Search the Community

Showing results for tags 'apple'.

More search options

  • Search By Tags

    Type tags separated by commas.
  • Search By Author

Content Type


  • English
    • Arts and culture
    • World News
    • Business and economics
    • Technology
    • Science
    • Health & Medicine
    • Religion
    • Automotive
    • Food & Drink
    • Home & Garden
    • Sports
    • Community Resources
  • Status Updates
    • General Discussion / Chit-Chat and Status Updates
    • General Questions
    • Relationship Questions
    • Find Someone
    • FAQ's
    • Suggest a Category
  • Other Languages
    • Español
    • Français
    • Deutsch
    • Italiano
    • Portugués
    • Filipino
    • Polski
    • русский
    • Tieng Viet
    • ελληνικά


  • Admin's Blog
  • The Librarian's Notebook
  • Encouraging Letters For Aged and Ailing Brothers and Sisters Worldwide
  • Money
  • News
  • Business Leadership
  • Philippine News
  • Philippine Belief and Culture
  • In Need of a Muse
  • Kanyakumari Video Hub
  • Keep Awake!
  • Virginia
  • Jessica Bice
  • More
  • Susie q
  • Andrew Clements


  • Community Calendar
  • JW Calendar

Marker Groups

  • Members
  • Marker

Found 11 results

  1. The unlikely pair makes more sense than you think. When buying an Apple Watch, customers have just a couple of choices for bands. There are, of course, in-house options from Apple, high-end bands from Hérmes, and sporty picks from Nike. The latest added to that triumvirate is a bit surprising: shoe brand Toms. Yes, the OG one-for-one company is getting into the watch band business, and worked with Apple to create a pair of bands that each come in multiple colors, for people looking to bring a bit of granola flair to their techy wrists. Toms is still finding a way to give back through the bands, but not via a straight one-for-one model. Instead, for every Toms for Apple Watch band purchased, households in need will be given one year of solar light. In total, Toms hopes to provide 10,000 years of solar light. The cause is unquestionably great, but Toms getting into this space does inspire a couple queries. When the watch first launched, Apple pushed the product hard to fashion consumers. It had a 12-page spread in Vogue, was on the cover of Vogue China, and special editions were gifted to people like Chanel creative director Karl Lagerfeld. That direction has cooled a bit. In September, our sister site The Verge wrote that “Apple’s luxury watch dream is over.” Sales are also down; according to CNN, they’ve dropped 55% since the early 2015 launch, despite the fact that Apple released a new, cheaper version. Given all that, it makes sense that now they’re working with a brand like Toms. Prices are relatively low — just $49 and $75 — for each band. The new relationship is mutually beneficial: Apple has something new to offer its customers that’ll appeal to a more casual crowd, and Toms gets to benefit from the tech giant’s authority and fanbase. “We’re excited to reach Apple’s wide audience and their loyal fans,” Toms founder Blake Mycoskie said over email.
  2. At today’s live Apple event, the fruit unveiled the iPhone 7, Apple Watch Series 2, and the Apple Watch Nike+. The watch — which comes in two sizes, 38 mm ($369) and 42mm ($399) —features built-in GPS tracking, a perforated sport band for ventilation, Nike+ Run Club app integration, and exclusive Siri commands for starting a run. Plus, push(y) notifications: The Nike+ Run Club app offers daily motivation through smart run reminders, challenges from friends and even alerts informing when the weather is right to get outside. Training data, including pace, distance and heart rate are available at a glance, and through shared run summaries, the app promotes friendly competition, even allowing users to send fist bumps to each other right from the wrist. One prompt in particular asks, “Are we running today?” No, Apple Watch,WE are not running. I am running; you are merely along for the ride, capturing all of my personal data, which you will use to expertly nag me at a later date.
  3. How do I uninstall an app at my Mac? Thank you
  4. And the tech giant has created an app to fix that The new Apple Watch will include the Breathe app — Screencap from Apple's web site The third iteration of the Apple Watch, unveiled today at the company’s Worldwide Developer Conference (WWDC), will have a number of new apps focused on health, allowing it to compete more directly with wearables like Fitbit. Its new Activity app will help athletes share results with their friends; another is specially designed to track the activity of athletes bound to wheelchairs. But, as Jay Blahnik, Apple’s director of fitness and health technologies said in his presentation today, there’s more to health than fitness. The new Breathe app is designed to help stressed-out users relax. Several times throughout the day, the app will ping the user, saying it’s time to take a minute to breathe. The user can hit the snooze button, so the reminder comes back later if they’re in the middle of something, or they can start the exercises then. Using animations and vibrations, the app then guides the user through deep breathing exercises that last between one and five minutes. The watch detects the user’s heart rate, which shows up on the screen, to see how the exercises are working. Deep breathing isn’t a new technique—it’s been incorporated into millennia-old practices like meditation and yoga. Although a quote from Deepak Chopra, whoGizmodo calls a “noted bullshitter,” was included in Blahnik’s presentation, the science backing up the benefits of breathing exercises is rock solid. Over the past few decades, multiple studies have shown that deep breathing can help ease symptoms of mental illnesses such as anxiety, stress, and depression, as well as physiological ailments such as pain (even during childbirth) andrecovery after heart surgery. “You can influence asthma; you can influence chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; you can influence heart failure,” Mladen Golubic, an internist at the Cleveland Clinic’s Center for Integrative Medicine, told NPR. “There are studies that show that people who practice breathing exercises and have those conditions — they benefit.” Here’s the thing, though—if you’re stressed about doing your exercises right, or if some digital system repeatedly diverts your attention while you’re occupied with something else, then there’s no point. But for Apple Watch users who could use a little mental health break throughout the day, this app might just be a game changer. Source:
  5. Apple is deepening its ties in China with a $1 billion investment in ride-hailing company Didi. Bloomberg's Tim Higgins examines the deal and what it could mean for Apple in China.
  6. Where do I get the Watchtower Library in Spanish for Mac? How do I get the files to install in Mac? My Mac does not have a CD-ROM Drive
  7. Cookie Monster!
  8. Apple's legal battle with the FBI is shaping up to be the corporate personhood case of the year. Like 2010's Citizens United or 2014's Hobby Lobby, the case raises deep questions about how far we want to travel in granting more and more constitutional rights to corporations. Most people following the case -- in which a federal judge ordered Apple to give the FBI technical assistance to help it access an encrypted iPhone used by one of the alleged San Bernardino shooters -- are primarily interested in who wins, not howthey win. But the legal issues go beyond the particular facts, or even broader concerns about public safety, privacy and encryption. That's because Apple and itsallies have raised some fairly weird questions. If a law requires a company to write software code over its objection, does the law compel "speech"? Do corporations have "liberty"? Can a corporation be enslaved? To be sure, most of Apple's legal argument focuses on whether or not Congress has authorized federal courts to issue the type of order involved here. The judge relied on a broadly written (but quite old) law called the All Writs Act that begs for some interpretation. Apple contends, with some force, that the All Writs Act shouldn't be interpreted to give judges this authority. A federal judge in New York agreed with this interpretation in an unrelated drug case (now under appeal). So Apple and many of its allies argue that the question of how far the law should go in requiring companies to provide technical assistance to the government in accessing encrypted phones should be decided by Congress, not the courts. But Apple also insists that, whatever Congress might have said or might say in the future, it can't require Apple to help the FBI, because that would violate the ultimate trump card: corporate constitutional rights. Apple's first constitutional claim is that the court order violates the company's First Amendment right to freedom of speech. According to Apple, the order compels "speech" because complying would require the company to write software code (tweaks to the iOS operating system) that the company would rather not write. This type of compelled speech argument stems from a seminal 1943 Supreme Courtcase about Jehovah's Witnesses who objected to forced recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance. As the court then explained, "No official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox in politics, nationalism, religion, or other matters of opinion or force citizens to confess by word or act their faith therein." The connection to the iPhone case may seem hazy, but courts have lately been treating corporations likereligious objectors, even in the narrow context of stock market disclosure laws. An amicus brief from industry giants including Amazon, Facebook, Google and Microsoft summarizes the compelled speech theory here: "The government seeks to force Apple and its engineers to write software -- that is, to engage in protected speech -- against their will." But in the information age, many laws require corporations to write software "against their will." Laws that govern everything from air pollution to the stock market increasingly require companies to submit compliance data in electronicformats. Complying with these laws will often involve writing code that company executives and staff might prefer not to write. (Even an Excel formula or a shortscript written by the company's IT department is software code.) Writing code to comply with legal requirements is a cost of doing business in the modern world. Apple's First Amendment argument, if accepted, could create a new "writing code" excuse for corporate objectors. That's not far-fetched. Right now, the packaged food industry is suing Vermont over a state law requiring labels on food produced with genetically engineered ingredients. The companies say the law violates their right not to "speak." They alsonote that complying with the law would require expensive changes to inventory, labeling and distribution systems. They probably didn't think to argue that these changes would also require writing new software code, or that the fact that they would need to write new code is a separate First Amendment violation, but they're surely watching Apple's case unfold. Apple's second constitutional argument cites the Fifth Amendment, which says that no "person" can be "deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." According to Apple, requiring technical assistance here would deprive it of "liberty." So far, though, corporate personhood hasn't swallowed the due process clause. Longstanding precedent -- stemming from an insurance company's attempt to challenge a consumer protection law making it harder for insurers to deny life insurance coverage -- holds that due process protects "the liberty of natural, not artificial, persons." Apple cites stirring Supreme Court language about "protection of the individual," but that gives away the game. Apple isn't an "individual," and as an artificial legal entity, it doesn't have the "unalienable rights" of "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness." The final (and most colorful) corporate personhood argument comes from an amicus brief by Lavabit, a software company that had its own run-in with the US government over encryption. Lavabit contends that a court order violates theThirteenth Amendment, which was passed to end slavery. Under Lavabit's theory, the Thirteenth Amendment prohibits "forcing labor" on a corporation. But its argument is so broad that it could also apply to emergency cleanup orders under the federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Companies facing these orders, like a drilling company accused of contaminating Texas groundwater, sometimes resist these orders. Giving them a Thirteenth Amendment argument would only encourage recalcitrance. Requiring a corporation to assist the government over its objection shouldn't be taken lightly. But it's hardly unprecedented. During and after World War II, the US government often requisitioned materials needed by the armed forces, such as silk for parachutes. Even today, the Selective Service Act gives the government the authority to order factories to manufacture materials for the military in time of need. The law reflects political compromises on everything from how to compensate companies to whether there should be a special role for steel. But it has never been understood as violating any "constitutional rights" of silk or steel manufacturers. The real danger of these First, Fifth and Thirteenth Amendment arguments is that constitutional theories usually escape the confines of their original cases. The historical origins of corporate personhood trace back to a case about railroad taxes.Citizens United itself began as a case about a nonprofit making a documentary for video on demand, and wound up creating a new corporate right to spend unlimited amounts of money to influence elections. None of this is to say that Apple shouldn't win in this particular case. It might well be right about the extent of the All Writs Act, and there are other arguments that could support its position, too. But expanding corporate personhood could lead us into far more perilous territory than Apple reveals. Source:
  9. With it's recent move to handle customer service via Twitter... this brings up the above question. I have wondered for a long time why Apple has never entered the social media game. Maybe they wanted to let it play out first? Maybe they wanted to watch the continued demise of Google +? I have been saying for over a year that I expect Apple will buy Twitter and will even more tightly integrate it into it's OS's. What do you think? Why have they stayed out for so long?