Mikey7c8
Mar 31, 08:49 PM
When they go shopping and see a brand new Android phone running a better OS with more apps than they had before, they will simply buy it. Especially since there will continue to be two for one offers and lots of competition
Seriously, what a crock of ****.
Seriously, what a crock of ****.
faroZ06
Apr 8, 12:34 AM
I am confused about this. Did Best Buy get iPads but tell customers that they don't have them? So now Apple pulled the iPads from the shelves, but there weren't any on the shelves...
Why would they do that :confused:?
Why would they do that :confused:?
marksman
Mar 22, 01:31 PM
Blackberry playbook = The IPad 2 killer - you heard it here first.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
Look at the specs, their greater or equal to the iPad 2 with the exception of battery life.
Yeah a 50% smaller screen for the same price and less battery life is certainly going to crush the iPad2.
guffman
Aug 6, 01:43 PM
As Apple applied for the trademark, it will not be approved.
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Um, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.2.2
It is up to Apple how they want to proceed. A fight that can't win, no matter how much money they have.
Mac Pro has been the premier Mac dealer in the same county as Apple since 1988. Out of all the names for this new line of computers, why choose one that they know they cannot have.
We are already getting countless support calls for the macbook pro. It seems they assume we made them When we can't help them, they seem to get very upset.
Mac Pro is in a position to file for a court order not to release any computer that bears our name.
So get ready WWDC, we will be watching.
Mike Ajlouny
President
MAC-PRO.com
Um, http://tess2.uspto.gov/bin/showfield?f=doc&state=odbjam.2.2
Androidpwns
Mar 22, 02:55 PM
Sorry, completely forgot about that.
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
iOS rocks in apps, but it does suck *** in terms of notifications and true multitasking.
Apple should've been the ones to buy Palm.
Spot on post :D
REDolution
Apr 12, 12:49 PM
This was a very good blog post.
I agree, great read
I agree, great read
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 05:50 PM
Here we have an article laying out the case for non intervention (http://english.aljazeera.net/indepth/opinion/2011/03/2011322135442593945.html) by a Princeton law professor (emeritus) published by Al Jazeera. A worthy read, and here are two exerpts I've commented on.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
In effect, overall historical trends vindicate trust in the dynamics of self-determination, even if short-term disasters may and do occur, and similarly underscores the problematic character of intervention, even given the purest of motivations, which rarely, if ever, exists in world politics.
I find it hard to disagree with this, but watching Gaddafi strongarm his way back into authority is a very bitter pill to swallow - plus, historical trends also suggest that other nations rarely resist the temptation to intervene when they feel they have something to gain by intervention (be it increased political influence, territorial gains, economic interests etc). The current structure of the UN is unable to prevent this. Also, even without direct intervention, the process of self-determination does not exist in a total vaccum. I wonder how the author regards more passive measures such as official censure, economic sanctions, asset-freezing etc etc? Do he consider those to be intereferences to self-determination?
The Charter in Article 2(7) accepts the limitation on UN authority to intervene in matters "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of member states unless there is a genuine issue of international peace and security present, which there was not, even in the claim, which was supposedly motivated solely to protect the civilian population of Libya.
But such a claim was patently misleading and disingenuous as the obvious goals, as manifest from the scale and character of military actions taken, were minimally to protect the armed rebels from being defeated, and possibly destroyed, and maximally, to achieve a regime change resulting in a new governing leadership that was friendly to the West, including buying fully into its liberal economic geopolitical policy compass.
Using a slightly altered language, the UN Charter embedded a social contract with its membership that privileged the politics of self-determination and was heavily weighted against the politics of intervention.
Neither position is absolute, but what seems to have happened with respect to Libya is that intervention was privileged and self-determination cast aside.
It is an instance of normatively dubious practise trumping the legal/moral ethos of containing geopolitical discretion with binding rules governing the use of force and the duty of non-intervention.
We do not know yet what will happen in Libya, but we do know enough to oppose such a precedent that exhibits so many unfortunate characteristics.
It is time to restore the global social contract between territorial sovereign states and the organised international community, which not only corresponds with the outlawry of aggressive war but also reflect the movement of history in support of the soft power struggles of the non-Western peoples of the world.
I do agree with him that it would be foolish not to recognize that the ultimate goal here is - yet again - regime change regardless of what the official statements and resolutions state.
But while the author adheres to a legal argument, reality is more expansive in my mind. Isn't the UN, by it's very nature, interventionalist on some level? Also, at what point does outside influence affect "self-determination" to the point that it is no longer that? Surely there will always be outside influence - but when does it interfere with self-determination?
Of course, all of these considerations are irrelevant if you are against the concept of the UN or even foreign alliances, as a vocal minority of conservatives are in the US. I imagine they'd prefer to let the "free market" somehow decide what happens.
eoblaed
Apr 25, 02:48 PM
Thinking it's only stored on the device and not used by Apple is naive. What's the point of logging your every location if it's not going to be used in some way.
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
When you bought your device (even if you didn't purchase one, I'm speaking to the general 'you'), you knew that it had GPS capabilities. You knew that the phone knew where you were at any given time.
You also knew it had network capabilities. Nothing stops any GPS device with networking capabilities from broadcasting this data without you knowing. We trust the manufacturers of these devices to not do that.
Saying you don't trust Apple/Google/etc to not secretly broadcast your data just because it's backed up like your contacts/phone-conversation-information/texts/etc runs counter to the same trust you placed in those companies when you bought the device; if they're willing to broadcast that data because it's saved on your device they could just as easily broadcast that data as it's being gathered, real time without storing it. In fact, it'd be easier to do that since there wouldn't be an easy artifact left behind for people to gawk at.
Seriously, if you trust these companies to not broadcast your data behind your back while you're using it, why do you think they're going to broadcast it because it's part of your backup?
Andrew7724
Aug 6, 01:33 AM
yes, i DO NOT want to see a new design of the macbook pro. haahah :P
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
I just got mine a month ago, it would suck if there is a better design this year.
But... i don't really care if there was just a speed bump with that new intel chip. I'm fine with that as long as they keep everything else the same...
yes I know I'm kind of selfish... :P
No Macbook Pros?? I hope there won't be any. My MBP gets to stay top of the line for few more weeks ;) . Besides, and correct me if I'm wrong, but when was the last time that any notebook was mere updated at WWDC ??
on the front row topic...
the front row remote thing... apple could do a bluetooth remote.
Digitaljim
Nov 28, 08:05 PM
So Universal Music Group must have received something in the region of $112 so far from Zune sales.
amin
Aug 19, 09:42 AM
You make good points. I guess we'll learn more as more information becomes available.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
Yes under some specific results the quad was a bit faster than the dual. Though with the combo of Rosetta+Photoshop its unclear what is causing the difference. However, if you compare the vast majority of the benchmarks, there's negligible difference.
Concerning Photoshop specifically, as can be experienced on a quad G5, the performance increase is 15-20%. A future jump to 8-core would theoretically be in the 8% increase mark. Photoshop (CS2) simply cannot scale adequately beyond 2 cores, maybe that'll change in Spring 2007. Fingers crossed it does.
I beg to differ. If an app or game is memory intensive, faster memory access does matter. Barefeats (http://barefeats.com/quad09.html) has some benchmarks on dual channel vs quad channel on the Mac Pro. I'd personally like to see that benchmark with an added Conroe system. If dual to quad channel gave 16-25% improvement, imagine what 75% increase in actual bandwidth will do. Besides, I was merely addressing your statements that Woodcrest is faster because of its higher speed FSB and higher memory bus bandwidth.
Anandtech, at the moment, is the only place with a quad xeon vs dual xeon benchmark. And yes, dual Woodcrest is fast enough, but is it cost effective compared to a single Woodcrest/Conroe? It seems that for the most part, Mac Pro users are paying for an extra chip but only really utilizing it when running several CPU intensive apps at the same time.
You're absolutely right about that, its only measuring the improvement over increased FSB. If you take into account FB-DIMM's appalling efficiency, there should be no increase at all (if not decrease) for memory intensive apps.
One question I'd like to put out there, if Apple has had a quad core mac shipping for the past 8 months, why would it wait til intel quads to optimize the code for FCP? Surely they must have known for some time before that that they would release a quad core G5 so either optimizing FCP for quads is a real bastard or they've been sitting on it for no reason.
MyDesktopBroke
Mar 18, 07:16 AM
How many times did Barack Obama attempt to draw a difference between himself and Hillary by saying "I was against the war from the beginning."? Lots.
How many times did he attempt to portray himself as the polar opposite of George Bush, especially his foreign policy? Lots.
How many times did he say that he was going to repair the view of America in the eyes of the Muslim world? Lots.
How many times did he say he would talk to leaders of 'terrorist nations' without preconditions? Lots.
The point is... he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. On foreign policy, he's more of the same. On everything else, especially domestic spending, he's much much worse.
He did say all those things - but none of those make him a military dove, since in his debates with McCain he did extensively paint Afghanistan as the "right war," or the place were America "should have been." How many times did he promise to "find and kill" Bin Laden? Even before the debates he was openly pushing Afghan and Pakistan escalation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4
According to the Tea Party, he's doing everything he can to appease Muslims, too. While they obviously are using that as an attack, his speeches in the middle east and Egypt after his election showed a marked difference in communication and downplayed American exceptionalism. Plus, so far he hasn't had a request from a terrorist leader to talk, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not really a fair comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
(I can't good youtube links for his Turkey speech - the one with the "not a Christian nation remark)
Obviously he's failed on a lot of campaign promises - especially on the front of reversing Bush domestic policies like the PATRIOT act - but I'd argue that people who saw Obama as the anti-war candidate were the ones who didn't pay attention. The last part about spending doesn't really connect to this issue.
How many times did he attempt to portray himself as the polar opposite of George Bush, especially his foreign policy? Lots.
How many times did he say that he was going to repair the view of America in the eyes of the Muslim world? Lots.
How many times did he say he would talk to leaders of 'terrorist nations' without preconditions? Lots.
The point is... he talks the talk, but doesn't walk the walk. On foreign policy, he's more of the same. On everything else, especially domestic spending, he's much much worse.
He did say all those things - but none of those make him a military dove, since in his debates with McCain he did extensively paint Afghanistan as the "right war," or the place were America "should have been." How many times did he promise to "find and kill" Bin Laden? Even before the debates he was openly pushing Afghan and Pakistan escalation.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y0WOFrEgRu4
According to the Tea Party, he's doing everything he can to appease Muslims, too. While they obviously are using that as an attack, his speeches in the middle east and Egypt after his election showed a marked difference in communication and downplayed American exceptionalism. Plus, so far he hasn't had a request from a terrorist leader to talk, if I'm not mistaken, so that's not really a fair comparison.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=B_889oBKkNU
(I can't good youtube links for his Turkey speech - the one with the "not a Christian nation remark)
Obviously he's failed on a lot of campaign promises - especially on the front of reversing Bush domestic policies like the PATRIOT act - but I'd argue that people who saw Obama as the anti-war candidate were the ones who didn't pay attention. The last part about spending doesn't really connect to this issue.
tanbo
Jun 22, 05:40 PM
According to Radio Shack, the full, non-contract price, for the iPhone 4 will be $649.99 for the 16GB and $749.99 for the 32GB.
Seems pretty high to me.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150207691250542
Seems pretty high to me.
http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_id=10150207691250542
MACRUS
Apr 10, 03:53 AM
It's not like they threatened anyone. They likely went to the organizers and said "We'd like to make a really cool announcement at your event but we'd need most of your presentation and sponsorship space to do it." SuperMeet said sure, Apple paid, and here we are. It's not like the other sponsors didn't get their money back (I'm assuming.)
I am Sorry but I have to say something here. your ignorance amuses me.
russell westbrook ucla jersey.
Thunder: Russell Westbrook
Thunder: Russell Westbrook
Russell Westbrook needs one.
#0 Russell Westbrook Blue
I am Sorry but I have to say something here. your ignorance amuses me.
Lord Blackadder
Mar 23, 12:50 AM
I initially supported the Iraq invasion. I believed the Bush Administration's case for WMD's - in particular I was swayed by Colin Powell's presentation to the UN. I believed then, as I do now, that Saddam Hussein's government was arbitrary, cruel, corrupt.
Looking back, it should have been obvious to me that there were a huge number of potential pitfalls - lack of support from Iraqis (and to a lesser extent the international community through the UN) being the most critical. While the initial invasion was predictably successful, the entire issue of post-Saddam Iraq had been poorly thought out - to the extent that it was thought out at all. The result is a tragic disaster of truly epic proportions.
Still, even with this tragedy fresh in our minds (and indeed ongoing along with the war in Afghanistan), I find it impossible to look at the Libyan situation and say "we should not intervene". There is much I do not like about how the my country behaves on the international stage, but in this affair I feel that non-intervention is unconscionable.
Looking back, it should have been obvious to me that there were a huge number of potential pitfalls - lack of support from Iraqis (and to a lesser extent the international community through the UN) being the most critical. While the initial invasion was predictably successful, the entire issue of post-Saddam Iraq had been poorly thought out - to the extent that it was thought out at all. The result is a tragic disaster of truly epic proportions.
Still, even with this tragedy fresh in our minds (and indeed ongoing along with the war in Afghanistan), I find it impossible to look at the Libyan situation and say "we should not intervene". There is much I do not like about how the my country behaves on the international stage, but in this affair I feel that non-intervention is unconscionable.
jmgregory1
Mar 22, 03:42 PM
Everyone is trying to get a piece of what Apple created - and not suffer the same fate that all those that tried to compete with the iPod faced.
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Without figuring out how to differentiate from what Apple is doing AND show the consumer how they can really USE the tablet, none of these players will do much more than get a small, very small, piece of the [Apple] pie.
Those people that want the iPad to do what a computer does or what a smartphone does, are not looking at the iPad the way it was intended - as something new and different. Why should it have to do what a laptop does or how a computer or phone does it?
I'm guessing that what Apple is really working on is a way to tie together all devices that isn't just a wired interface (think their data center).
Funkymonk
Mar 22, 05:16 PM
man I may pick up the samsung 10.1. similar specs +thinner and lighter than the ipad + honeycomb? sign my ass up!
jezza70
Apr 11, 03:57 PM
My 3Gs contract ends in June and Apple will be pushing it's luck for me to go half a year without me being tempted to jump platforms instead of waiting for the iPhone 5.
thats a +1 here too i hope this is not true my 3gs is already feeling a bit dated
thats a +1 here too i hope this is not true my 3gs is already feeling a bit dated
nsayer
Apr 6, 10:37 AM
For most people the ipad is more useful than the air anyway imo. Yes i owned an air, the ipad 1, and now the ipad 2 and the air was just a watered down macbook pro more than the ipad is a scaled up ipod touch
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Alas, there are some things that the curated app store will never be able to supply. Case in point: a pokerstars or fulltilt client. And if the ipad's Safari can't do java or flash or allow me to run the applications of my choosing, then it's not sufficiently open for my needs.
Macnoviz
Jul 20, 08:16 AM
Hmm, would make for an awesome rev b. MacPro on or around MWSF (probably "around" as MWSF is really a big consumer event).
Bring on the serious grunt!!
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)
Bring on the serious grunt!!
Why not? Introduction of world's first commercial 8-core system. Live via webstream, with an awesome keynote, and a presentation of Final Cut Pro using all eight cores to maximum effiency with a live render at a geecktacular speed:)
Bosunsfate
Aug 5, 04:52 PM
Here are some rumors I've heard, but don't feel like linking to. Check with Google if you want.
*BitTorrent - Integrated into Leopard as a core technology, much like Spotlight. Used in Software Update and a new version of Safari.
*iChat Phone - Call numbers through iChat as part of .Mac... I guess you could make a conference with a combination of multiple phone numbers/iChatters.
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I didn't check the details, yet, but the Maps and Phone aspects do sound interesting.
The only problem with the iChat Phone....you call through your computer. That's not really true VOIP, where you have an actual phone.......which could mean the OS really leads to a new product....:cool:
As for Maps....hmm...the part I can't see....all the people walking around with a MBP looking at a map....but....you are at coffee shop, checking on email, then need to see a map for some new spot....hmm. still sounds like a new widget...
Good thoughts though.:)
*BitTorrent - Integrated into Leopard as a core technology, much like Spotlight. Used in Software Update and a new version of Safari.
*iChat Phone - Call numbers through iChat as part of .Mac... I guess you could make a conference with a combination of multiple phone numbers/iChatters.
*Maps - A new application designed to compete with Google Earth, but of course be much, much snazzier. Apparently, the next MBP would include a GPS chip so that you could see a "You Are Here" on the map.
I didn't check the details, yet, but the Maps and Phone aspects do sound interesting.
The only problem with the iChat Phone....you call through your computer. That's not really true VOIP, where you have an actual phone.......which could mean the OS really leads to a new product....:cool:
As for Maps....hmm...the part I can't see....all the people walking around with a MBP looking at a map....but....you are at coffee shop, checking on email, then need to see a map for some new spot....hmm. still sounds like a new widget...
Good thoughts though.:)
NJRonbo
Jun 14, 05:46 PM
I would urge everyone to call their Radio Shack store
immediately and report back on this....
Just called 3 stores in my area and got the following
information....
Radio Shack will be giving PIN numbers to everyone
starting at 1pm EST tomorrow.
The PIN does not guarantee you will get an iPhone.
You walk in the store, Radio Shack goes into the
system and checks your eligibility then issues you
a PIN.
There are only a limited amount of PINs available.
These are NOT pre-orders per Apple's request.
And again, the PIN does not guarantee you will
get a phone.
immediately and report back on this....
Just called 3 stores in my area and got the following
information....
Radio Shack will be giving PIN numbers to everyone
starting at 1pm EST tomorrow.
The PIN does not guarantee you will get an iPhone.
You walk in the store, Radio Shack goes into the
system and checks your eligibility then issues you
a PIN.
There are only a limited amount of PINs available.
These are NOT pre-orders per Apple's request.
And again, the PIN does not guarantee you will
get a phone.
Stridder44
Apr 25, 03:40 PM
Wow, ignorance is bliss I guess. These idiots are going to sue Google next, right? Because if they think iOS is bad about tracking people, they're going to lose their s--t when they see what Android does.
citizenzen
Apr 28, 04:05 PM
If liberals would stop 'crying wolf' ('claiming racism') at every corner, we might actually take them seriously and help out when there's actual evidence.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.
Likewise, if conservatives would not turn a blind-eye to obviously something that is racially motivated, we might actually take them seriously.
If there's not enough evidence that the birth certificate issue is racially motivated, then I can't imagine what it would require for something to meet standard.