or Connect
New Posts  All Forums:

Posts by JeffDM

The "white" model doesn't use color on the band, so any nicks would be much less noticeable. The stainless band on the 4 and 4S don't show any marks from use very easily because there is no coloring, but mine will show plenty of marks from a couple drops.Apple has used anodized parts before, several generations of Nano and Shuffle were anodized aluminum. I think the faceplate of the Classic was anodized aluminum. I wonder how much of this is extra scrutiny from the users.
I think it's just a model number. Model numbers don't necessarily have a meaning behind them. The "S" in some iPhone models didn't really have a meaning behind it. I don't understand your resistance to Apple's naming, that's what they're calling the product. I do believe that an Apple exec considered the original iPhone and iPhone 3G to be the same generation.Apple never declared why the A4 chip is numbered like that, or said what would have made an A1 through A3, or what...
Edison probably would have been ruled out on trademark considerations. Naming a product or a company often has considerations not stated in the official story.
I'm sure Apple looked into it, I won't put any stock into rumors of any Apple CF-based products until Apple announces it.
In other words, several companies announced a product without knowing they can actually make one? I don't think there is a point in accepting any announcement without independent verification of functionality.
Ouch, that sounds like a potentially nasty security flaw.
The incremental selling point of the past 3 generations of Galaxy phones has been a larger screen, so one wonders what size they're going to pitch for a GS4.Then you're here to troll? Otherwise, it seems you're lost, because this isn't a Linux or Android site.
Channel stuffing can only get you so far though, you eventually have to pay the piper. It's an expensive way to shift numbers between quarters.
You're right, it is splitting hairs, though I like it when people sound like they know what they're talking about and get the fundamental stuff right.If it's the sun that is in question, you absolutely must turn the camera to get the sun out of the frame. You would have to "slide" the camera at least the width of the earth to do it without rotation. You can demonstrate it for yourself with a simple experiment. Draw a sun onto a piece of paper, and tape it onto an opposite...
I would bet that most of that movement is an unconscious rotation. True linear movement does practically nothing relatively speaking. I'll have to figure out how to explain why this is.
New Posts  All Forums: