NightStorm
May 7, 01:13 PM
I'm pretty sure this will happen since I just bought a MobileMe Family box to renew my accounts that expire at the end of the month.
Just my luck. ;)
Just my luck. ;)
Jape
Nov 4, 06:25 PM
Gave it a brief test around town this afternoon. MotionX GPS lite status screen reported an accuracy (radius?) of between 30 feet to 50 feet, whereas without the TomTom mount it ranged from about 75 ft to 256 ft or worse. So, yeah, it improves GPS accuracy, and I did notice the difference when using the TomTom app.
The thing is well built and elegant, the nicest carphone mount design I've ever seen. You have to be gentle sticking the iPhone into the mount, but you can do it with one hand. You have to think about where to install the mount in your car -- window, dash, left or right of the wheel etc. -- and you can't leave the iPhone in a case (OK for me, might not be for others). The power and audio cables stick out of the side, which is a bit awkward, especially when you rotate it; I'm thinking of picking up some adhesive-backed clips at RadioShack to keep the wires out of the way as they wind their way down to the power and aux jacks. I've made only one phone call so far, which worked fine, but the phone uses the mount's speaker even when you're plugged into the car stereo (music and/or Tomtom app voice stops in the car speakers, and then the phone call comes out of the mount speaker). I could hear the phone call fine driving around town, but I'm a little worried about how well I'll be able to hear phone calls at freeway speeds in my noisy little car (a Honda Fit).
The acid test will be a substantial trip that includes some skyscraper canyons in a big city.
Last I checked it looked like BLT had sold out and was awaiting more shipments.
Thanks a ton for for your review, I am now going to buy the kit from BLT. They are on backorder with the product and will be recieving a shipment in on the 11 of nov, but for this low price I believe it is worth the wait ( about %30 off). Thanks again.
The thing is well built and elegant, the nicest carphone mount design I've ever seen. You have to be gentle sticking the iPhone into the mount, but you can do it with one hand. You have to think about where to install the mount in your car -- window, dash, left or right of the wheel etc. -- and you can't leave the iPhone in a case (OK for me, might not be for others). The power and audio cables stick out of the side, which is a bit awkward, especially when you rotate it; I'm thinking of picking up some adhesive-backed clips at RadioShack to keep the wires out of the way as they wind their way down to the power and aux jacks. I've made only one phone call so far, which worked fine, but the phone uses the mount's speaker even when you're plugged into the car stereo (music and/or Tomtom app voice stops in the car speakers, and then the phone call comes out of the mount speaker). I could hear the phone call fine driving around town, but I'm a little worried about how well I'll be able to hear phone calls at freeway speeds in my noisy little car (a Honda Fit).
The acid test will be a substantial trip that includes some skyscraper canyons in a big city.
Last I checked it looked like BLT had sold out and was awaiting more shipments.
Thanks a ton for for your review, I am now going to buy the kit from BLT. They are on backorder with the product and will be recieving a shipment in on the 11 of nov, but for this low price I believe it is worth the wait ( about %30 off). Thanks again.
silentnite
Apr 26, 04:05 PM
Competition is good , however with that being said. It's any one's game from month to month depending on how well the o.s. is developed & how often an update comes out. I'm sure apple has a lot up it's sleeve and I'm not just saying that because I own the iPhone 4. I also own a G-2 from Google.
MaxMike
Dec 31, 02:07 PM
I decided to give it a try and all it ever finds are little things that only can affect Windows :rolleyes:
grockk
Aug 11, 10:31 AM
Makes no sense to put these in Macbook so soon. Macbook Pro, yes, but not the macbook. Apple have always differentiated the two lines, the fact that current Macbooks are comparable to the Pros is just plain luck and won't last long, IMO.
You are reasoning from apple's history but it's all different now. The problem with this logic is that since Dell, HP and Gateway will be using the merom in consumer computers and apple is using the same chips as everyone else they have to use merom too or appear to be behind in the technology.
You are reasoning from apple's history but it's all different now. The problem with this logic is that since Dell, HP and Gateway will be using the merom in consumer computers and apple is using the same chips as everyone else they have to use merom too or appear to be behind in the technology.
shompa
Aug 7, 04:26 PM
Not really significantly faster than the G5 Quad. Maybe 50% faster at best. As owner of a Quad G5 my motivation would be more about the 6 bays and the FW 800 on the front than the speed. :)
The G5 is almost as fast per clock cycle.
Apple COULD have released quad G5 3ghz instead, but they want us to use Intel.
The whole Intel project is beacuse of no G5 laptop.
Stupid IBM. I do not like X86, the play plattform.
But, I have changed all my PPC macs to Intel now.
Macbook pro, Macbook, macmini and today a Macpro.
The G5 is almost as fast per clock cycle.
Apple COULD have released quad G5 3ghz instead, but they want us to use Intel.
The whole Intel project is beacuse of no G5 laptop.
Stupid IBM. I do not like X86, the play plattform.
But, I have changed all my PPC macs to Intel now.
Macbook pro, Macbook, macmini and today a Macpro.
Don't panic
May 4, 10:28 AM
Splain please.
initially, the way it was written it seemed (to me at least) that an armed trap would be triggered by our presence in the room at the end of a round
in that case you don't want to end a round with a move to a new room because you expose yourself to the trap without being able to check for it. (so move-explore >> explore-move)
Also it implied you could 'run' through a room in turn1 of a round without triggering the trap in that room (move-move).
it was then explained that an armed trap is triggered only by leaving the room, at any turn
this means that we can go into a new room and end our turn, and it is safe as long as someone explores the room before leaving next turn (so move-explore ≅ explore-move)
that's why splitting can be productive:
say me and you are in room A, unexplored, as a group.
we split and in your turn1 you explore the room, in my turn1 i move to room B.
then in your turn2 you move to roomB and in my turn2 i explore roomB.
then we merge again.
in this way we have both moved from room A to room B, and we have explored both rooms, while if we moved as a group we could only explore one of the two rooms.
the downside is that if we find treasure, it only applies to the discoverer's party and not to everyone.
initially, the way it was written it seemed (to me at least) that an armed trap would be triggered by our presence in the room at the end of a round
in that case you don't want to end a round with a move to a new room because you expose yourself to the trap without being able to check for it. (so move-explore >> explore-move)
Also it implied you could 'run' through a room in turn1 of a round without triggering the trap in that room (move-move).
it was then explained that an armed trap is triggered only by leaving the room, at any turn
this means that we can go into a new room and end our turn, and it is safe as long as someone explores the room before leaving next turn (so move-explore ≅ explore-move)
that's why splitting can be productive:
say me and you are in room A, unexplored, as a group.
we split and in your turn1 you explore the room, in my turn1 i move to room B.
then in your turn2 you move to roomB and in my turn2 i explore roomB.
then we merge again.
in this way we have both moved from room A to room B, and we have explored both rooms, while if we moved as a group we could only explore one of the two rooms.
the downside is that if we find treasure, it only applies to the discoverer's party and not to everyone.
jwp1964
Jul 22, 09:50 PM
Does this current set of chips include some very low power consumption chips for use in the Apple ultra-portable I want so badly?:confused:
phillipduran
Apr 5, 01:54 PM
Legitimize the jailbreak community??
I thought we already got past that. There is nothing wrong or illegal about jailbreaking.
It's software piracy and stealing cell company services that are the problem.
Too bad Toyota buckled.
I thought we already got past that. There is nothing wrong or illegal about jailbreaking.
It's software piracy and stealing cell company services that are the problem.
Too bad Toyota buckled.
Cavepainter
Mar 30, 02:36 PM
I hardly think $1 for 20 gigabytes of available anywhere storage is very unreasonable.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Maybe that rate wouldn't be bad, but if you read the article, that's not what they're charging. Beyond the initial free amount, its $1 per 1 gig, not $1 per 20 gigs. A terabyte per year is a thousand dollars a year. That's not too cheap. And this isn't including bandwidth usage, which is gonna cost money too, of course. Plus, what do you think, are these rates and bandwidth usage costs gonna be higher or lower in the future?
They (banks) aren't storing physical cash somewhere anymore, it's all just a line of electronic code that states what your balance is.
Well, it actually it still exists as money, but of course banks aren't storing it all in a vault- they're loaning it out to other people, at rates 10 to 100 times greater than the interest rate they are offering you for using that money- and they're using your money to make them money. I'm sure they could loan out money at much lower rates and still do fine, but that's what we're used to paying, so there you go. But anyway, back on track-
If you want premium content, you pay for it.
That premium content you're happy to be paying lots of money for is actually making the provider plenty of money on the back end too- remember cable and satellite television still has plenty of advertisements. Again, they could probably charge you a third of what you currently pay and it would still be profitable. (I'm just sayin'...)
People just think it's ridiculous to spend money on music because avenues have popped up where you can get it for free.
True, but for me, no, I actually buy my music and support the artists- I just think its ridiculous to buy my music and pay someone else over and over and over again, forever, just to be able listen to it.
I have 2 computers at home, a laptop, a phone that has storage, a DVR, even my Xbox can store music files..... How nice to be able to visit my parents, or go on vacation, or be at a friend's house, log on to their computer, and have my entire music library instantly available at my fingertips.
80 gigs of music in a computer's memory doesn't actually "weigh" all that much. You can have all those files right there on your devices right now, unless you have terabytes of things to store. As storage continues to grow on computers, I think you'll find that the prices will be more and more appealing for larger and larger amounts of storage.
Look, I understand your points, and if you have multiple platforms that need to share and sync enormous amounts of files, that can be a challenge and the cloud would be convenient. But for the amount of music and photography and other files I have and the way I would store it and access it, I personally would rather just have all the files I need right there on my computer at my fingertips without having to pay someone to access it from a remote location. You're certainly free to spend money to access things you already purchased, but its not for me. To each their own.
Michael Scrip
Apr 26, 03:01 PM
Once again, Apple's stubborn insistance on not licensing out their OS will lead to the marginalization of their hardware. Once iOS hardware is marginalized, you'll see developers shift their focus away to the Android platform -- which will see better app releases and better integration between mobile and tablet OS.
The handwriting is on the wall for Apple. They lost the desktop battle because they were too focused on short-term profit (selling the computer + software) and now they've lost the mobile battle because they were, again, too focused on short-term profit (selling the phone + the OS).
Apple is a hardware company! That's what they do!
Of course Google licenses out their Android OS... that's all they can do.
You keep saying "Apple lot the battle..."
Which battle is that? Apple just sold 18 million iPhones this past quarter... and 16 million iPhones the previous quarter. Any other manufacturer would KILL for those numbers... especially considering Apple only makes 5 phones. How many Android phones are there?
"Android" is simply some software from Google that you can find on 50+ phones. Sure... if you combine them all, their numbers are greater than Apple's numbers.
But market share isn't the goal... that's just a fanboy argument.
The handwriting is on the wall for Apple. They lost the desktop battle because they were too focused on short-term profit (selling the computer + software) and now they've lost the mobile battle because they were, again, too focused on short-term profit (selling the phone + the OS).
Apple is a hardware company! That's what they do!
Of course Google licenses out their Android OS... that's all they can do.
You keep saying "Apple lot the battle..."
Which battle is that? Apple just sold 18 million iPhones this past quarter... and 16 million iPhones the previous quarter. Any other manufacturer would KILL for those numbers... especially considering Apple only makes 5 phones. How many Android phones are there?
"Android" is simply some software from Google that you can find on 50+ phones. Sure... if you combine them all, their numbers are greater than Apple's numbers.
But market share isn't the goal... that's just a fanboy argument.
iCrizzo
Mar 29, 11:22 AM
Dropbox is the same, only difference and it is a big difference if you purchase music from Amazon and store it, you can re-download all your music, that is huge. I can't tell you how many times I have lost music purchased through iTunes.
fahadqureshi
Mar 28, 11:02 AM
The iPhone 4 is already dated relative to other phones on the market. To have a phone on the market for 18 months without an update is insane.
i think the only thing it is dated in is the lack of 4G.
i think the only thing it is dated in is the lack of 4G.
EricNau
Nov 26, 04:17 PM
http://www.theapplecollection.com/design/macdesign/images/21286fujitsustylisticmodded.jpg
Too many buttons - if there were any more I'd think it was a Microsoft product. :D ;)
Too many buttons - if there were any more I'd think it was a Microsoft product. :D ;)
-aggie-
May 4, 03:54 PM
I'd say go ahead, but I'm somewhat confused in what the villain can do. He gets to see our moves, so he can just put a trap anywhere?
I'm against splitting until we level up.
I'm against splitting until we level up.
Piggie
Apr 23, 05:53 PM
Does anyone know what mountain that is a picture of? I'm asking on behalf of a curious third party
It's Mount Fuji
http://www.mt-fuji.gr.jp/gallery/05.jpg
It's Mount Fuji
http://www.mt-fuji.gr.jp/gallery/05.jpg
jayhawk69
Mar 26, 10:06 PM
A new ios update is like getiting a new device so i hope itis amazing and is a major revamp
ericinboston
Apr 18, 04:19 PM
Samsung will simply pay a hefty amount to Apple and we will never hear anything about this again.
Exactly. And how different has/is Windows 9x/XP been from Mac OS (and vice versa) over the past 15 years? What about tvs? Receivers?
Come on...the iPhone look/feel has been out for quite awhile anyway...it's not like the competitors released products 6 months after the iPhone.
Regardless of how many examples we can list here, this lawsuit ridiculous...a lot of things/products in life are going to look/feel very similar...especially in computers.
Exactly. And how different has/is Windows 9x/XP been from Mac OS (and vice versa) over the past 15 years? What about tvs? Receivers?
Come on...the iPhone look/feel has been out for quite awhile anyway...it's not like the competitors released products 6 months after the iPhone.
Regardless of how many examples we can list here, this lawsuit ridiculous...a lot of things/products in life are going to look/feel very similar...especially in computers.
johnnyturbouk
Apr 5, 07:16 PM
Kind of weird, Apple should not be meddling in that stuff. Way way too domineering.
it boils down to cold cash and revenues! apple feels that altho' JB may be legal, they do not want cydia to poach money that apple feel should be in their own pockets!
god,m i miss the days when cydia was simple, free and without the adds
it boils down to cold cash and revenues! apple feels that altho' JB may be legal, they do not want cydia to poach money that apple feel should be in their own pockets!
god,m i miss the days when cydia was simple, free and without the adds
Noodlefarmer
Apr 26, 02:47 PM
But if Apple had gotten on board with Verizon a year earlier, those numbers would probably be reversed.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
AT&T gave Apple what they wanted on the iPhone. Verizon wouldn't. And Apple couldn't sell to Verizon until contract expired. Would it have been better to have been on both? Of course. But I don't think even Apple knew how well the iPhone would do. And while many Verizon customers opted for an Android rather than wait, I think it may be interesting to see what happens when they are eligible for new phone. Things could change again.
That extra year that Apple sat on their ass with AT&T was the crucial year that allowed android to gain traction and mindshare.
Once the 'greatly anticipated' Verizon launch finally did come, it was met with a large chorus of "who cares?" from the crowd - the crowd that had gotten their droid phone 6 months earlier.
AT&T gave Apple what they wanted on the iPhone. Verizon wouldn't. And Apple couldn't sell to Verizon until contract expired. Would it have been better to have been on both? Of course. But I don't think even Apple knew how well the iPhone would do. And while many Verizon customers opted for an Android rather than wait, I think it may be interesting to see what happens when they are eligible for new phone. Things could change again.
dante@sisna.com
Aug 7, 06:44 PM
And it still doesn't run Adobe/Macromedia products. ;)
Amen -- For me Adobe and Macromedia are huge apps -- I would never run them under Rosetta and chance my business to this setup.
The Quad G5 is a great machine: worth the cash -- cheap RAM, native performance, 64-bit, good graphics, nice SATA and decent bus.
Amen -- For me Adobe and Macromedia are huge apps -- I would never run them under Rosetta and chance my business to this setup.
The Quad G5 is a great machine: worth the cash -- cheap RAM, native performance, 64-bit, good graphics, nice SATA and decent bus.
Ger Teunis
Mar 31, 03:15 AM
Am I the only one having problems with the following default (moronified) settings?
CmdrLaForge
May 8, 12:19 AM
I have a familiy MobileMe account and would of course be happy if its free. I hope not at the cost of iAds!
wordoflife
Apr 9, 05:19 PM
I did parenthesis, then multiplication or division from left to right. That's how I was taught it.
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
I'm pretty sure doing PEMDAS left to right is the proper way to do it
48/2(9+3)
48/2(12)
24(12)
288
