bigbro1096
Apr 25, 06:11 PM
Well, I have kept $200 in my savings account since Christmas and that's pretty much a feat in it's self. Anyways, I really need the iPhone 4S/5 to be released at WWDC and be some nice updates otherwise I'm going to be upset. I've had every iPhone since the 3G and each was released at WWDC so I don't know why they'll start now.
stoid
Aug 9, 04:54 PM
Anyone with a "new" 23?
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
monaarts
Mar 17, 12:04 PM
And I'm also a Microsoft Fanboy!!! Haaaaaaa Long live the Microsoft Zune the ultimate iPod Killer!!!
I thought you are "going back to the real world, while the debate in this thread continues."???
On a side note, what do you do for a living? Seriously, not where you work but what do you do?
- Joe
I thought you are "going back to the real world, while the debate in this thread continues."???
On a side note, what do you do for a living? Seriously, not where you work but what do you do?
- Joe
Rt&Dzine
May 6, 10:14 AM
Here's a little knowledge. Try to empower yourself with it.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Me too. I've shot guns and was once shot at, and live with someone who's shot guns and is disfigured by being shot pointblank. Both of us are for gun control.
I've shot guns.
And yet ... somehow ... I'm not bewitched by the thrill of firearms.
I know. How is that even possible? :eek:
Me too. I've shot guns and was once shot at, and live with someone who's shot guns and is disfigured by being shot pointblank. Both of us are for gun control.
MacBookPro13"
Apr 29, 01:43 PM
What stage will this be stable enough to use as your main OS? :apple:
kresh
Oct 31, 02:52 PM
What on Earth are you talking about? What are people stealing in the Arn's summary? The modified code isn't capable of running OS X, and until they closed the source, Darwin worked on most generic x86 platforms anyway.
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Because they fixed it with the intent to use it with Aqua. They will be stealing Aqua. I sincerely doubt anyone will go through the trouble just for command line only.
Even the blogger that was mentioned has a screen shot of Aqua running. There's the theft for ya :)
Someone fixes a lack of functionality that existed in previous public versions and you call it "stealing"? WTF?
Because they fixed it with the intent to use it with Aqua. They will be stealing Aqua. I sincerely doubt anyone will go through the trouble just for command line only.
Even the blogger that was mentioned has a screen shot of Aqua running. There's the theft for ya :)
Erwin-Br
May 3, 05:58 PM
Too many people think they are entitled to get everything for free. No matter if it is a new service for $20 a year or if it is tethering they didn't pay for ... Don't know where people get it from that they should get everything for free (or cheap).
I didn't hear anyone saying they have the right to use free tethering, or that they are entitled to get it cheap.
Since when can't people complain about the price being too high anyways? And who on Earth would prefer to pay extra for tethering instead of getting it for "free". And note that I put free in quotes, because you're still paying for your data and bandwidth, so it's really never been free anyways. You're just paying twice for the same thing now, which is consuming bandwidth.
I didn't hear anyone saying they have the right to use free tethering, or that they are entitled to get it cheap.
Since when can't people complain about the price being too high anyways? And who on Earth would prefer to pay extra for tethering instead of getting it for "free". And note that I put free in quotes, because you're still paying for your data and bandwidth, so it's really never been free anyways. You're just paying twice for the same thing now, which is consuming bandwidth.
w_parietti22
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
Is there still a chance for an update?
SevenInchScrew
Apr 9, 01:22 PM
As we've all read a lot about recently, open standard is not open source. I'm sure Adobe and Microsoft have an arrangement.
HA, very true.
HA, very true.
MacDonaldsd
Jan 9, 04:53 PM
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/j47d52oo/event/ has less spoiler - first post!
Don't no how you got that, but thank you !!!!!!!!!
Don't no how you got that, but thank you !!!!!!!!!
ariel
Sep 25, 11:46 AM
...well...I've been using Aperture 1.1 with 765k+ images on a 24" 800mhz G3 and it really rocks!...
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
I'm assuming you slipped and meant to type 20"...right?
Geez... musta been having a wet dream when i typed that LOL
Yes it is 20" and i use every bit of it heehee
Jakerz
Apr 6, 10:53 AM
Sorry folks, unlocked/locked correct threads this time. :D
http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=23036&dateline=1294073881
http://forums.macrumors.com/image.php?u=23036&dateline=1294073881
GeoffRuth
Oct 19, 11:29 AM
Why on earth would anyone mark this as negative, unless they were a troll?
pondosinatra
May 2, 03:47 PM
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Apparently you've never been to Calgary...
Apparently you've never been to Calgary...
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I don't understand people who think the next iPhone should be called 4S (and some think 4GS, wth?)
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
Lord Blackadder
Jul 28, 05:48 PM
I think we have to start somewhere. Whether we like it or not, diesel/petroleum aren't going to last forever so sooner or later something has to change.
I completely agree.
If a critical mass of electric cars is reached, it'll start to make business sense to develop charging stations (or stations with stocks of swappable cells?) on major routes.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
If we wait for these charging stations to appear before starting to buy electric cars, we'll end up in a Catch 22. And (stating the obvious, but) electricity for the cars can be generated cleanly and renewably, even if it isn't at present.
You may be right about California & other parts of the US having power generation problems, and that may well hamper electric car adoption in those areas; but that shouldn't stop others from switching.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
emma watson nyu 2011
emma watson 2011 photoshoot
emma watson 2011 photos.
I completely agree.
If a critical mass of electric cars is reached, it'll start to make business sense to develop charging stations (or stations with stocks of swappable cells?) on major routes.
Perhaps - but maybe that would just cause us to burn more fuel at power plants rather than look for alternative fuels...and who knows what that would do to the price and availability of electricity? To me, it feels like we'd just be exchanging one problem for another.
If we wait for these charging stations to appear before starting to buy electric cars, we'll end up in a Catch 22. And (stating the obvious, but) electricity for the cars can be generated cleanly and renewably, even if it isn't at present.
You may be right about California & other parts of the US having power generation problems, and that may well hamper electric car adoption in those areas; but that shouldn't stop others from switching.
I think we should be less worried (in the short term) about hybrids and electric cars and more concerned with just lowering per capita fuel consumption.
Music-Man
Sep 12, 07:35 AM
They annoyed me this time.. I had 8 songs in my basket and i'm unable to purchase them - I can understand with an online store that delays something for at least 24 hours... but for an instant content delivery system it's rather annoying as a customer.
You won't be if Apple are increasing the bitrate of audio tracks as part of the update. It's about time they did.
You won't be if Apple are increasing the bitrate of audio tracks as part of the update. It's about time they did.
NC MacGuy
Jan 11, 08:15 AM
Redesigned MBP's, MB's and introduction of 12"PB replacement. IMHO last years MW was a bust unless you wanted an iphone. Stuck with Verizon so it did nothing for me....
Warbrain
Nov 16, 12:48 PM
Do they have to remake a new "Universal Binary?" Because aren't the current UB's for Intel and PPC? Please tell me they wont. I don't wnat to have to wait again for new UB's
I think it would just be an additional code in the x86 part of the UB. Correct me if I'm wrong...
I think it would just be an additional code in the x86 part of the UB. Correct me if I'm wrong...
nlr
May 2, 02:14 PM
They don't need to track you any more, they got Osama Bin Laden already.
http://cynic.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iPhoneTrackingWorks.jpg
http://cynic.me/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/iPhoneTrackingWorks.jpg
jrtc27
Apr 30, 12:59 PM
Do you mean you like the change, or the reverse of the change?
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
You only have to look at the second screen shot to see why the slider was potentially confusing�
Image (http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/29/162642-lion_subpane_slider_old_500.jpg)
When there are only two options, the inactive option looks a lot like a depressed button.
Apple's always fiddling with this. You have to wonder why they didn't just stick with the old tabbed interface, which is arguably the most instantly recognisable way of switching window views. I guess there's a bit more flexibility in buttons, in terms of their placement� or maybe they're just trying to think different.
I mean I like the change away from the slider. The slider was confusing (I'm a techie, and I was confused at first when I saw videos and screenshots), and the squarer buttons look better than the old style in Snow Leopard, especially with the two shades of grey - they are much more modern and much subtler.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
rdowns
Mar 4, 01:12 PM
Okay, I've long suspected it, but this confirms it. You're just a very dedicated troll. No one, no one would take a poll that's seven-months out-of-date and try and pass it off as an accurate representation of current public opinion.
Wow.
Wow.
VanMac
Jan 13, 08:33 AM
Havent read all the threads, but just thought I would chime in.
Best darn keynote ever....Ricky Bobby
Best darn keynote ever....Ricky Bobby
