have already won. These iPad ads are just confirming that to the public.
wildmac
Nov 24, 08:41 PM
nah. they're just updating the mb/p line
LOL! Santa Rosa introduced on Tuesday... :D (just kidding!)
LOL! Santa Rosa introduced on Tuesday... :D (just kidding!)
roadbloc
Mar 13, 04:34 AM
Transition.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple
No. A new market has been opened by Apple. That is as far as it goes. An iPad is not for everyone. Tablets will never kill off Laptops or Desktops or Servers.
The industry is undergoing a massive paradigm-shift, thanks to Apple
No. A new market has been opened by Apple. That is as far as it goes. An iPad is not for everyone. Tablets will never kill off Laptops or Desktops or Servers.
tigress666
Apr 16, 10:30 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
I have to agree.
The biggest reason the iphone is so great to me is the fact that I could add in other programs and add functionality. I could personalize it with the programs I put on to do what I wanted to do. In fact that was something I snubbed about the iphone when it came out (in comparison to the ipaq I had that I could get other programs for it). And the one snub I don't think I was wrong about (I snubbed it for other reasons but after having one decided either it was a good idea or it wasn't something that really mattered).
If I had to only use the apps Apple gave me... I'm sorry, it wouldn't be that great of a phone. In fact I'm still wondering why anyone would buy the first one that you were stuck only with the basic stuff Apple put on, I really don't know how they convinced people to get interested in the idea. The thing that makes the iphone so great to me is it's ability to be so multi-functional in the ways *I* want it to be. Which is what being able to buy different programs gives it.
I heard somewhere that Apple was forced to let people buy other software (or something like that)? If true, Apple should be thanking that ruling.
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:39 PM
I promise promise promise its not a spoiler.
Chasb
Jan 15, 02:19 PM
Some nice products, but nothing I wanted or need.
Post Title
→free wallpaper downloads
Post URL
→http://idephairstyles.blogspot.com/2011/05/free-wallpaper-downloads.html
Visit Idep Hairstyles for Daily Updated Idep Hairstyles
No comments:
Post a Comment