iliketyla
Mar 28, 04:27 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by louis Fashion
My diesel SUV will EAT your 95 MPG mini-mini. Hoooya. and when did this become the Auto blog?
Originally Posted by iliketyla: I think I got off on a tangent, 'cause to be honest if I had the means I'd probably own one too. Sorry for being a hypocrite.
It's just at 19 I'm limited as to what I can afford, so a scooter seemed like a good investment to save money while I go to school.
You are forgiven, iliketyla. Go forth and prosper. And scoot safe.
:) Thanks bud.
Originally Posted by louis Fashion
My diesel SUV will EAT your 95 MPG mini-mini. Hoooya. and when did this become the Auto blog?
Originally Posted by iliketyla: I think I got off on a tangent, 'cause to be honest if I had the means I'd probably own one too. Sorry for being a hypocrite.
It's just at 19 I'm limited as to what I can afford, so a scooter seemed like a good investment to save money while I go to school.
You are forgiven, iliketyla. Go forth and prosper. And scoot safe.
:) Thanks bud.
currentinterest
Apr 17, 01:23 PM
Is it true that only WiFi iPads are sold at TRus? And if so, are there other stores where this is also the case?
Cheerwino
Apr 17, 10:36 AM
Apple rightly wants to gain as wide of a distribution as possible while the product is hot and lock in these slots on the floor. They should be able to ramp up production in the future. Also, these retailers are looking to increase traffic, which drives impulse purchases. Try getting your kid out of Toys-R-Us without buying anything.
Also, people are different. Some like to shop online, some like the personal attention from a specialized store, some will just pick it up on impulse.
It's certainly possible the breadth over depth availability will bite them, but right now it only helps feed the popularity to see it advertised everywhere and available almost nowhere. It's kind of like a hit song or pop artist, I guess. Perhaps iPad 2 is the electronics product version of Elvis or the Beatles.
Also, people are different. Some like to shop online, some like the personal attention from a specialized store, some will just pick it up on impulse.
It's certainly possible the breadth over depth availability will bite them, but right now it only helps feed the popularity to see it advertised everywhere and available almost nowhere. It's kind of like a hit song or pop artist, I guess. Perhaps iPad 2 is the electronics product version of Elvis or the Beatles.
ogee
Mar 21, 03:28 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.
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.
Quilentro
Aug 24, 03:34 PM
I switched to apple so I wouldn't have problems with customer support. This is ridiculous. The website is completely screwed up (Apple admits this) because of the hits from the battery issue. And the worst part is, the battery isn't my problem.
Sure, I have a defective macbook pro battery, but when I sent it in for repair on the 4th, it was for dark spots on the screen and some other random issues. They told me it would be fixed in a couple days. It's been gone for weeks, and after talking to people on the phone for hours, they finally told me that they weren't sure what was going on, but that they think it's fixed, and that it is just being tested (even though the site, when it was working days ago, said it had been repaired and was pending shipping on the 19th.) But they can't tell me when it will be back, and that it might take another week. I'm moving in a matter of days, and was told this should be a quick fix. This is really, really obnoxious. And all they can say is "sorry." At what point do they offer me a concession? At what point can the consumer say forget it, this computer is only a couple months old, give me a brand new one off the store floor. Ridiculous. I have more complaints, back my extreme irritation at the situation prevents me from launching a cogent argument.
I sincerely hope everyone else is having a much better experience than I/
- Quil
Sure, I have a defective macbook pro battery, but when I sent it in for repair on the 4th, it was for dark spots on the screen and some other random issues. They told me it would be fixed in a couple days. It's been gone for weeks, and after talking to people on the phone for hours, they finally told me that they weren't sure what was going on, but that they think it's fixed, and that it is just being tested (even though the site, when it was working days ago, said it had been repaired and was pending shipping on the 19th.) But they can't tell me when it will be back, and that it might take another week. I'm moving in a matter of days, and was told this should be a quick fix. This is really, really obnoxious. And all they can say is "sorry." At what point do they offer me a concession? At what point can the consumer say forget it, this computer is only a couple months old, give me a brand new one off the store floor. Ridiculous. I have more complaints, back my extreme irritation at the situation prevents me from launching a cogent argument.
I sincerely hope everyone else is having a much better experience than I/
- Quil
sierra oscar
Aug 24, 12:10 PM
It was only hours ago I read that the batteries in Apple's products were cleared.
What is the source of this recall?
What is the source of this recall?
MichelleAK
Aug 24, 12:51 PM
ETA: Deleted my first post, as there is now an updated Apple link. :p
I'll have to check my iBook tonight, to see if I have one of the batteries. I'm guessing I do; I purchased my iBook in February and am still using the original battery. Oh well; it was ready for a new battery, anyway.
I'll have to check my iBook tonight, to see if I have one of the batteries. I'm guessing I do; I purchased my iBook in February and am still using the original battery. Oh well; it was ready for a new battery, anyway.
mmd
Nov 7, 04:10 PM
I was talking about the new ones aswell :rolleyes: the refurb shop also sells stock they want to get rid of and that includes old macbooks.
How do you know that you are going to get a new one and not a refurbished one. And what old macbooks are you talking about, they didnt release any new ones yet. Thanks for the help.
How do you know that you are going to get a new one and not a refurbished one. And what old macbooks are you talking about, they didnt release any new ones yet. Thanks for the help.
cube
Apr 12, 01:48 PM
So the US should penalize a Chinese company for building a plant in Brazil? Good luck with that.
A Brazilian plant that will build products for Brazil.
A Brazilian plant that will build products for Brazil.
altogether
Nov 3, 03:57 AM
It was all smooth sailing til tonight and my Macbook had a random shut down. I've had the firmware upgrade since the day it came out. I noticed this time I couldn't just try to power back up by pressing the power button. I had to either take out the battery and put it back in or plug it up to external power for atleast the start up.
Bleh, I was so relived that I wouldn't have to send it in with the firmware thingy, so much for that. :(
So everyone elses are doing fine?
Bleh, I was so relived that I wouldn't have to send it in with the firmware thingy, so much for that. :(
So everyone elses are doing fine?
one3
Aug 3, 03:10 PM
ugh if that phone in movie is real I might die... SO ugly
Ya, it doesn't have a nice 'Apple' look to it.
This is a concept drawing I did a while back .... I'm hoping the Apple Phone is more like this ... but I doubt it.
http://www.applepete.com/concepts/images/ipdo2.jpg
Ya, it doesn't have a nice 'Apple' look to it.
This is a concept drawing I did a while back .... I'm hoping the Apple Phone is more like this ... but I doubt it.
http://www.applepete.com/concepts/images/ipdo2.jpg
playaj82
Aug 8, 12:03 PM
I don't think that they're in any danger of that. This was a sneak peek. It was not a Beta Release, it is not a "features complete" release. Come January, if there aren't major improvements, then I think what you're suggesting could be discussed further. Until then, it's not fair to say that Leopard isn't going to be a success. We simply don't know enough about the final version to make any level of educated statement in that regard.
The only problem with that is from a business standpoint, Apple needed to come out and shine. In previous releases, Win XP was just a stagnant operating system, so OS X always looked light years ahead.
The deal now is that Apple is on a head to head collision course with Microsoft as to whose OS grabs the consumer. I just think Apple had a huge opportunity to get the Mac Community excited or would be Mac users excited and to completely outshine Vista, and they didn't reach nearly as high as they should have.
I have no question in my mind that Leopard will be amazing, it will have a number of great new features, it will be fast, etc... but Apple had tons of amazing products in the mid-1990s that were poorly executed and died before they ever got off the ground. These products died from a business end, not a technological end.
The only problem with that is from a business standpoint, Apple needed to come out and shine. In previous releases, Win XP was just a stagnant operating system, so OS X always looked light years ahead.
The deal now is that Apple is on a head to head collision course with Microsoft as to whose OS grabs the consumer. I just think Apple had a huge opportunity to get the Mac Community excited or would be Mac users excited and to completely outshine Vista, and they didn't reach nearly as high as they should have.
I have no question in my mind that Leopard will be amazing, it will have a number of great new features, it will be fast, etc... but Apple had tons of amazing products in the mid-1990s that were poorly executed and died before they ever got off the ground. These products died from a business end, not a technological end.
vendettabass
Sep 4, 11:48 AM
noo keep the black & white colours :-D, maybe introduce a red too (like the motorola slvr red!) Brushed aluminium rears too so we don't see much scratching!
Gareth
Gareth
xsedrinam
Sep 22, 11:33 PM
It's worth the effort to read the Update. Reuters articule (http://today.reuters.com/news/articlenews.aspx?type=domesticNews&storyid=2006-09-22T185622Z_01_WEN5836_RTRUKOC_0_US-MEDIA-WALMART-STUDIOS.xml&src=rss&rpc=22).
bigandy
Aug 3, 02:36 PM
Well I'm back to being a smug Mac user :eek:
as am i :D
as am i :D
BRLawyer
Sep 5, 06:26 AM
For those looking for facts...do we know what that is already? :rolleyes:
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=661453&native_or_pdf=pdf
https://gullfoss2.fcc.gov/prod/oet/forms/blobs/retrieve.cgi?attachment_id=661453&native_or_pdf=pdf
williamlegate
Mar 28, 08:56 PM
I got two of those!
gallagb
Aug 24, 01:17 PM
4-6 weeks
:)
i'm happy
new battery ordered
:)
i'm happy
new battery ordered
Zigster
Sep 22, 04:22 PM
This feels like a story planted by Apple, in order to apply leverage in all the behind the scenes fighting amongst the big players.
fivepoint
Mar 29, 08:26 AM
I don't know about that. Check out #2 ...
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
If the United States were under immediate threat, do you really think the president would have to write a report to congress "setting forth the circumstances necessitating the introduction of United States Armed Forces"?
As for Rand Paul's objections, it's so geopolitically and historically ignorant, it's beyond contempt. It's been hilarious watching the right run around to find a consistent line of attack on this. Congress hasn't declared war since the 1940s.
This is a multilateral action with the backing of a Security Council resolution. The Daily Telegraph's rantings about Al Qaeda are little more than Gaddafi propaganda.
As for US interests, many of you including the racist fringe christianist Pauls, are not connecting the dots:
The entire point of this is in the long-term. Apart from denying a victorious Gaddafi an opportunity to create trouble to his neighbours and destabilise the region, it is to provide support for popular uprisings in order to deny radicalism the oxygen it needs.
It's fascinating how quickly the Democrat party has turned into the party of war... trying to justify it legally and morally at every corner. It's almost as if their anti-war stance for the past 10 years was a complete farce, and was more anti-Bush than anti-war, anti-intervention. Now that Obama is at the helm, core philosophy no longer matters, consistent morality no longer matters, only justifying war and protecting the political future of the first black president.
The constitution was written in regards to war specifically to stifle the power of the president which the founders knew would be more predisposed to war, and to put the power in the hands of the people via congress. In fact, as Tom Woods recently put it...
...here is my challenge to you. I want you to find me one Federalist, during the entire period in which the Constitution was pending, who argued that the president could launch non-defensive wars without consulting Congress. To make it easy on you, you may cite any Federalist speaking in any of the ratification conventions in any of the states, or in a public lecture, or in a newspaper article � whatever. One Federalist who took your position. I want his name and the exact quotation.
If I�m so wrong, this challenge should be a breeze. If you evade this challenge, or call me names, or make peripheral arguments instead, I will take that as an admission of defeat.
We can argue all day long about whether or not war with Libya was justified, you'll talk about the threat of mass killings, I'll talk about the tens of other nations which are in similar circumstances which receive NO American aid and the logical fallacy of suggesting it's our role to play in picking sides on every civil war around the world... but the point here is that it's straight up unconstitutional, and CANDIDATE Obama (you know, the one you voted for) completely agrees. But for some reason, now that he's president you think it's ok for him to switch his views 180 degrees and still are unwilling to admit you agree with Rand Paul even though his position is far more consistent with candidate Obama's. Sounds awfully hypocritical.
This was my impression as well. If correct, Obama has no business doing what he's done--right, wrong, paid for or not. Personally, I'm glad somebody's stopping Gaddafi from acting unchecked--but that doesn't excuse circumventing the constitution to do so.
Yes.
I'm not surprised. Every administration grabs more and more power. I get depressed just seeing how everyone takes it as the status quo and defends it. The Constitution was set up almost as if to stop one person from being able to take up to war on a whim. Well, if Obama has that right, then George Bush III, or whoever will push the limits of his powers even further. I guess that's the power of precedence. If you look at the Constitution, it vests in the Congress the exclusive power to declare war. Things just have a way of changing. I thought Bush was bad enough with Iraq. Now Obama's actions are even worse than Bush's. Obama didn't even put up the charade of making a case.
Yes.
Uh yeah. Saw that on Meet the Press. Paul is only telling a half-truth. Gates went on to say that other NATO countries felt they have a vital interest in Libya, and I think we all understand how the NATO treaty works. Whether or not you believe or agree with that, the fact is that Paul misrepresented Gates' statement.
I don't want to be the one to tell you, but Americans hold no allegiance to NATO or to the United Nations. In addition, no treaties or otherwise passed by these two organizations have any legal effect on our sovereign nation. The UN or NATO passing a resolution to engage in military action does not serve as an ALTERNATIVE to a declaration of war by the U.S. congress.
Also, I do not believe his position was misrepresented. If you watched Gates' testimony before the war, you'll see that he was dragged kicking and screaming in to this war. He is of the strong opinion that this was a bad idea and that Libya is not vital to U.S. interests. His comment that the 'mid-east' is part of our national interest was an extremely long reach in a pathetic attempt to find some sort of overlap between his position and the administration he works for. I'd say Paul's analysis of Gates' position is much better than any analysis which suggests he thinks the war is justified.
ericinboston
Apr 12, 12:57 PM
Obviously companies build outside of the U.S. because it doesn't make financial sense to do so. U.S. labor is expensive in comparison to developing nations. Why is that so hard to understand?
Whoever said that was hard to understand? Not me!
This is a big problem (and has been for 30+ years)...that everything we buy in the USA is made somewhere else...USA no longer manufactures except for our junky USA cars.
Sure...at some point when this all started decades ago, it WAS cheaper to build certain things outside the US...but then everyone got on the bandwagon and now it's the norm. (Thanks politicians!)
The "it's cheaper to build outside the US!" is a bogus argument and has become an evil of our own doing.
If it costs X to build in the US, please don't tell me it costs 1/10th of X to build, import, pay taxes, blah blah blah, to get it back into your company's hands.
We can all agree that some things, yes, are easier and/or cheaper to build outside the US for a variety of reasons. Our USA system needs some serious overhauls to get stuff to be built back in the US other than screws and toilet paper.
Whoever said that was hard to understand? Not me!
This is a big problem (and has been for 30+ years)...that everything we buy in the USA is made somewhere else...USA no longer manufactures except for our junky USA cars.
Sure...at some point when this all started decades ago, it WAS cheaper to build certain things outside the US...but then everyone got on the bandwagon and now it's the norm. (Thanks politicians!)
The "it's cheaper to build outside the US!" is a bogus argument and has become an evil of our own doing.
If it costs X to build in the US, please don't tell me it costs 1/10th of X to build, import, pay taxes, blah blah blah, to get it back into your company's hands.
We can all agree that some things, yes, are easier and/or cheaper to build outside the US for a variety of reasons. Our USA system needs some serious overhauls to get stuff to be built back in the US other than screws and toilet paper.
Satoneko
Oct 12, 04:48 PM
Just an ordinary Mac Setup:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soyburger/sets/72157594228629049/
WOW!
Curious to know what is your idea of an extra-ordinary Mac Setup?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/soyburger/sets/72157594228629049/
WOW!
Curious to know what is your idea of an extra-ordinary Mac Setup?
XaPHER
Oct 25, 11:59 AM
http://sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc4/hs903.snc4/71648_164866660198726_100000261799253_456073_3612241_n.jpg
AlaskaMoose
Mar 13, 08:26 PM
Took this one by accident. I pressed the shutter button inside my car when getting the camera ready to take photos of the Auroras:D
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Space/Auroras%2003092011/IMG_4858.jpg
http://i3.photobucket.com/albums/y51/Rayfromalaska/Space/Auroras%2003092011/IMG_4858.jpg