Nuvi
Apr 5, 10:36 PM
Nobody's using Blu-Ray, in my experience. It's just another way of sucking money out of home consumers. Everything's done online in terms of delivery...'
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
Wake up and smell the coffee... BR is the main distribution method for paid HD content in the world. Also the quality is far better then with any download service.
mencles
Sep 19, 01:10 AM
If they don't update their MBs before October '06 - I see myself forced to buy a PC Laptop- because I really need one for university and I am not buying an outdated product.
hondaboy945
Aug 25, 04:14 PM
The problem with the surveys that they take is that I would suspect most satisfied customers don't fill them out, and the ones that are not satisfied after make sure to fill them out.
This is the absolute truth. People that are upset want everyone too know, while the rest of us go on loving our products. I really try too take the time to fill out surveys that I get wether the product is good or bad.
Please take time too let companies know when they do a good thing, and when they do things that need a little work. Maybe instead of geting all pissed off about being on hold for a few minutes or not being able to talk to a person that speaks English, you could try your luck with customer service from Dell, HSBC, or any other service center that is located in another country. Then maybe you won't be so bitchy. Sorry for the rant.
This is the absolute truth. People that are upset want everyone too know, while the rest of us go on loving our products. I really try too take the time to fill out surveys that I get wether the product is good or bad.
Please take time too let companies know when they do a good thing, and when they do things that need a little work. Maybe instead of geting all pissed off about being on hold for a few minutes or not being able to talk to a person that speaks English, you could try your luck with customer service from Dell, HSBC, or any other service center that is located in another country. Then maybe you won't be so bitchy. Sorry for the rant.
vincenz
Mar 26, 07:34 AM
Summer can't come soon enough!
skunk
Feb 28, 07:12 PM
2) okay, they can pretend to get marriedNo, you are absolutely wrong., They can get married like any other couple where the laws allow. Marriage is not a special preserve of any religion. You cannot just commandeer it.
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
No, I'm not kidding. To the Catholic Church sex outside of a valid sacramental marriage is fornicationWho cares what Catholic dogma claims? It's an irrelevance.
Last time I checked when the vast majority of people did such behavior it was with the opposite gender not the same.So what is the problem? Are you against variation?
Do you have proof that Plato was a repressed homosexual?No, not proof
"Homosexuality," Plato wrote, "is regarded as shameful by barbarians and by those who live under despotic governments just as philosophy is regarded as shameful by them, because it is apparently not in the interest of such rulers to have great ideas engendered in their subjects, or powerful friendships or passionate love-all of which homosexuality is particularly apt to produce." This attitude of Plato's was characteristic of the ancient world, and I want to begin my discussion of the attitudes of the Church and of Western Christianity toward homosexuality by commenting on comparable attitudes among the ancients.
To a very large extent, Western attitudes toward law, religion, literature and government are dependent upon Roman attitudes. This makes it particularly striking that our attitudes toward homosexuality in particular and sexual tolerance in general are so remarkably different from those of the Romans. It is very difficult to convey to modern audiences the indifference of the Romans to questions of gender and gender orientation. The difficulty is due both to the fact that the evidence has been largely consciously obliterated by historians prior to very recent decades, and to the diffusion of the relevant material.
Romans did not consider sexuality or sexual preference a matter of much interest, nor did they treat either in an analytical way. An historian has to gather together thousands of little bits and pieces to demonstrate the general acceptance of homosexuality among the Romans.
One of the few imperial writers who does appear to make some sort of comment on the subject in a general way wrote, "Zeus came as an eagle to god like Ganymede and as a swan to the fair haired mother of Helen. One person prefers one gender, another the other, I like both." Plutarch wrote at about the same time, "No sensible person can imagine that the sexes differ in matters of love as they do in matters of clothing. The intelligent lover of beauty will be attracted to beauty in whichever gender he finds it." Roman law and social strictures made absolutely no restrictions on the basis of gender. It has sometimes been claimed that there were laws against homosexual relations in Rome, but it is easy to prove that this was not the case. On the other hand, it is a mistake to imagine that anarchic hedonism ruled at Rome. In fact, Romans did have a complex set of moral strictures designed to protect children from abuse or any citizen from force or duress in sexual relations. Romans were, like other people, sensitive to issues of love and caring, but individual sexual (i.e. gender) choice was completely unlimited. Male prostitution (directed toward other males), for instance, was so common that the taxes on it constituted a major source of revenue for the imperial treasury. It was so profitable that even in later periods when a certain intolerance crept in, the emperors could not bring themselves to end the practice and its attendant revenue.
Gay marriages were also legal and frequent in Rome for both males and females. Even emperors often married other males. There was total acceptance on the part of the populace, as far as it can be determined, of this sort of homosexual attitude and behavior. This total acceptance was not limited to the ruling elite; there is also much popular Roman literature containing gay love stories. The real point I want to make is that there is absolutely no conscious effort on anyone's part in the Roman world, the world in which Christianity was born, to claim that homosexuality was abnormal or undesirable. There is in fact no word for "homosexual" in Latin. "Homosexual" sounds like Latin, but was coined by a German psychologist in the late 1 9th century. No one in the early Roman world seemed to feel that the fact that someone preferred his or her own gender was any more significant than the fact that someone preferred blue eyes or short people. Neither gay nor straight people seemed to associate certain characteristics with sexual preference. Gay men were not thought to be less masculine than straight men and lesbian women were not thought of as less feminine than straight women. Gay people were not thought to be any better or worse than straight people-an attitude which differed both from that of the society that preceded it, since many Greeks thought gay people were inherently better than straight people, and from that of the society which followed it, in which gay people were often thought to be inferior to others.
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/pwh/1979boswell.html
The most celebrated account of homosexual love comes in Plato's Symposium, in which homosexual love is discussed as a more ideal, more perfect kind of relationship than the more prosaic heterosexual variety. This is a highly biased account, because Plato himself was homosexual and wrote very beautiful epigrams to boys expressing his devotion. Platonic homosexuality had very little to do with sex; Plato believed ideally that love and reason should be fused together, while concern over the body and the material world of particulars should be annihilated. Even today, "Platonic love" refers to non-sexual love between two adults.
Behind Plato's contempt for heterosexual desire lay an aesthetic, highly intellectual aversion to the female body. Plato would have agreed with Schopenhauer's opinion that "only a male intellect clouded by the sexual drive could call the stunted, narrow-shouldered, broad-hipped and short-legged sex the fair sex".
http://www.newstatesman.com/199908230009
Dunepilot
Nov 29, 10:45 AM
No actually, I represent recording artists, songwriters and producers. I am on the other side usually trying to fight the labels for every nickle an artist can try to get. However, because of that, I am on the same page with them in trying to get my artists and writers compensated from a digital marketplace that only pays for a small percentage of the material transferred. My artists only get paid for between 10 - 20% of the digital material out there (the rest pirated), so, anywhere we can get some income, even if through this flawed iPod royalty, I support.
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I suspect you may be trolling, but this is the most moronic statement I've seen on a board for some time now.
If you actually knew anything about the ethos of MacRumors and its forums, you'd know that people who post here are quite vehemently anti-piracy. What's the betting you actually work for Universal or Microsoft and are being paid to post this nonsense? Pretty likely, I'd say.
Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).
I am just sick of people who think that they have a right to free music. Why don't you all think you have a right to free computers, or free software. How dare Apple charge you for iLife?
If all of you on here bought all of your music either from iTunes or from a record store, then, absolutely, complain away if that dollar is passed on to you. But, which is likely in just about every case, you have a few songs you burned off a friend's CD or downloaded from a file-sharing site, then shut up, you are the reason this is necessary.
I suspect you may be trolling, but this is the most moronic statement I've seen on a board for some time now.
If you actually knew anything about the ethos of MacRumors and its forums, you'd know that people who post here are quite vehemently anti-piracy. What's the betting you actually work for Universal or Microsoft and are being paid to post this nonsense? Pretty likely, I'd say.
Oh yeah - for anyone who thinks most music these days sucks, you're just looking in the wrong place. Major labels ceased to produce anything of worth quite some time ago. Dig a little deeper and there's a wealth of wonderful music being made right now (and over the last 10 years specifically).
Full of Win
Apr 25, 02:14 PM
Look out Apple...the chattel are beginning to rise. I hope these power-hungry thugs (Apple) get taken to the cleaners. Sad that Apple now views our location as a resource to be exploited.
Scottsdale
Apr 6, 10:59 AM
I am shocked that anyone finds this as a positive.
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
So you all want a drop from 1.86/2.13 to 1.4GHz CPUs in your 13" MBA? That is a 30% drop.
Then you want another drop of approaching 50% in graphics performance? Remember these IGPs clock in much lower than the STD voltage SB used in 13" MBP.
I find this completely backwards from Apple's current position on both CPU and graphics, and I don't think anyone would end up with a faster or better 13" MBA than the current generation. Apple would certainly have to bring back the backlit keyboard and introduce Thunderbolt to sucker anyone into buying such inferior junk! I would recommend people buy the current generation on clearance rather than lose performance everywhere like this. If this is the chip Apple uses in the 13" MBA, prepare for a big drop in capabilities!
I am still in shock anyone finds this a positive? Have you all read the clock speed? The facts about the chip and IGP in ultra low voltage variants?
mcrain
Apr 27, 02:55 PM
Oh- and you're always objective. You are arguably one of the most abrasive and biased people here, and proud of it.
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
BTW- just opened the same file- no layers. So you tell me what I'm missing here.
Wait until he tells us which right-wing fringe website he was on so you can go read the instructions and try to recreate this silly pointless endeavor.
(edit) Whack-a-doodle website with Illustrator instructions (http://www.nkyvoice.com/2011/04/long-form-birth-certificate.html). Is this it Fivepoint?
Or is it this other nutty site (http://www.patrioticdissent.net/2011/04/obama-long-form-birth-certificate-fake.html)?
blackcrayon
Mar 22, 05:02 PM
I can assure that doubling the 256MB of the first iPad is not enough for people that need a lot of multitask, like me.
...
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I like products, not brands.
Question: does anyone know if the A5 design could've fit 1 GB of RAM, or if anyone else is packaging more than 512 MB of RAM inside of their SoC? Just wondering, it may actually be a limitation of the A5's design(or at least one with a huge cost increase to overcome), but the other side is faster, lower latency memory. I don't know if Samsung will be using a similar design, but I don't think the Tegra 2 tablets have their memory "sandwiched" on top of the CPU cores, so to speak. Or maybe it makes no difference in the real world, guess I need an engineer to explain :)
...
If you just can't recognize how multitask works better with 1GB RAM and true background apps (QNX, Honeycomb), then you deserve to use a limited thing like an iPad.
I like products, not brands.
Question: does anyone know if the A5 design could've fit 1 GB of RAM, or if anyone else is packaging more than 512 MB of RAM inside of their SoC? Just wondering, it may actually be a limitation of the A5's design(or at least one with a huge cost increase to overcome), but the other side is faster, lower latency memory. I don't know if Samsung will be using a similar design, but I don't think the Tegra 2 tablets have their memory "sandwiched" on top of the CPU cores, so to speak. Or maybe it makes no difference in the real world, guess I need an engineer to explain :)
macman2790
Sep 19, 07:36 AM
apple store isn't down yet. I don't expect it today like a lot of people do
Tomaz
Aug 7, 05:12 PM
Yeah, Apple is definitely copying Microsoft now... it's pretty undeniable. Time Machine is virtually identical to Microsoft's backup system for Vista.
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
...
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001...
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. ...
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
...
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
Bingo !
"Previous Docs" from Wikipedia:
...
System Restore, Shadow Copy, and Backup in Vista now run on the same technology (so they are considerably different than the XP versions).
iChat basically got the remote screen sharing feature that Microsoft shipped with XP in 2001...
Mail and iCal got a bunch of features from Outlook 2007 and Windows Live Calendar/Mail.
Dashboard's ability to clip web pages is straight out of Active Desktop.
the Spotlight improvements were things that Indexing Server in XP/2000/2003 already did. ...
Spaces is virtual desktops just like the powertoy MS released years ago
...
Core Animation looks like Apple's response to all the DX and WPF (Avalon) animation tools in Vista.
Bingo !
kingtj
Sep 13, 12:33 PM
He's totally mistaken! The Cloverton CPUs will *all* be 64-bits, as Woodcrest (found in current Mac Pros) is. Intel is not going to ever go back to a 32-bit Xeon class CPU.
The difference between Woodcrest and "Tigerton" is that Woodcrest CPUs achieve their "dual core" status by basically placing two complete Xeon CPUs under one outer casing, and making them communicate with each other through the front-side bus on the motherboard.
Cloverton will be the same way, but with 4 cores packed into one casing, instead of just two.
"Tigerton" will finally allow both cores to interconnect with each other through an internal interface built into the CPU, instead of slowing communications down by routing it off one CPU core, through the motherboard's front-side bus, and back onto the other core.
This was his response:
"Cloverton is not 64, Cloverton MP (Tigerton) is 64 and is still on the drawing board last I heard.
William Shakespeare (1563-1616
poet, William Shakespeare.
William Shakespeare
William Shakespeare (baptized
Tags: william shakespeare
William Shakespeare
The difference between Woodcrest and "Tigerton" is that Woodcrest CPUs achieve their "dual core" status by basically placing two complete Xeon CPUs under one outer casing, and making them communicate with each other through the front-side bus on the motherboard.
Cloverton will be the same way, but with 4 cores packed into one casing, instead of just two.
"Tigerton" will finally allow both cores to interconnect with each other through an internal interface built into the CPU, instead of slowing communications down by routing it off one CPU core, through the motherboard's front-side bus, and back onto the other core.
This was his response:
"Cloverton is not 64, Cloverton MP (Tigerton) is 64 and is still on the drawing board last I heard.
bushido
Apr 11, 04:27 PM
i got the iPhone 4 but also got a new Android because i'm sick of the same old school UI after 3 iPhones and i LOVE my android experience, sure i still use my iPhone 4 for some apps i can't get on the android, but apps r really the only thing that still saves the iPhone. of course its stupid to argue about that on a "mac"rumors site, so i'll just ***** up ^^
Blue Velvet
Mar 22, 11:40 PM
Right, because there can't be any other reason why Blue Velvet, or myself, might support military intervention in Libya, but not Iraq. They are exactly the same situation after all.
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
Although I backed the implementation of a no-fly zone a few weeks ago, I wouldn't describe my position as one of wholehearted support. More a queasy half-hearted recognition that something had to be done and that all alternatives lead to rabbit holes of some degree or another. When all is said and done, my usual fallback position is an intense weariness at the evil that men do.
For the record, I actually supported (if silence is considered consent) both Gulf wars at the start; I believed in the fictional WMD, I believed it when Colin Powell held his little vial up at the UN... but I, like many was tied down with work and other concerns and was only paying cursory attention to the news at the time. Like Obama, I also initially supported the war in Afghanistan, or at least the idea of it, initiated by a Republican president, but since then it seems to have become a fiasco of Catch-22 proportions.
Slowly discovering the real agenda and true ineptness of the Bush administration was a pivotal point in my reawakening political understanding of US current affairs after reading Hunter Thompson for so many years. Disgusted and appalled at the casual way in which we all were lied to, I'm quite happy to hold my hands up and say 'I was wrong'.
Thing is about Obama, I never had any starry-eyed notion about him being a peace-maker. He's an American president, the incentives are cemented into the role as one of using power and protecting wealth. Not that many conservatives were paying attention at the time, but he stood up in front of the Nobel academy when accepting his Nobel Peace Prize and laid out a justification for war.
Since the second Gulf War, the entire circus has been one of my occasional interests, because I've never seen a political process elsewhere riddled with so many bald-faced liars, grotesque characters and half-baked casual hate speech. What power or the sniff of it does to people, twisting them out of shape, is infinitely more interesting and has more impact on us than any other endeavour, except for possibly the parallel development of technology.
George W. Bush is responsible for another calamity: me posting in PRSI, one of my many occasional weaknesses.
TeamDNA
Jun 9, 07:41 AM
RadioShack store manager here and i have some very interesting information if you guys don't already know this. Please quote this as much as possible to get the word out.
We offer a trade in program. We offer the most money on a trade in on the iPhones. As of 9:42pm on 6/8/10 these are the values...
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Now, What do you think about getting your iPhone 4 at the shack? I'll see you there... :)
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
We offer a trade in program. We offer the most money on a trade in on the iPhones. As of 9:42pm on 6/8/10 these are the values...
These prices are taken off instantly from what you purchase(no mail in rebates) or applied to a gift card instantly. Your choice.
3Gs 32Gb - $271
3Gs 16Gb - $210
3G 16Gb - $149
3G 8Gb - $118
The older models are on the website as well, look for yourself...
http://radioshack.cexchange.com/online/Home/ManufacturerSelected.rails?enc=sU4reD6QJWP5MQn1SwFn38CtURe9PcXAJv9fUpYciv8=
That means if you are eligible for the $199 price and trade in your 16gb 3Gs, we will instantly (no mail in rebates) take $210 off the $199 for the iPhone 4 and you will have a $10 balance either applied on a gift card, to the taxes, or towards an accessory, whatever you prefer.
Intrigued yet? Now follow me here...
Not sure if this will be the same policy on the iPhone 4, but the way its set up right now: The day you do an upgrade to any phone, you are immediately eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade". That means ATT tacks on a $200 early upgrade fee.
If you are currently not eligible for an upgrade, but eligible for an "Early iPhone Upgrade" (You will be, you always are, again even if you did an upgrade 5 minutes ago.) Now, that $199 iPhone 4 becomes $399. You can trade in your current model towards that $399 price.
Trade in a 16Gb 3Gs and the $399 Early upgrade on the iPhone 4 is now $189. If you need to, take a sec and read this again so you fully understand.
This is 100% accurate except there has been no announcement made for the "Early iPhone Upgrade" continuing on the iPhone 4. I very strongly believe it will. Also, the trade in values may drop a tad when the iPhone 4 launches, but look at the current prices we give on 3G's and original iPhones, it is still very good. You are not gonna get "eBay money" but you get a respectable amount and it is all taken care of instantly in the store. SPREAD THE WORD!!
Now, What do you think about getting your iPhone 4 at the shack? I'll see you there... :)
this post is a LITTLE misleading... i looked on the site and it says UP TO
118$ for 8gb 3G.. which means it could go for less right ? if so you made it seems as not matter what your getting the prices you showed which i believe is wrong.. correct me if im wrong
cmaier
Apr 20, 03:45 PM
I noticed that the HTC and Samsung cases only share just one patent: the bounce-back one.
And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.
Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.
And the Samsung adds many trademark and state law unfair competition claims.
Arguing that they're the same because Apple will lose them both is bootstrapping.
bibbz
Jun 11, 06:40 PM
Bibbz
I just talked to my local radioshack and they are also taking preorders. He told me he can't guarantee me the 24th. He said he's not sure when they will come in. How accurate is this? I really don't want to preorder if its not going to be there on the 24th.
If you pre order, you will have one on the 24th. That's kinda the point of a pre order. You know, to guarantee you get one. I'd try a different store if that's an option. If not, idk what to tell ya. Like I said though, if you pre order, you'll have one on launch day. On the Evo pre orders, you had two days to pick it up, if you didn't, we sold them and you had to wait till we got more to get one(all my preorders came and got theirs). Launch day and the day after. I speculate iPhone 4 will be the same way.
I just talked to my local radioshack and they are also taking preorders. He told me he can't guarantee me the 24th. He said he's not sure when they will come in. How accurate is this? I really don't want to preorder if its not going to be there on the 24th.
If you pre order, you will have one on the 24th. That's kinda the point of a pre order. You know, to guarantee you get one. I'd try a different store if that's an option. If not, idk what to tell ya. Like I said though, if you pre order, you'll have one on launch day. On the Evo pre orders, you had two days to pick it up, if you didn't, we sold them and you had to wait till we got more to get one(all my preorders came and got theirs). Launch day and the day after. I speculate iPhone 4 will be the same way.
gnasher729
Apr 20, 12:37 PM
No they werent, what apple describes was already shows and build BEFORE iphone. If any apple basicly admits they copied it themselves and should get sued.
Who says? Some people refer to the Samsung F700, but that was shown for the first time a month after the iPhone, and released about five months after the iPhone. (Faked images by Android fanboys won't count in court).
Who says? Some people refer to the Samsung F700, but that was shown for the first time a month after the iPhone, and released about five months after the iPhone. (Faked images by Android fanboys won't count in court).
Xeem
Aug 15, 12:05 PM
Still waiting for game benchmarks...
Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
Ditto. Sometimes a system's true colors don't show until you've benchmarked modern games on it.
spydr
Mar 31, 10:05 PM
Google is really trying hard to anything but their big motto. :eek:
Iconoclysm
Apr 20, 04:14 PM
Copying is copying. If someone else came out with an iProduct you can bet that Apple would slap a lawsuit on them. The Apple record logo was around for several years before Apple computer. I'm sure Jobs knew of the Beatles, he was a long haired hippie back in the 70's. So the logo could have been influenced by the Beatles.
Copying is not copying when you don't even know about what was done before...and we know the story about what influenced Apple, the alphabet. And the logo isn't even the same - it's the name that the suit was over, not the logo. Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Copying is not copying when you don't even know about what was done before...and we know the story about what influenced Apple, the alphabet. And the logo isn't even the same - it's the name that the suit was over, not the logo. Knowing about the record label wasn't on the front page of the newspaper, this was the 1970's...there was no internet, it's more than just a little possible that Jobs did not know this. And you're assuming that logo was everywhere, and you're wrong.
Mikey7c8
Mar 31, 08:47 PM
John Gruber's take:
So here�s the Android bait-and-switch laid bare. Android was �open� only until it became popular and handset makers dependent upon it. Now that Google has the handset makers by the balls, Android is no longer open and Google starts asserting control.
Andy Rubin, Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt: shameless, lying hypocrites, all of them.Can't say I disagree.
I completely disagree.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
So here�s the Android bait-and-switch laid bare. Android was �open� only until it became popular and handset makers dependent upon it. Now that Google has the handset makers by the balls, Android is no longer open and Google starts asserting control.
Andy Rubin, Vic Gundotra, Eric Schmidt: shameless, lying hypocrites, all of them.Can't say I disagree.
I completely disagree.
Going open sounded like a great idea in the beginning. Fast forward to today, and manufacturers have used the openness against the platform by creating custom versions of android that aren't readily upgradable.
This has hurt the platform more than 'being open' helped it and google is right to start regulating what can and cannot be done.
I think we're all pretty lucky to have experienced both sides of the spectrum to be honest :)
hcuar
Sep 19, 11:58 AM
http://playstation3.joystiq.com/2005/07/29/kutaragi-on-ps3-itll-be-expensive/
No comments:
Post a Comment