toddybody
Apr 18, 08:09 AM
Glad to see more retailers get the iPad 2 in stock...that said, I wish Apple would take shipping times down for the good folks who have been waiting for several weeks
aswitcher
Jan 11, 04:58 PM
Wimax in Apple machines?
animenick65
Nov 8, 09:39 AM
They only come in glossy screens now? Damn... im a photojournalist and need color accuracy on screen and it would NOT be good if things looked to have more contrast then they actually do. :(
arkmannj
Mar 11, 10:04 PM
The rumor was false, because Apple will be announcing the product that is replacing the MacBook Pro, the iPad-Pro ;-)
William Gates
Mar 18, 02:28 PM
The old comments are hilarious.
US Apple store is stating ships within 24 hours. For new or refurbished. I've been debating on getting one since they bumped it to 160. I guess I better do it soon.
US Apple store is stating ships within 24 hours. For new or refurbished. I've been debating on getting one since they bumped it to 160. I guess I better do it soon.
Mac'nCheese
Mar 14, 11:04 PM
The sort of money you put down on a Mac you shouldn't expect anything less than USB 3.0 from here on out. Core 2 Duo in 2010 leaves a lot to be desired.
Please take this with a big grain of salt... I met an apple store employee when I went out to a bar on Friday night. I asked him, off the record, wink, wink, if he thought any new macs (pros, imacs, or mbps) would offer USB 3 soon. He said he highly doubted it and wouldn't be surprised if it was a year or two before USB 3 was offered in macs. He also said that apple store employee aren't usually told to a day or two before about new products coming in so he laughed and added "So what do I know?"
Please take this with a big grain of salt... I met an apple store employee when I went out to a bar on Friday night. I asked him, off the record, wink, wink, if he thought any new macs (pros, imacs, or mbps) would offer USB 3 soon. He said he highly doubted it and wouldn't be surprised if it was a year or two before USB 3 was offered in macs. He also said that apple store employee aren't usually told to a day or two before about new products coming in so he laughed and added "So what do I know?"
kalisphoenix
Aug 8, 12:06 AM
Looks like it might say "Sony Ericsson" on it.
arn
Makes sense.
Lest iGary mock me, I didn't mean "mockup" as in "iPhone beta," I meant "here's a generic multimedia phone to make the idea clear."
arn
Makes sense.
Lest iGary mock me, I didn't mean "mockup" as in "iPhone beta," I meant "here's a generic multimedia phone to make the idea clear."
Full of Win
May 4, 09:59 PM
3D - the two alphanumeric characters I hate the most.
Wolfpup
Sep 12, 02:16 PM
I'm disapointed by the lack of educational pricing, and I don't like the new look as well...
err, the old look, since they look like mini Minis.
But on the other hand, they also look more rugged, and I agree that technology is color challenged! Just wish the colors were more appealing to me-they're kind of gaudy. Oh well, if I get one it will be the 2GB model anyway for Podcasts.
err, the old look, since they look like mini Minis.
But on the other hand, they also look more rugged, and I agree that technology is color challenged! Just wish the colors were more appealing to me-they're kind of gaudy. Oh well, if I get one it will be the 2GB model anyway for Podcasts.
mdriftmeyer
Nov 16, 06:30 PM
Reading some of the posts about this on Twitter, it may (or may not be) about the Three20 project (Objective C library for developing iPhone apps) that was developed by Hewitt. It apparently was using private APIs and may have been getting other people's apps, who were using the code, rejected. Conceivably, the Facebook app could have been using the same private API calls and was continually getting rejected. Supposedly, Apple has some new way to check out if you're using these APIs. Hewitt may have just got fed up with the situation and decided to quit.
There is a reason you don't use Apple private APIs in Cocoa. They are fluid and will break your application.
Public APIs are meant for mass consumption and have been through several levels of SQA.
You write your own private APIs for the functionality you want that is not current in Public APIs. You submit requests for your functionality to become part of the Public APIs if you feel it would save a lot of time in the future.
Using private APIs by the parent Company violates any basic common knowledge of OOA/OOD.
There is a reason you don't use Apple private APIs in Cocoa. They are fluid and will break your application.
Public APIs are meant for mass consumption and have been through several levels of SQA.
You write your own private APIs for the functionality you want that is not current in Public APIs. You submit requests for your functionality to become part of the Public APIs if you feel it would save a lot of time in the future.
Using private APIs by the parent Company violates any basic common knowledge of OOA/OOD.
chillywilly
Nov 28, 06:04 PM
The legendary butcher cover.
My brother in law bought the regular cover "Yesterday and Today" album for 25 cents at a garage sale, but underneath the placid regular cover was this gory one.
He then called our friend who owned a local used record shop. The record store owner urged him not to peel off the front image, even though my brother in law was curious as to what may be underneath that wholesome photo of the Beatles. Despite its estimated value at that time (early 90's) being $1,000 dollars, he steamed off the regular cover to reveal the butcher cover and thus dropped the value of the LP by half the amount. The record shop owner was distraught!
The most sought after cover is the censored "safe" one with this gore hiding underneath it. Today a cover like this, with all the blood and gore, would not upset anyone.
I knew of someone that had the Butcher cover (pealed) and it wasn't worth as much as an original. The record store I used to frequent back in the day, did have an original (claimed it was purchased at a store, even though many collectors refute that was even possible). Regardless, it was on display at the store and collectors did determine it was NOT a pealed version. Estimates placed it at around $10,000 at the time (early 80's)
I wonder, given these times of a cover like that not causing too much of a stir, if a reissue would ever be released? I'm sure the collectors would balk at such a thing, but the rest of us wouldn't mind owning something like that.
My brother in law bought the regular cover "Yesterday and Today" album for 25 cents at a garage sale, but underneath the placid regular cover was this gory one.
He then called our friend who owned a local used record shop. The record store owner urged him not to peel off the front image, even though my brother in law was curious as to what may be underneath that wholesome photo of the Beatles. Despite its estimated value at that time (early 90's) being $1,000 dollars, he steamed off the regular cover to reveal the butcher cover and thus dropped the value of the LP by half the amount. The record shop owner was distraught!
The most sought after cover is the censored "safe" one with this gore hiding underneath it. Today a cover like this, with all the blood and gore, would not upset anyone.
I knew of someone that had the Butcher cover (pealed) and it wasn't worth as much as an original. The record store I used to frequent back in the day, did have an original (claimed it was purchased at a store, even though many collectors refute that was even possible). Regardless, it was on display at the store and collectors did determine it was NOT a pealed version. Estimates placed it at around $10,000 at the time (early 80's)
I wonder, given these times of a cover like that not causing too much of a stir, if a reissue would ever be released? I'm sure the collectors would balk at such a thing, but the rest of us wouldn't mind owning something like that.
gnasher729
Nov 7, 05:26 AM
Intel will be releasing [...] an ultra-low voltage version for tiny laptops.
The ultra low power versions also go ultra slow. If you take a normal Merom or Yonah, and limit its speed to 1 GHz, the voltage can be reduced as well, and it won't be far away from the so-called "ultra low power" chips at all.
The ultra low power versions also go ultra slow. If you take a normal Merom or Yonah, and limit its speed to 1 GHz, the voltage can be reduced as well, and it won't be far away from the so-called "ultra low power" chips at all.
vansouza
Oct 16, 01:48 PM
Personally the Zune is looking fairly attrective right now. Ever since the 5th Gen iPod came out everyone has complained that it needed to be widescreen and have a bigger screen. I don't care for the WiFi sharing really but you have to admit the interface looks pretty nice.
I don't have to admit any such thing..
I don't have to admit any such thing..
BC2009
Mar 18, 03:49 PM
lol... Comments are priceless:
No kidding -- kinda reads like the iPad comments from last year, except instead of six pages there are probably hundreds for iPad. Weird looking at those forum posts and not recognizing any of the posters and seeing some labeled as "guest".
Some guy named "Beholder of Truth" really nailed it on why the iPod would be revolutionary. People probably called him an "Apple Fanboy" or whatever the 2001 equivalent of that was (one guy called him a "Tool").
Very amusing reading those comments.
No kidding -- kinda reads like the iPad comments from last year, except instead of six pages there are probably hundreds for iPad. Weird looking at those forum posts and not recognizing any of the posters and seeing some labeled as "guest".
Some guy named "Beholder of Truth" really nailed it on why the iPod would be revolutionary. People probably called him an "Apple Fanboy" or whatever the 2001 equivalent of that was (one guy called him a "Tool").
Very amusing reading those comments.
berkleeboy210
Sep 4, 09:48 AM
Didn't they do this last year too?
In september they had an event for the itunes phone, and nanos. then in october they had another event for the 5g ipod and the imac?
In september they had an event for the itunes phone, and nanos. then in october they had another event for the 5g ipod and the imac?
mscriv
Apr 11, 11:57 AM
I object to the notion that good deeds I do are due to vanity, pride etc.
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
No, sorry, you cannot have that one. "Altruistic" does not coincide with "vanity and self glorification". In my filthy heathen state of unsaved gracelessness, I still do things for which my only reward is a smile. And even when I do have an ulterior motive ("you can return the favor at your leisure, to me or to someone else"), how does that detract from my having done well and good by someone else?
I find this statement utterly appalling. Do those who sacrifice themselves for others do so from selfish motives?
I agree. There is so much wrong with the original statement in addition to your point. I consider "goodness" to get your spot in heaven the ultimate in selfishness. Also, what about gods other than Jesus, are the good things performed in their name just as "selfless"?
Ok, good questions and thoughts. Let me explain/expound upon my statement. The bolded part below seems to be what is drawing the most reaction.
An accurate understanding of original sin does not mean that man is completely "evil" in the sense that we are incapable of doing works that would be considered "good" or altruistic. The human spirit is capable of many good things, but without an accurate understanding of who God is and our relationship to him these good works become nothing but acts of vanity and self glorification that serve only to advance pride and promote self-reliance.
I am not speaking about conscious motivation within an individuals actions/behavior, although that could be true as we all know people do at times act out of selfish and prideful intentions.
I'm talking about a theological understanding of man's state before God. For those that do not believe in a higher power or absolute truth, man, in and of himself, is the highest order of existence/being/evolution, etc. etc.. Thus, any and all accomplishments of man ("good works") are then viewed as self evident truths to this proposition. Man's capacity for altruism, self sacrifice, and compassion are seen as proof of his independence from God. "See what we can accomplish on our own... we don't need God." In this manner all of man's action is an act of self glorification and self reliance.
I'm in a "helping profession" and work daily with people who seek to support and serve others. Many do this out of the "goodness of their own heart" and genuinely do not seek any form of return for their efforts. On a human level these actions are noble and sacrificial and I applaud them. However, on a spiritual level, I must recognize that scripture teaches us that our "good deeds" are worthless if our heart is not right with God.
Please understand, this doesn't mean that the positive results of these actions are meaningless. For example, giving food to the homeless is a sacrificial act that does help people in need, but it will in no way earn you "points" with God. The Bible does not teach a theology of works. It's not about what you do, it's about your relationship with Christ.
Again, as I always say, this is ultimately an issue of faith and I completely understand that it can be hard to comprehend for some. And it is a subtle nuance to understand the difference between doing something because you adhere to a set of principles (right vs. wrong) and doing it because it is an outflow of your relationship with God.
It's like I told someone recently in a conversation we were having. I don't stay true to my wife because being unfaithful to her would be the morally wrong thing to do. I could care less about the moral principle of marital faithfulness. My motivation for staying true to my wife is that I have an intimate loving relationship with her and I would never want to hurt her or damage that relationship in any way.
Which takes us into rougher territory. If works are relatively insignificant in the scheme of salvation, your absolute moral code starts to crumble and fall in on itself. For, why should a believer bother to follow it if the saviour is always near at hand to forgive and redeem?
You may not realize it Sydde, but what you are saying is still along the lines of a works based relationship with God and that is not what the Bible teaches. It's not about a revolving door of "messing up" and and then asking for forgiveness. Christ death paid the price in full for all sin (past, present, and future). What matters is the condition of your heart before him and the intimacy of your relationship with him. Within that context are you seeking your own way including your own selfish desires or are you seeking to be the servant leader he wants you to be. The examples you gave in your post were all of people being selfishly motivated for their own gain.
In light of the examples of history (perhaps including those in the bible itself), how can you say that religion has made anyone a better person than they would have been? To me, it looks like religion has made the world a worse place than it might have been without it.
I'd think you would agree that people like Mother Theresa were able to successfully live out their faith with the goal of bringing glory to God while serving others. She's just the first example that pops into my head, but there are countless others. Again, it's not about "religion" making us "better people", that's a selfish manner of thinking. My relationship with God is not about me, it's about him.
"Many people mistake our work for our vocation. Our vocation is the love of Jesus."
"There is always the danger that we may just do the work for the sake of the work. This is where the respect and the love and the devotion come in - that we do it to God, to Christ, and that's why we try to do it as beautifully as possible."
~ Mother Theresa
Every time I hear about how we are naturally selfish and corrupt, I hear the utterer trying to apologize for their own faults by expanding them upon all others. As a counselor, you should be familiar with the mechanism called "projection".
I'm very familiar with projection. I can assure you that is not what's happening here. I'm merely presenting what God has communicated to us through the Bible. Could it be that your skepticism and cynicism is a projection of something within you? Why don't you come over he and lie on this couch and tell me about your mother... ;)
Yet, again, the absolutes get bent. When believers run up against a moral wall that divides them from their goals, they seek the counsel of a cleric. The cleric typically sympathizes with the believer's plight and very often finds a way to interpret the scripture to turn the question to the believer's favor. So you have your absolutes, but they are also flexible. What good then are they, that they can be molded to suit your needs? How is this better than situational ethics (logic, reason and compromise), other than to employ scholars in the service of the almighty?
Well, first of all, "clerics" are not required for us to interpret scripture or have a relationship with God. When Christ was crucified he tore the temple veil representing that his sacrifice has made the way for man to have a direct relationship with God, no human intermediary is required. As far as prooftexting or manipulating scripture for your own personal motives due to a presenting dilemma, well, I'm sure you already know my answer to this based on my previous comments. Scripture stands alone as authoritative regardless of how I "feel" about it or what I "want" it to say. If I'm seeking to find an "exception" in scripture to justify my own position then my heart is not in the right place.
I have had more than a third of a century (from teenage years) to develop my philosophy and unbeliefs, and you are obviously quite steadfast in yours, so yes, there can be little doubt of the mexican stand-off. Does it trouble you? As hoary and mulish as I may be, I still find merit in these discussions, because they draw things out into the light that I had not bothered to look at. You do teach me things, though they are almost certainly not the things you intend. I hope you in some way also benefit, it would be a shame to think this only leads you to despair.
Fret not my friend. I think there is extreme merit in these discussions and I appreciate the respectful way in which many of us here are able to engage each other on such topics.
As far as me being troubled or in "despair" the answer to your question is both yes and no. I do seek to consistently and genuinely live out my faith and thus I do wish to see other's come into relationship with Christ (you know that whole "go ye therefore" thing in the Bible). However, do I judge others and base my entire relationship with them on evangelistic purposes? No. One of the greatest gifts God has given us is free will, in fact, without free will everything we are talking about falls apart. I respect, just as God has designed it to be, that people have the freedom and the ability to reject him and live their life as they see fit. I love, value, relate to, and learn from others regardless of their spiritual beliefs. It would be foolish of me to limit my relationships with people solely on their spirituality or lack thereof. My goal is to accept people as they are, treat them with dignity and respect, and seek out how I might serve or support them in the context of our relationship.
Besides, if I do happen to get down about it, I know a pretty good therapist. ;)
Sorry for the long post, but I wanted to address the questions/comments that had been made. :)
cyberdogl2
Jan 11, 04:02 PM
Apple leaves clues almost as good as the Riddler's. I can't wait to see what they mean by AIR!
Atheistpaladin
Nov 24, 02:54 AM
Reading these threads I am forced to reach the conclusion that the Beatles re highly underrated :D
Warbrain
Nov 7, 08:45 AM
We'll see what happens here eh? If new ones come out than there will be a batch of the old Macbooks on eBay.. no complaints for that
:p
Cheers
Only because people are dumb and think that they always need to be using the best computer. Hate to break it, but the MacBook isn't the best.
:p
Cheers
Only because people are dumb and think that they always need to be using the best computer. Hate to break it, but the MacBook isn't the best.
RebootD
Apr 11, 10:23 PM
Good points. In any other profession, say a carpenter, you buy the tools before you make anything but you also have to have talent as a baseline.
Pretty sure people supporting illegally obtaining them wouldn't support said carpenter from walking into a Home Depot and walking out with $3k in power tools because "Hey, he is just getting started!".
No, I'm saying this completely fake but probable guy isn't doing well enough with his full time job (which is as a graphic artist), so he's doing a little freelance work to get to a point where he can afford his various monthly payments. It's a break even thing, and there's not much left over, if any... theoretically.
Sort of, but his comment about how anyone can learn these apps was incorrect. I was saying you need to have some talent to start with, and once you do, use of the apps CAN increase your design skills - once you start to realize the things you can do with the tools at hand.
Pretty sure people supporting illegally obtaining them wouldn't support said carpenter from walking into a Home Depot and walking out with $3k in power tools because "Hey, he is just getting started!".
No, I'm saying this completely fake but probable guy isn't doing well enough with his full time job (which is as a graphic artist), so he's doing a little freelance work to get to a point where he can afford his various monthly payments. It's a break even thing, and there's not much left over, if any... theoretically.
Sort of, but his comment about how anyone can learn these apps was incorrect. I was saying you need to have some talent to start with, and once you do, use of the apps CAN increase your design skills - once you start to realize the things you can do with the tools at hand.
Compatiblepoker
Jul 23, 12:58 AM
I'm personally not a huge fan of ebooks in the first place but on an iPod....come on. Too much strain for me.
blueflame
Jul 22, 09:19 PM
apple needs to fix the video handling of movies in itunes before anyhting can really be done, its a real mess right now
andreas
andreas
CaptMurdock
Mar 31, 12:46 AM
Never thought i would hear a republican say "illegal war". If this was a republican president, i think dime would be singing a different tune. If a democrat takes military action, suddenly the republicans become hippies.
The Republican's Number One Hit: "Do As I Say, Don't Do As I Do." With the B-Side of "Screw You, I Got Mine."
The Republican's Number One Hit: "Do As I Say, Don't Do As I Do." With the B-Side of "Screw You, I Got Mine."
MattInOz
Mar 29, 11:31 PM
A couple years ago, 4G meant LTE. Now it means HSPA+. I have no doubt that the next iPhone will be 4G capable, but it won't be LTE. I doubt that delaying the typical launch would have anything to do with including 4G.
Ummm.... I was of the impression that in a couple of markets People tried to promote HSPA+ as 4G and got smacked. Pretty much 4G must be a true 4G tech like LTE to use the name.
Hey I can see 4G/LTE as something Apple will want to get on early. I mean it's a big fat pipe technology. So no more one pipe for digital voice one for digital data.
Ummm.... I was of the impression that in a couple of markets People tried to promote HSPA+ as 4G and got smacked. Pretty much 4G must be a true 4G tech like LTE to use the name.
Hey I can see 4G/LTE as something Apple will want to get on early. I mean it's a big fat pipe technology. So no more one pipe for digital voice one for digital data.
No comments:
Post a Comment