american idol
buffalo
Sep 12, 06:16 PM
Can someone give me some idea when the Apple Store Birmingham UK will get the new nano's in stock?
You could always call the store and ask... Might be quicker and more accurate than waiting for someone else from MR to answer.
Also some questions... (continued from my post on the previous page)
Is there anyway to get the new earbuds? The original buds do not fit my (small) ears, and I would like to try something new. Right now I'm using some Sony (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=4503996&st=headphones&lp=10&type=product&cp=2&id=1051806136350) over-the-head headphones.
Will there be a software update that will bring gapless playback and the other new features to the original nanos?
Will the original nano dock work with the new nanos?
You could always call the store and ask... Might be quicker and more accurate than waiting for someone else from MR to answer.
Also some questions... (continued from my post on the previous page)
Is there anyway to get the new earbuds? The original buds do not fit my (small) ears, and I would like to try something new. Right now I'm using some Sony (http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=4503996&st=headphones&lp=10&type=product&cp=2&id=1051806136350) over-the-head headphones.
Will there be a software update that will bring gapless playback and the other new features to the original nanos?
Will the original nano dock work with the new nanos?
zildjansg
Oct 24, 07:58 PM
^^neat!:)
roocka
Jan 11, 04:08 PM
Earlier this week I saw a rumor about Apple and Garmin joining forces at this years MacWorld. I hope it's true as I bought some Garmin stock earlier this week and already hold 899 shares of Apple. Garmin desperately needs a new revenue source, especially in the new economic recession/stagflation, and Apple could use the best GPS consumer electronics maker in the industry to position themselves further ahead of the competition. Also, if it's an exclusive agreement, this could put them much further along than even Nokia who licenses the mapping software to Garmin for all their GPS.
Maybe a way for Apple to corner the market while telling their competitors to grab their ankles..
Roocka
Maybe a way for Apple to corner the market while telling their competitors to grab their ankles..
Roocka
Kris400
May 5, 08:50 AM
Utter rubbish.
The next iPad will NOT have a 3D display.
�You really think they'll bring out a retina 3D screen? Because I think retina would be slightly more of a priority.
No idea why this has even been posted...
The next iPad will NOT have a 3D display.
�You really think they'll bring out a retina 3D screen? Because I think retina would be slightly more of a priority.
No idea why this has even been posted...
nemaslov
Nov 28, 10:13 AM
There's no doubt Apple would pull some kind of neat marketing campaign to announce this deal to the world (assuming it goes through). The people questioning the value of that don't understand how iconic The Beatles are.
Heck, even if not a single person downloads a Beatles track from the iTunes store, the fact that they're finally online, the media exposure that will produce (I've already seen several stories on it in the local news) and the fact that it could lead to things liked branded iPods make it worthwhile to promote in a marketing blitz.
I agree with those that say "Come Together" isn't the right choice. "Revolution" would have been great, but as far as I'm concerned, Nike *owns* that track after their incredible use of it in the 80s (and I'm not a Nike fan!).
I could see them being very coy and using a non-mainstream track such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" or something like that...
They should use the new LOVE mix of Tomorrow Never Knows with Within You Without You. The drumming is so cool and it would attract so much attention since although so many have heard the two separate songs, hearing the Mashup of the two is quite stunning and very modern. You should check it out if you have not yet. Amazing sound. Especially in 5.1
Heck, even if not a single person downloads a Beatles track from the iTunes store, the fact that they're finally online, the media exposure that will produce (I've already seen several stories on it in the local news) and the fact that it could lead to things liked branded iPods make it worthwhile to promote in a marketing blitz.
I agree with those that say "Come Together" isn't the right choice. "Revolution" would have been great, but as far as I'm concerned, Nike *owns* that track after their incredible use of it in the 80s (and I'm not a Nike fan!).
I could see them being very coy and using a non-mainstream track such as "Tomorrow Never Knows" or something like that...
They should use the new LOVE mix of Tomorrow Never Knows with Within You Without You. The drumming is so cool and it would attract so much attention since although so many have heard the two separate songs, hearing the Mashup of the two is quite stunning and very modern. You should check it out if you have not yet. Amazing sound. Especially in 5.1
Northgrove
May 5, 03:13 AM
This is complete bullcrap, people. Over the air updates will come, but over WiFi. Doing this over 3G makes no sense.
Haha, yes... When I typed my reply above, I didn't even consider 3G. Come on guys... LOL :D
This will obviously be intended for WLAN's. Apple doesn't even do *FaceTime* over 3G.
Haha, yes... When I typed my reply above, I didn't even consider 3G. Come on guys... LOL :D
This will obviously be intended for WLAN's. Apple doesn't even do *FaceTime* over 3G.
fivepoint
Mar 28, 08:19 PM
Take 5 minutes and watch this outstanding response to Obama's speech by Freshman Senator Rand Paul:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UrrV_Txg47Q
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense.
What did you think of Obama's speech? Of Paul's? Which one more reflects your own worldview?
For me personally, this really emphasizes to me that 'change' isn't just a slogan; its an ideology, it's a worldview. It's time to start standing up for smaller government, less foreign entanglements, less debt, less stimulus, less handouts, less, less, less. Obama won't get you there, he's just more of the same... only worse. People like Rand Paul and his father represent real change, beyond what either two major parties have been able to offer during the past 100 years.
Complete Transcript:
The President of the United States often faces unforeseeable dilemmas that demand tough decisions based on reliable intelligence. The recent events in Libya presented President Obama with such a scenario. But how our Commander in Chief chose to handle this new dilemma raises serious questions about his understanding of constitutional checks and balances.
Libyan President Moammar Gadhafi is every bit the madman Ronald Reagan once said he was, but are the rebels adherents to Jeffersonian democracy or Bin Laden's radical jihad?
In then-candidate Obama said that "The President does not have power under the Constitution to unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation."
I agree with candidate Obama. Unfortunately, President Obama has failed to heed his own advice. He has ignored our constitution and engaged us in a military conflict without congressional debate and approval
What imminent threat did Gadhafi or Libya pose to the United States? Obviously, the decision to take military action of this magnitude is something that should not be taken lightly, and should first require determining whether it is in the United States' vital national interest.
Over the weekend, even Defense Secretary Robert Gates admitted that America has no vital interest in Libya.
Our brave men and women in uniform are patriotic defenders of our nation. They are members of the greatest military in the world, and in times of war, I am confident of their willingness and ability to ensure that our vital interests are protected.
But they should not be asked to be nation-builders or the world's policemen. And they should serve in wars authorized and called for by the United States Congress, not the United Nations.
At the moment, there are uprisings taking place across the Middle East. The problem with sending U.S. military to help rebels in Libya or anywhere else is that we are taking sides in a conflict and on behalf of a people whom we know nothing about.
When, or if, there is regime change in Libya, what kind of leadership, exactly, will replace Gadhafi? Who are the Libyan rebels exactly? The Daily Telegraph newspaper in London reported over the weekend that some Libyan rebel leaders now claim they have members of al-Qaida within their ranks and are glad to have them. Why do we have American soldiers, our best and bravest, helping people in Libya who may be the very same people we ask our military to fight in Afghanistan and Iraq?
Intervening in a civil war in a tribal society in which our government admits we have no vital interests to help people we do not know, simply does not make any sense. Libyan society is complicated, and we simply do not know enough about the potential outcomes or leaders to know if this will end up in the interests of the United States, or if we are in fact helping to install a radical Islamic government in the place of a secular dictatorship.
Of even more lasting concern is how our troops were committed to this battle by President Obama.
The Founding Fathers understood the seriousness of war and thus included in our Constitution a provision stating that only Congress can declare war. The decision to wage war should not be taken cavalierly. As Madison wrote:
"The Constitution supposes what the history of all Governments demonstrates, that the executive is the branch of power most interested in war and most prone to it. It has accordingly with studied care vested the question of war in the Legislature."
If President Obama had consulted Congress, as our Constitution requires him to do, perhaps we could have debated these questions before hastily involving ourselves in yet another Middle Eastern conflict.
The Constitution doesn't say the president can wage war after he talks to a handful of Congressional leaders.
The Constitution says Congress - all of Congress - is responsible for declaring war.
While the President is the commander of our armed forces, he is not a king. He may involve those forces in military conflict only when authorized by Congress or in response to an imminent threat. Neither was the case here.
We are already in two wars that we are not paying for. We are waging war across the Middle East on a credit card, one whose limit is rapidly approaching. And this is just wrong.
We already borrow money from countries like China to pay for our wars in Afghanistan and Iraq and it would be interesting to know how many Americans believe we should continue borrowing money and saddling future generations with debt to pay for our current actions in Libya.
The subtext to the President's speech concerning Libya tonight was "What if we had done nothing?" But a better question might be, What if helping Libya's interest actually hurts America's interests? What if we are sending our military to places where we might actually be helping the same terrorists we fight in other countries or potential future terrorists?
It's time that we re-examine these policies by once again consulting the Constitution on such matters and the common-sense principles that made this country great. We can no longer afford to spend what we don't have. And we can't afford to address every other nation's problems before we can address our own.
Over the coming days and weeks, Congress will force President Obama to confront these questions. Our brave young men and women have answered the call of duty time and time again over the past decade. Our soldiers deserve, at the very least, that before we send them into a third war that Congress - the People's House - deliberate, debate, and decide whether this war is in our vital national interests.
We will gather information, ask questions, and deliver our best advice about whether we, as the people's representatives, believe we should be at war. Whatever the outcome, we stand square behind our troops, and seek that their mission be clear and true.
Thank you for listening tonight, and God bless the United States of America.
txa1265
Sep 22, 11:03 AM
it's feeling a bit repetitive.
I would assume that once you got through the blatant copy&paste areas used to make the original Halo SP longer you would have realized that was par for the course ;)
I would assume that once you got through the blatant copy&paste areas used to make the original Halo SP longer you would have realized that was par for the course ;)
AidenShaw
Aug 29, 08:51 AM
(and no, after the DLhell from doing an upgrade from 98 to XP, I would never go the upgrade route again)
Note that the Windows 98 -> Windows XP "upgrade" was roughly the same as upgrading from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10.1. XP was a completely different codebase and layout from Win9x.
An XP -> Vista upgrade is an upgrade from one version of NT to the next version of NT. Microsoft has a much better track record at NT upgrades.
(The system that I'm on now started life in 1997 as a Windows NT 4 SP3 system. It's been upgraded to NT4 SPs, Win2K beta, Win2K RCs, Win2K SPs, WinXP betas, WinXP RCs, WinXP SPs, and soon I'll put the Vista RC on it... Never re-installed, never re-formatted.)
Note that the Windows 98 -> Windows XP "upgrade" was roughly the same as upgrading from Mac OS 9 to Mac OS 10.1. XP was a completely different codebase and layout from Win9x.
An XP -> Vista upgrade is an upgrade from one version of NT to the next version of NT. Microsoft has a much better track record at NT upgrades.
(The system that I'm on now started life in 1997 as a Windows NT 4 SP3 system. It's been upgraded to NT4 SPs, Win2K beta, Win2K RCs, Win2K SPs, WinXP betas, WinXP RCs, WinXP SPs, and soon I'll put the Vista RC on it... Never re-installed, never re-formatted.)
4np
Aug 24, 06:09 PM
The battery is paired with the computer - e.g. one battery goes with the computer serial (don't need to enter that battery serial, it matches up with the computer) and a spare uses its own.
unfortunately that's not true; the web app requires you to enter the battery serial as well... even though it is probably paired with the laptop's serial.
unfortunately that's not true; the web app requires you to enter the battery serial as well... even though it is probably paired with the laptop's serial.
jesusplay
May 4, 11:03 PM
300-600 mb over the air?
:rolleyes:
:rolleyes:
Henk Poley
May 5, 09:27 AM
To be honest, I'd rather get better colours, better black and all that. An AMOLED display on an iPad would absolutely amazing (AMOLED Retina would be even better).
I'd rather have them move to Pixel Qi, Mirasol or Liquavista once the technology is up to steam. Instead of having a light that needs to burn brighter than the ambient light to able to see it (bye bye battery life outdoors).
I'd rather have them move to Pixel Qi, Mirasol or Liquavista once the technology is up to steam. Instead of having a light that needs to burn brighter than the ambient light to able to see it (bye bye battery life outdoors).
Mitthrawnuruodo
Sep 4, 08:25 AM
Do a little research on eBay and see how many of these are listed and sold per hour. These cheap Chinese imports are not tracked in overall sales figures of MP3 players. I don't know what kind of market share they have.1) I don't use eBay - but how many iPods are sold there?
2) How many iPods are sold - through regular outlets - every hour?
3) iPods are made in China
4) If you don't even know the market share how do you know they are threatening iPod sales?
2) How many iPods are sold - through regular outlets - every hour?
3) iPods are made in China
4) If you don't even know the market share how do you know they are threatening iPod sales?
notjustjay
Sep 12, 04:04 PM
Ordered a 2 gig at the new lower price. This will be a surprise for my brother, whose 2 gig nano (that he got free with MacBook purchase) was run over by a car a few weekends ago. He was quite unhappy. I take some responsibility for it because, following my lead, we ran across the busy street rather than walking to the nearby traffic light. The iPod fell out of his pocket when he broke into the run.
Moral of the story: don't jaywalk, kids!
Moral of the story: don't jaywalk, kids!
Chip NoVaMac
Apr 18, 10:28 AM
The right to bear arms ? In a toy store ? Really...
And they don't infringe your rights at all, the constitution grants you rights in your dealings with the government, not private entities.
I think that Coolestdude is upset over this -
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=190
A debate over a lease near an NRA space. To that end - spend your dollars where you want is my say on it....
And they don't infringe your rights at all, the constitution grants you rights in your dealings with the government, not private entities.
I think that Coolestdude is upset over this -
http://www.keepandbeararms.com/newsarchives/XcNewsPlus.asp?cmd=view&articleid=190
A debate over a lease near an NRA space. To that end - spend your dollars where you want is my say on it....
mooncaine
Sep 12, 03:41 PM
GRRRRRRRRRR! I want to upgrade my current videos to 640x480... HOW?
The usual answer would be: start with a new source, and compress that to 640x480. If you start with a video that's already 320x240, you can't expect it to look better if you later try to re-encode it to a larger screen size. Can't get data from nowhere... can't get blood from a stone.
The usual answer would be: start with a new source, and compress that to 640x480. If you start with a video that's already 320x240, you can't expect it to look better if you later try to re-encode it to a larger screen size. Can't get data from nowhere... can't get blood from a stone.
wisty
Apr 3, 12:17 PM
The real story, iPhones will be getting backside illumination, which will mean better low-light pictures, right?
Jacqui83
Nov 8, 09:25 AM
The Store is still down, hell my credit card is itching and anxious to be used! Come on already go back up!
SteveLV702
Mar 21, 09:17 PM
I somehow doubt its true, but its a nice story.
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
interesting cause when I bought my iPad2, iPad1, iPhone4 they always asked for my email and then it pulled up my info and they would ask me to verify that my info is correct...
Then if you register it they have your info that way to....
When Ive returned a product, they have never asked for my name or address, and if I didnt give them my email address, there is no way they could contact me.
interesting cause when I bought my iPad2, iPad1, iPhone4 they always asked for my email and then it pulled up my info and they would ask me to verify that my info is correct...
Then if you register it they have your info that way to....
AP_piano295
Apr 26, 12:16 AM
Schools, churches, and libraries all have computers and books. There are several nutritional programs for the poor. most of the time they are abused, and it is spent on garbage, or sold for $.50 on the dollar.
I hardly think you know what percentage of the time these programs are abused.
Are these programs sometimes abused? Certainly and it's a problem but unless you have numbers don't claim that these social programs are largely in vain.
I hardly think you know what percentage of the time these programs are abused.
Are these programs sometimes abused? Certainly and it's a problem but unless you have numbers don't claim that these social programs are largely in vain.
Small White Car
Apr 13, 03:24 PM
I am so incredibly excited about this.
pyrex
Sep 13, 03:55 PM
wow, what is the point of even advertising a smaller box, the nano box was miniscule as it is. It just makes you wonder what they have cut out of the old box to make this box smaller, maybe they make you buy the dock and ipod-> usb cable, and the ipod plug all seperately.
goobot
May 5, 10:23 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)
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)
Is that why AT&T sold a lot more iPhones that vz last quarter?
Also vz just wants you to go over your cap. More money for them
Check VZW site, VZW charges no overage charges, data is unlimited. no caps no overage charges just unlimited data. WHAT DON'T you understand.
And the VZW throttling post on BGR.com was just a BS warning, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN THROTTLED! Go the androidforums and you will not find anyone that have ever been throttled!
Now with att try and use alot of data then att will claim you are tethering and automatically switch you to tiered data.
after 2GB , att charges 10 a GB. that can get expensive fast!
I meant when they do put caps on.
By the way I use like 2 gigs a week on AT&T and they leave me alone
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)
Is that why AT&T sold a lot more iPhones that vz last quarter?
Also vz just wants you to go over your cap. More money for them
Check VZW site, VZW charges no overage charges, data is unlimited. no caps no overage charges just unlimited data. WHAT DON'T you understand.
And the VZW throttling post on BGR.com was just a BS warning, NO ONE HAS EVER BEEN THROTTLED! Go the androidforums and you will not find anyone that have ever been throttled!
Now with att try and use alot of data then att will claim you are tethering and automatically switch you to tiered data.
after 2GB , att charges 10 a GB. that can get expensive fast!
I meant when they do put caps on.
By the way I use like 2 gigs a week on AT&T and they leave me alone
Jason Beck
Mar 12, 01:16 AM
I'd say it's time for some experimentation!
