l.a.rossmann
Apr 23, 07:52 PM
What's the model # on your machine?
When it goes black, is it fully black, or is it just dark as it would be if the brightness were turned all the way down?
I'm guessing this is an a1181, a1211, or a1150 model machine.
When it goes black, is it fully black, or is it just dark as it would be if the brightness were turned all the way down?
I'm guessing this is an a1181, a1211, or a1150 model machine.
pacmania1982
Apr 21, 07:13 PM
My new 15.2" PowerBook G4 867MHz machine. I sold my G3 500 and got this one. Its the last one to boot OS 9 and the slowest Mac to boot 10.5 natively without any fiddling
Shows my apps currently installed
pac
Shows my apps currently installed
pac
Ashwood11
Apr 18, 11:40 AM
Care to share what app you are using?
illy123
Dec 8, 09:31 AM
Thank!
ChristMAC Icons: http://MDGraphs.deviantart.com/art/ChristMAC-icons-188611712?q=boost%3Apopular+ChristMAC&qo=0
Santa Mail: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=santa+mail#/d2fmp4j
Bowtie-Christmas (used for iTunes): http://cl.ly/1F2u3a392N2t3n3Z2A1I
WP (don't know original source): http://cl.ly/0v1K210C1v1m1q053r05
How it turned out:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9104/screenshot20101208at152.th.png (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20101208at152.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
One more question; how did you get the calendar on the wallpaper? PS? Thanks again :)
ChristMAC Icons: http://MDGraphs.deviantart.com/art/ChristMAC-icons-188611712?q=boost%3Apopular+ChristMAC&qo=0
Santa Mail: http://browse.deviantart.com/?qh=§ion=&global=1&q=santa+mail#/d2fmp4j
Bowtie-Christmas (used for iTunes): http://cl.ly/1F2u3a392N2t3n3Z2A1I
WP (don't know original source): http://cl.ly/0v1K210C1v1m1q053r05
How it turned out:
http://img401.imageshack.us/img401/9104/screenshot20101208at152.th.png (http://img401.imageshack.us/i/screenshot20101208at152.png/)
Uploaded with ImageShack.us (http://imageshack.us)
One more question; how did you get the calendar on the wallpaper? PS? Thanks again :)
more...
mnkeybsness
Jul 8, 05:58 PM
for all i know the icons are put in place by the application that creates them. i think you would need to hack each specific application.
CreateColl
Apr 26, 03:24 AM
Same think with me : no more contact with www.pluginlab.com
Sad news !
Sad news !
more...
peterdevries
Apr 25, 02:55 AM
#1 - it has taken them almost a year to work out the paint issues with this thing meaning that they have been putting R&D money effertlessly into a phone color, all for what?
I can imagine that Apple provides detailed specs to the manufacturers of the glass and that there is a bidding process involved. That means that any deviation from the provided specs after production will have to be corrected at the cost and time of the manufacturer, not Apple.
If this is actually the case, than the manufacturer can even be held accountable for the loss in sales.
I can imagine that Apple provides detailed specs to the manufacturers of the glass and that there is a bidding process involved. That means that any deviation from the provided specs after production will have to be corrected at the cost and time of the manufacturer, not Apple.
If this is actually the case, than the manufacturer can even be held accountable for the loss in sales.
Dreadnought
Feb 7, 11:51 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU like Mac OS X; en) AppleWebKit/420.1 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/3.0 Mobile/4A102 Safari/419.3)
@ ORANGESVTGUY: please lower your folding output, you'll be overtaking me within the next 5 days... (GRMBL!! And some censored cursing: $@&#^%!!!!)
@ ORANGESVTGUY: please lower your folding output, you'll be overtaking me within the next 5 days... (GRMBL!! And some censored cursing: $@&#^%!!!!)
more...
Deefuzz
Dec 10, 03:42 PM
classic :cool:
damn.
How'd you do the dock like that? I've never messed with my icons or dock before but I like how nice and clean that looks.
damn.
How'd you do the dock like that? I've never messed with my icons or dock before but I like how nice and clean that looks.
coder12
Apr 27, 01:31 PM
I am not defending Full of Win. I sincerely am not.
But some people should keep in mind that it's entirely possible to love a company's products while not liking part or all of the actual company or how they operate on given occasions.
It's very easy for some here to just throw out the term troll and hater just because someone isn't accepting of Apple's PR, etc.
Now go ahead an tag this with your "-1" too :)
Not on topic here... but I don't necessarily hit "+/-1" depending on whether I like a post or not.
I tend to just go around and move the counters back to 0 :D It's like a game, and when they're all back to 0 I magically win! :cool:
But some people should keep in mind that it's entirely possible to love a company's products while not liking part or all of the actual company or how they operate on given occasions.
It's very easy for some here to just throw out the term troll and hater just because someone isn't accepting of Apple's PR, etc.
Now go ahead an tag this with your "-1" too :)
Not on topic here... but I don't necessarily hit "+/-1" depending on whether I like a post or not.
I tend to just go around and move the counters back to 0 :D It's like a game, and when they're all back to 0 I magically win! :cool:
more...
Sam21
Jun 14, 04:08 PM
I'll either be at Chelmsford O2 or Lakeside Apple, haven't decided yet..
Hustle
Jun 20, 06:18 PM
The headphones that come with the iPhone. :)
more...
Philberttheduck
Sep 26, 09:55 PM
Hmm.. sounds like .Mac won't be free til after '07. :(
AppliedVisual
Nov 2, 02:08 PM
do you have any pics of your own??!?!?!
Er... No. Well. OK, I'll snap a couple with my crap camera. Someone needs to take some good pictures with a nice macro lens. ...I'm not that ambitious, besides my "big" or "nice" camera is still a film camera. OK, that's them... Not really any better than what others have posted. Oh well.
Er... No. Well. OK, I'll snap a couple with my crap camera. Someone needs to take some good pictures with a nice macro lens. ...I'm not that ambitious, besides my "big" or "nice" camera is still a film camera. OK, that's them... Not really any better than what others have posted. Oh well.
more...
AidenShaw
May 3, 09:04 PM
The question asked of heterosexuals =/= asked gay and bisexual men. The risk factor for straight people is risky sex, the risk factor asked for gay men is not risky sex, but sex at all - even once. Its not the same thing. If there was no bigotry behind the question it would be raised this way to all, no matter what orientation "have you had unprotected sex with more than one partner in the last 5 years, if yes have you been tested for HIV?"
Arguments that gay people shouldn't be allowed to give blood? Really? I give way to much credit to society sometimes. Equating homosexuality to prostitution or drug use is so incredibly ignorant.
This. About ten million times. :apple:
The irony of a forum with a very large gay and bisexual membership to ask for blood donations is beyond ridiculous.
Think this through, MacRumors, think this through.
So, the solution for the Red Cross is to ask "Are you hetersexual, bisexual, or homosexual? If yes, do not donate blood.".
That seems like a non-biased solution to me.
Arguments that gay people shouldn't be allowed to give blood? Really? I give way to much credit to society sometimes. Equating homosexuality to prostitution or drug use is so incredibly ignorant.
This. About ten million times. :apple:
The irony of a forum with a very large gay and bisexual membership to ask for blood donations is beyond ridiculous.
Think this through, MacRumors, think this through.
So, the solution for the Red Cross is to ask "Are you hetersexual, bisexual, or homosexual? If yes, do not donate blood.".
That seems like a non-biased solution to me.
iMeowbot
Aug 13, 05:59 PM
I miss this little guy.
more...
bwrairen
Mar 26, 10:45 PM
i wasn't attacking to you, i was replying to this comment:
Gotcha. My bad.
Gotcha. My bad.
TheMonarch
Sep 24, 08:08 PM
thats not the issue i'm contesting, what i'm saying is why do most american parents take issue at their kids having sex, it makes no sense unless your kid is stupid and has random unsafe sex.
Gotcha.
But there are many many reasons they would have a problem with that. The most predominant reason would probably be... Dare I say it... Religion.
Gotcha.
But there are many many reasons they would have a problem with that. The most predominant reason would probably be... Dare I say it... Religion.
walnuts
Apr 7, 08:55 AM
I wonder how many of these posts are trolls? I haven't had any issues whatsoever with 4.3.1. I also didn't have any problems with 4.3; battery life has been absolutely stellar and call performance actually improved in 4.3.1.
The timing of all these "bitching" posts just seems suspicious.
I wouldn't call it bitching, but it sounds like there are a good amount of people with very specific issues. What I'm saying is that if you find iOS 4.3.1 unusuable, unstable, or extremely buggy, then maybe you should get your phone checked out because I don't think that's normal for most of us.
The timing of all these "bitching" posts just seems suspicious.
I wouldn't call it bitching, but it sounds like there are a good amount of people with very specific issues. What I'm saying is that if you find iOS 4.3.1 unusuable, unstable, or extremely buggy, then maybe you should get your phone checked out because I don't think that's normal for most of us.
alphaone
Feb 13, 09:04 PM
I can't remember for sure, but I think there was some debate about this when leopard or snow leopard came out. Either activity monitor or the OS changed how the nice processes are reported.
I'm pretty sure it's normal and folding still gives up processing when required.
Rob
That's what I thought, just thought I'd ask in case I had some weird bug.
I'm pretty sure it's normal and folding still gives up processing when required.
Rob
That's what I thought, just thought I'd ask in case I had some weird bug.
mrholder
Apr 8, 08:38 AM
I bought the whole suite. It's very polished on an iPad. Lovin' it so far. I've played most of the more popular ones as a kid on the Atari. I remember some of them from the coin op arcade in the grocery store where my mom worked. Burned through too many quarters for just a little play time, unless you were good at the game.
Legion93
Apr 30, 04:58 PM
http://www.macworld.com/article/159505/2011/04/angry_birds_140m.html
So are you an Angry Birds game addict like me? 140 million apps sold will surely bring add-on content and new levels the following weeks :d
So are you an Angry Birds game addict like me? 140 million apps sold will surely bring add-on content and new levels the following weeks :d
Huntn
Mar 3, 03:13 PM
You indicated that the rich weren't paying their 'fair share.' I responded by pointing out that the top 50% of wage earners pay 95% of the tax burden. That is completely separate (although obviously relative and related) from the tax 'rate' which they pay.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
Then adjust it down and make the top 60% of wage earners pay 90% of the burden.
Let me get this straight... your definition of 'fair' is that people who make the right decisions in life, who invest in the right ideas, who don't waste their money on immediate pursuits so they can benefit in the long-term, who work hard and earn success, and yes... have a little luck should have their money confiscated by the state? By mob rule? Since you've determined that 'they don't need it', that translates to them not 'deserving' it and you being able to steal it from them via taxation?
Yes it is completely fair. What is your definition of steal? We could call taxation stealing. We could call exporting a million jobs out of the country stealing couldn't we? We could call breaking the union so executives, executives who all ready have a lot of money, can have more of labor's pay stealing.
This has been one of my long term themes. You live in a society for a reason. That reason is mutual benefit. Because you are smart (or lucky) and make the right decisions, and you end up with all most more money than you can spend or put another way, so much money to life like a King, should you? Oh, sure some people after living that way for years, start feeling guilty, and start a charity to ease their guilty conscious.
But my point is from a moral standpoint, how much money does an individual and his immediate family need to live a comfortable life? In this case of the successful business person, they should be at the top of the income scale. But I have proposed that scale be capped and a 90% income tax rate at a high level, say over $1 million a year is completely fair. "Damn it's so unfair. I only have $1M per year to live on, when I could have $10M, $20M, $50M, bastards!" Obviously you think it's fair if you are allowed to live in excess while others do without or do even you have a cap? ;)
Now you can muster up all of your capitalistic indignity and tell me why it's not fair. Which brings us back to my original premise. How much do you need to live on and still be considered a 'moral' person? What is your definition of moral, being a glutton? That is what the excessively rich are.
BTW, I don't hold anything against them, I don't envy them as I live what I consider to be a very comfortable life in the range of 150k per year income. But I am in the minority. A whole lot of people scrape by in this country. There is 'smart' and then there is 'opportunity'. Right now large multi-national corporations are doing there best to take away 'opportunity' from average citizens so they can increase their profits. Not only do they not give a damn about society, they have absolutely no national loyalty. Call them carpet baggers.
So in conclusion, I don't think excessive wealth is moral and I have no problem with the Federal government setting the top tax bracket at 90%. Call me a suedo-socialist. :)
I really like that quote where the Brit said it was easier being rich in the U.S. because instead of envying the fat cats, many Americans want to be like them. The inference being that they are cheering them on in hopes of one day being fabulously rich when in reality that is not going to happen for most of us, but we still support federal policies that hurt average people like lemmings heading off the cliff.
ECUpirate44
Apr 13, 09:26 PM
Just changed mine to this :)
Link!
Link!
No comments:
Post a Comment