fmjordan23
Jul 22, 06:15 PM
Not sure what the fuss is all about. I haven't had the "issues" that everyone seems to raising soo much sand about....but I bought a bumper to protect the phone. It's a device made by humans and it can malfunction.........didn't we know that already?
My iPhone 4 works better in my home theater system than the 3....no interference and no issue....my 3G didn't work correctly half the time. So....maybe the antenna attenuation actuals helps in doors........(kidding):D
My iPhone 4 works better in my home theater system than the 3....no interference and no issue....my 3G didn't work correctly half the time. So....maybe the antenna attenuation actuals helps in doors........(kidding):D
lordonuthin
Sep 13, 07:01 PM
well my last power bill was outrageous. so it looks i will be stop bigadv folding on 1 of my machines for now. i'm messing around with some server stuff as well. so i might get it back to folding when it gets colder
That is too bad, my latest electric bill is about the same as it's been all summer.
That is too bad, my latest electric bill is about the same as it's been all summer.
KingCrimson
Apr 21, 09:33 PM
That would be idiotic by Microsoft.
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
Andrew K.
May 4, 08:14 AM
I really like the tone of these commercials.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
I think Apple is trolling back lolz
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
I think Apple is trolling back lolz
Cagle
Apr 5, 03:21 PM
Steve Jobs describes Apple�s theory in making apps; set a bar for developers to do better...
:eek:
:eek:
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.
gorgeousninja
Apr 16, 11:53 AM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
No, that is exactly my point, people were not thinking along those lines at all. You can name any phone from the last ten years if you want, and you might as well include Alexander Graham-Bell, and Star Trek. When the iPhone debuted everyone got interested, but just saying that it was 'only because it was Apple' is being extremely disingenuous.
There were also many 'experts' saying that Apple were going to fall flat on it's face trying to take on the 'big boys' of Nokia and Motorola et al.
This is the same roundabout argument that has gone on since Apple started, 'Oh, it wasn't them it was Xerox, Riva, Sony, MS etc etc. Why is it so hard for some to give credit where it is due, and instead try to rubbish everything. It just seems so petty.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
No, that is exactly my point, people were not thinking along those lines at all. You can name any phone from the last ten years if you want, and you might as well include Alexander Graham-Bell, and Star Trek. When the iPhone debuted everyone got interested, but just saying that it was 'only because it was Apple' is being extremely disingenuous.
There were also many 'experts' saying that Apple were going to fall flat on it's face trying to take on the 'big boys' of Nokia and Motorola et al.
This is the same roundabout argument that has gone on since Apple started, 'Oh, it wasn't them it was Xerox, Riva, Sony, MS etc etc. Why is it so hard for some to give credit where it is due, and instead try to rubbish everything. It just seems so petty.
lordonuthin
May 11, 12:34 PM
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
False alarm it was a single threaded a0 work unit, grrrr :mad:
and now it's back to a3's...
False alarm it was a single threaded a0 work unit, grrrr :mad:
and now it's back to a3's...
63dot
Mar 3, 08:55 PM
The GOP is self-destructing at the worst possible time for future prospects in their party for 2012.
In a few months, GOP candidates will be starting their campaigns and the GOP today has just given individual candidates reasons to finger point at each other in what will probably be some vicious primaries.
And we all know how that will go. At least us liberals can fight like cats and dogs in the democratic, green, and left-leaning parties and make up in time for the election, but GOP primary opponents have traditionally held grudges against each other for life.
I don't know if establishment republicans will try and blame tea party republicans for the meltdown or vice versa, but without a unified front, the GOP is sunk nationwide for 2012.
After this set of debacles, it will be pretty easy to see the GOP does not have its nations interests at stake.
In a few months, GOP candidates will be starting their campaigns and the GOP today has just given individual candidates reasons to finger point at each other in what will probably be some vicious primaries.
And we all know how that will go. At least us liberals can fight like cats and dogs in the democratic, green, and left-leaning parties and make up in time for the election, but GOP primary opponents have traditionally held grudges against each other for life.
I don't know if establishment republicans will try and blame tea party republicans for the meltdown or vice versa, but without a unified front, the GOP is sunk nationwide for 2012.
After this set of debacles, it will be pretty easy to see the GOP does not have its nations interests at stake.
Eduardo1971
Nov 24, 02:52 AM
I'll go for the 4GB Pink nano for my girlfriend ($21.00 discount).
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
I *might* buy Photoshop Elements (BUT it is not Universal Binary) for $68.00.
The Shure E4C 'phones are $61.95 less!
Umm...:o
EagerDragon
Sep 25, 11:59 AM
Just FYI, I'm running Aperture with 17k+ images on an iMac 24" 2.1ghz G5 - sometimes slow, but heck i'm doing it and drooling over the 1.5 update
Sorry but last I checked, the 24" iMac does not use a G5.
Sorry but last I checked, the 24" iMac does not use a G5.
Silverfist
May 4, 01:53 AM
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
You mean like that new one for the Droid Charge, where they have that futuristic setting, and with the one glowing white sphere representing the Android OS, and the red glowing sphere representing 4G, and the Droid Charge is the result when they collide?
I can see the tagline now... "The all-new Droid Charge, by Samsung... it's like your two balls getting mashed together."
Man, I should totally be in marketing.
.
You mean like that new one for the Droid Charge, where they have that futuristic setting, and with the one glowing white sphere representing the Android OS, and the red glowing sphere representing 4G, and the Droid Charge is the result when they collide?
I can see the tagline now... "The all-new Droid Charge, by Samsung... it's like your two balls getting mashed together."
Man, I should totally be in marketing.
.
snberk103
Apr 15, 10:35 PM
Whoa, is this a contest for the longest post?
Count me absent.
No, why? :)
Count me absent.
No, why? :)
zim
Nov 24, 08:17 AM
Huge saving on airport express. New Airport Ultra Express (802.11n) at Macworld!
Confirmed! :)
Can you please tell us where you heard that? Regardless, I think I will still go with the sale and get another Express. Don't base it on the sale because they have had the Expresses on sale for the last two black Fridays.
Confirmed! :)
Can you please tell us where you heard that? Regardless, I think I will still go with the sale and get another Express. Don't base it on the sale because they have had the Expresses on sale for the last two black Fridays.
Aniej
Jan 5, 11:09 AM
isn't there perhaps an easier solution to this? Why don't we either talk to one of the moderators on here or someone who doesn't mind can go onto apple's website and the direct link to the feed when it is up.
RichP
Oct 19, 11:11 AM
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
Damn! Can only wonder what it cost back then..those were dark days back then...
Do the math. :)
Damn! Can only wonder what it cost back then..those were dark days back then...
Play Ultimate
Oct 3, 01:46 PM
This is a little disappointing that Steve is confirming to keynote MWSF 2007 when it's just October, which means he probably wants us to wait (I hope not). :(
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
Besides, hasn't Steve keynoted MWSF every year?
MWSF needs confirmation for thier marketing materials.
I still believe that there will be some type of announcement, on something, before Thanksgiving.
Mac.World
Apr 17, 01:43 PM
Being gay for most of human history has been pretty difficult. To not touch on that is really stupid and shows a bias that when it comes to history, should not be shown.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
You do realize that homosexuality is not new and in fact was prevalent throughout ancient Greece, Rome and Egypt. It wasn't until Christianity took root and became prevalent that homosexuality was looked down upon. You can thank religion for that (Leviticus 18:22). So in fact, for most of human history homosexuality was seen as no different from heterosexuality.
�algiris
May 2, 09:37 AM
Screenshot fail :) build number in Quicklook titlebar.
rkahl
Mar 17, 10:14 AM
LOL, has anyone copied and forwarded this thread to their local FBI? I'm sure they have already obtained the court order to get his ip address. Then a few weeks will pass before he gets served!
mgguy
Mar 3, 09:35 PM
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:41 PM
Any one that proposes using diesel or gas because of the impact it "might" have on our national grid (which by the way depends on where you live, i.e. Nuclear power plants for California, renewable hydro-electric for Las Vegas, etc...) pales in comparison to incidents like... oh say... the GULF OIL SPILL!!! What did that cost so far? Tens of billions. Not to mention the amount of lives it has ruined! Wonder how many electric cars could have been made and powered over the course of a year on that bill?
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
I only propose using diesel or gasoline engine until they can be replaced or heavily augmented - and more particularly, I was advocating more efficent diesel cars because the fact is we are stuck with internal combustion cars for the near/medium-term. Some people seem eager to ignore the internal combustion engine entirely and jump straight to electrics, when in the meantime we could be drastically reducing fuel consumption. In reality we need to do both.
There is nothing renewable about Las Vegas, lol. ;)
Internal combustion engines should have died off over 50 years ago.
What would power container ships then? Or military vehicles used in the field? Or generators used in remote locations or as backups for hospitals? No, I think internal combustion engines will be with us forever, because they are very useful in many areas.
daneoni
Apr 15, 06:32 PM
Hahahahaha...seriously?
thworple
Oct 19, 09:49 AM
I would love to know what the worldwide figure is for Apple market percentage. I know it says here that its not in the top 5, hence no available data, but it would be interesting to see, particularly here in the UK, as the amount of people I know who have switched in the last year has been huge!!
ليست هناك تعليقات:
إرسال تعليق