This will probably kill newspapers/publishing even more and lead to my inevitable lay off. Awesome.
This will probably kill newspapers/publishing even more and lead to my inevitable lay off. Awesome.
A ten inch flat thing in a sturdy neoprene sleeve could fit in a slightly-larger-than-average purse. It's a matter of not having to carry another bag.I dunno, man. Is a 10 inch flat thing all that much easier to carry than a 13 inch flat thing? Either way you need a bag to carry it, especially when there's a gigantic exposed and very expensive LCD screen on one entire side of it. Personally I've never really understood all this fighting for lighter and thinner within reason. If I have to carry another bag, I have to carry another bag
Oh shit. That's cheaper than I thought. Still, though. 16gb? I mean.$499 bitches.
Last edited by Hannahrain; 01-27-2010 at 11:29 AM.
Its $829 if you want the version that is useful at all. Which is pretty much what a MacBook costs.
"All of you coachella 'regulars' have nasty boy pussies and itchy dick4's on your asses.
Why don't you all make like a tree and get chopped down and die. You all have been dreadfully mean to me.
I Hate you. All of you. None of you will ever get to see a womans chest meat or finger blast hott cougies like me.
Fuck you all. Consider this my resignation.
Fair the well, you elitest scumbags."
— Faxman75, who has clearly had enough
Official thread regarding Apple releasing a total fucking joke of a product after a decade of hype:
our school has online textbooks you can access from anywhere. i would think schools would want to go that approach for electronic textbooks rather than forcing people to use one specific device just to access textbooks. i'd much rather use my laptop to access my textbook online than have to have a laptop to type out my papers and a separate reading device to read my textbooks.
Apple says they want to be at the “intersection of technology and liberal arts.”
Considering the negative sentiment on this board alone, I see this device failing for some time.
iPhone OS might not allow for the Microsoft Silverlight plug-in you need for that. This shit was a lot more exciting an hour ago when I didn't know what I was talking about. It would fill such a need in my life.
Fucking hell. I think I might still want one, but I'm offended by how not impressive it is. I can't be an independently thinking consumer and a corporate whore at the same time. It's tearing me apart. I guess the only thing to do now is hope for worthwhile product revisions.
The hosts of that video are the worst. I have an accent and I think the iPad is magic because I don't understand it. I'm the best. Look how earnestly impressed I am.
Last edited by Hannahrain; 01-27-2010 at 12:09 PM. Reason: I don't know my letters from my other letters.
I don't know why people had such an anticipatory boner over this - did you think it was going to cure cancer or something?
Hunting has been part of our society since the first Europeans came over and shot buffalo and Native Americans and whatnot.
The Dive Poets
All great stuff that Apple forgot:
Posted by Eric Zeman, Jan 27, 2010 02:45 PM
Today Apple announced the iPad, a new iPhone-esque mobile computing device. As neat as many of its features are, it is still missing a lot. Here are 10 things that it lacks.
WhitepapersA CISO's Guide to Application Security7 Practical Steps for Federal Cyber Security and FISMA Compliance
WebcastsAutoVirt 3.0 For Unstructured Data ManagementClustering Database Applications to Lower Costs
ReportsHTML 5 Starts Looking Real (Dr. Dobbs)Sun's Future Under Oracle
Bay Area Internet Solutions
1. Flash. The Safari browser included on the iPad doesn't have Flash -- just like the iPhone. That's a huge hindrance. How does Apple think it can get away with no Flash? Did it bake HTML5 in and forget to tell us about it?
2. No camera. A user-facing camera to enable video conferencing and/or video chats was high on the list of features expected. It doesn't have one.
3. No multitasking. It appears that even though Apple has re-jiggered iPhone OS to work on this device, it still can't run background processes. That's a huge detractor.
4. No Verizon. The 3G wireless service that comes as an option with the iPad is not being provided by Verizon Wireless. It is being provided by AT&T. Man, can AT&T handle it? We know the scorecard there.
5. No widescreen display. The 9.7-inch IPS display may be capable of showing HD movies, but it doesn't match the 16:9 standard screen dimension that many of today's devices conform to.
6. No Mac OS. The iPad runs a new, in-house built processor that Apple calls the A4. It clocks in at 1GHz. That appears to be just fine for iPhone OS, but the iPad doesn't run the more capable, full OS X, which is what would have really set the device on fire.
7. No GPS. The iPad has an accelerometer for a great gaming experience, but no GPS. That means Google Maps is going to have to rely on 3G and/or Wi-Fi to locate the iPad. So much for replacing your smartphone.
8. Enough storage. I realize that the iPad can sync content with iTunes and users can add/remove content at will, but 64GB (max size) is just not enough. Not enough for the games, movies and music I'd want to carry around.
9. Removable Battery. The iPad follows the footsteps of Apple's iPhone and newer laptops in that it doesn't have a user-removable battery. So much for bringing a spare for flights that last more than the 10-hour rated battery time.
10. No HDMI. How is it possible that Apple would skip an HDMI port for easy compatibility with today's HDTVs? Stunning, in my book.
I'm a huge Apple fan boy, but the above is pretty much everything the iPad should have been. But I think the iPad will eventually morph into something that I would want. Remember the OS X 10.0? Sometimes takes Apple awhile to live up to their promises
"Without music life would be a mistake" ~Nietzsche
Im on board with ipad, not first generation, by next year with all the shit they need to get right, im innit.
i'm sure there's been discussion about tv's in this thread. i am looking to buy a new TV. i used to know all sorts of things about TVs, but i don't know jack shit about today's newfangled flat screens and all that. i'd like some advice.
i have a 32" vizio my parent's gave me that is an LCD 1080p HDTV flat screen. i like it. i like the picture on it a lot. but, since i've only had it a few months and i'm not terribly familiar with the brand, i'm not sure if i want to just get another one of those or get something different in case the brand sucks or something over time. i say that because some of the remote's buttons have stopped working.
i'm looking for something over 32" but no bigger than 40". i can't really justify spending more than $1000 on it. i would definitely like to spend less though if possible. what brands do you have/recommend? thanks in advance
*edit* also, i'm looking for something i can buy in a store like target, fry's electronics, best buy, costco or ultimate electronics or something. i need someone to help me get it up the stairs so i can't have it shipped to my complex or it would be a hassle to get help up the stairs.
I'm in the exact same boat as Ivyleague so you fuckers need to answer.
Are you happy with LCD as a technology or do you like plasma as well?
What do you watch the most?
Mein would mostly before movies and sports. I'm content with LCD unless you can convince me that plasma has better value.
I would go LCD... I have a Toshiba 20'' LCD, a Sony Bravia 40'' LCD, and also a 32'' Samsung LCD, they are all great and my dad has a Plasma (not sure the brand). But action looks better on the plasma, like when I go over to my dad's he's usually watching a motorcycle race and it looks better on the plasma, but that's me...
Do you want to hook a computer up to your TV at all?
Do you have a blu ray player/ps3 or will you be getting HD cable?
Ok, well if you want to hook up a computer to the TV, you should go with an LCD. At the moment I would stay away from LED TVs, only because they are still a new technology and the benefits do not justify the cost.
As far as LCD is concerned, I think Sony is at the top of the list followed by Samsung. Keep in mind that 1080p is not going to be a huge factor in the image displayed on the screen unless you go with a TV that is at least 50 inches. The only thing you will get 1080p from is video games and blu ray movies, as no networks currently broadcast in that resolution. Other things to keep in mind are the number of HDMI ports the TV has (you probably want at least 3 unless you are going to hook all of your video sources up through a receiver), the size of the room and how far away you will be sitting from it (this will help dictate what size you should get, along with your budget), and whether or not you want to mount it on the wall (this will effect placement, how you run cables, and your budget as you will have to buy the mount). DO NOT get suckered into buying HDMI cables at any of these electronics stores, no matter what the kid trying to sell you the TV says. You can get them on Amazon for stupidly cheap prices and they work just as well as the $60 ones at Best Buy.
When you go into the store, look at the picture on the TVs before you start to look at prices. Try and figure out what manufacturer you prefer, what features each has, etc. and then work your way down in price if need be. This is a big purchase and one you probably wont do for a while so make sure you are getting what you want.
I would recommend Samsung for both of you as they have been putting out some great and affordable TVs for the past couple years.
i bought a 32" Vizio from Costco for $550 2 years and I love it. Never had a problem with it and it looks great. The same TV is now $450
thanks so much. i was extremely happy with my samsung tv that lasted me 9 years, so that is a good suggestion. i remember when i worked at radioshack, cables were our biggest money maker. the mark-up was ridiculous. and i definitely want to see the pictures before i buy. thanks for the info