NebulaClash
Apr 29, 01:37 PM
These naysayers have been moaning and groaning about iOS forever. They will continue to do so forever. In the meantime the rest of the world will get on with using some great software (many of it free) and getting a lot of things done.
I'm glad Apple is pushing things forward. The last thing I want to see is OS X stagnate. Since we are now in the post-PC era, ideas from iOS are precisely what need to be explored. It won't be too many more years from now when the majority of consumer-level computing devices will be tablets running iOS-type gestures. It will be the expected thing to be able to support finger gestures to do common tasks. Any OS that cannot handle this will be considered old-fashioned.
Apple is doing the right thing by getting the future into OS X. They don't want to be left behind.
I'm glad Apple is pushing things forward. The last thing I want to see is OS X stagnate. Since we are now in the post-PC era, ideas from iOS are precisely what need to be explored. It won't be too many more years from now when the majority of consumer-level computing devices will be tablets running iOS-type gestures. It will be the expected thing to be able to support finger gestures to do common tasks. Any OS that cannot handle this will be considered old-fashioned.
Apple is doing the right thing by getting the future into OS X. They don't want to be left behind.
twoodcc
Oct 3, 12:19 PM
i guess the countdown starts about now :).
hard to believe its been nine months since macworld 2006.
yes it is. looking forward to hear the keynote though. i love those things :)
i really think the iphone will be announced
hard to believe its been nine months since macworld 2006.
yes it is. looking forward to hear the keynote though. i love those things :)
i really think the iphone will be announced
GFLPraxis
Apr 13, 12:05 PM
Go ahead and opt out of your full-body scans... if you're doing it for the "health" reason you're tilting at a very small windmill.
The "Health" angle is murky, but TSA uses opt-out ratios as proof of acceptance. They've put out multiple press releases pushing >2% opt out rates as proof that people feel safer and don't mind the new security measures. So, I'm going to opt out every time, if for no other reason than to drive up the cost for them.
The "Health" angle is murky, but TSA uses opt-out ratios as proof of acceptance. They've put out multiple press releases pushing >2% opt out rates as proof that people feel safer and don't mind the new security measures. So, I'm going to opt out every time, if for no other reason than to drive up the cost for them.
fsudaft
Mar 23, 11:41 AM
I'm a friend of rtdgoldfish, we hang out and shoot the crap and play games. I don't think the area we live in has wifi stealing laws, but you never know until someone gets arrested for it. But since he doesn't run a business or have any confidential information on his computer that i know about, i doubt that there will be any thing the police here can do about it.
He's a pretty nice guy and I was surprised when he called me late one night to tell me what happened, he lives in a pretty tranquil place. the funny thing about this is that it seems like he's been doing the whole investigation while he police just sit around and wait for his information. I hope he gets his stuff back though.
He's a pretty nice guy and I was surprised when he called me late one night to tell me what happened, he lives in a pretty tranquil place. the funny thing about this is that it seems like he's been doing the whole investigation while he police just sit around and wait for his information. I hope he gets his stuff back though.
matrix07
Apr 16, 12:43 PM
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.
It still hurts you, isn't it? When it's Apple that re-invent the phone.
Goes on. Keep denying pal. Let us know how hurt you are. Pundits out there all accepted what iPhone did to the industry. Only bitter person like you can not accept that. :cool:
I find this whole "Apple invented the smartphone" argument amusing.
You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "touch screen keyboard? Yuck!!!", I guess. LOL
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.
It still hurts you, isn't it? When it's Apple that re-invent the phone.
Goes on. Keep denying pal. Let us know how hurt you are. Pundits out there all accepted what iPhone did to the industry. Only bitter person like you can not accept that. :cool:
I find this whole "Apple invented the smartphone" argument amusing.
You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "touch screen keyboard? Yuck!!!", I guess. LOL
asxtb
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
In reality the whole 'Showtime' theme is really just to introduce a new movie staring Steve. :eek:
generik
Sep 26, 03:33 AM
OMFG OMFG! Apple didn't just do Macbook/Pro silent update to Merom!
Whinge again tomorrow, when it is Tuesday!
Whinge again tomorrow, when it is Tuesday!
relimw
Sep 25, 11:10 AM
So... what are we supposed to run this monstrosity on? The G5 QUADS had a hard enough time running the first one. I can't imagine running this on an iMac or worse... a mac mini.
JOKE JOKE JOKE
And to think, I can run Lightroom on a G4 mini...
JOKE JOKE JOKE
And to think, I can run Lightroom on a G4 mini...
Dr Kevorkian94
Apr 22, 10:08 PM
They should change everything if not to just confuse people. Lol
Mord
Apr 28, 12:59 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Really? That doesn't matter? Well then why don't we have men compete in all the women's events at the Olympics? Oh wait, it does matter
I'm not defending the attackers. I think it was terrible. Horrifying video. It's hard to believe people are like this.
I do think this whole "biology doesn't matter, it's how you feel in your heart" nonsense is obviously nonsense.
He has every right to dress like a girl. I don't even mind if he uses a female bathoom. But those things don't make someone female. The characteristics that allow doctors to assign genders to new-borns do not change as people get older.
HAHAHA, funny, you happened to pick the *worst* possible example there, Transsexuals can and do compete in the Olympics, as long as they've been taking hormones that bring them to the typical range for their gender for a period of 2 years before competing. People do change gender physically.
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussion with MattSepeta.
Really? That doesn't matter? Well then why don't we have men compete in all the women's events at the Olympics? Oh wait, it does matter
I'm not defending the attackers. I think it was terrible. Horrifying video. It's hard to believe people are like this.
I do think this whole "biology doesn't matter, it's how you feel in your heart" nonsense is obviously nonsense.
He has every right to dress like a girl. I don't even mind if he uses a female bathoom. But those things don't make someone female. The characteristics that allow doctors to assign genders to new-borns do not change as people get older.
HAHAHA, funny, you happened to pick the *worst* possible example there, Transsexuals can and do compete in the Olympics, as long as they've been taking hormones that bring them to the typical range for their gender for a period of 2 years before competing. People do change gender physically.
I'm not going to bother to repeat myself with a detailed argument, feel free to read back through my discussion with MattSepeta.
gnasher729
May 4, 08:14 AM
Those that use the analogy of their home internet connection not restricting use...well...that's just it... your T&C there does not restrict devices and use. Not the same thing. As for you gas analogy, again not the same thing. You have no contract with Exxon on how you use your gas. If Exxon made a contract with you to use the gas only in the car that purchased it..it would be the same. You could then decide to buy it or find another source (carrier).
Since you mention fuel, you can use the same fuel to heat your home or to drive a car with Diesel engine. In Europe, there will be a _huge_ difference in tax. In some European countries, farmers can get tax free or low tax diesel fuel for use in their tractors and other farming machines. You can safe a lot of money by using this low tax fuel to run your car. You will also get into an awful lot of trouble if you get caught doing it.
In my opinion, and that of Websters dictionary, I have an unlimited data plan, therefor I already do pay for it.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Whatever plan you have, AT&T will calculate the average cost of users on that plan, add some profit, and that is what they will charge. People on "unlimited without tethering" use less data and cost less money on average than people on "unlimited with tethering", and therefore are charged less. You basically want to get rid of the two different plans, only one plan "unlimited with tethering" would exist. The average data usage would be higher than for those on the plan without tethering, the average cost is higher, so the charge will go higher. In other words, cost goes up for people who don't tether.
I don't give a damn. If I pay for a chunk of data, it isn't up to the provider to dictate how I use my data. If I want to syphon fuel out of my vehicle for use in another, that is my decision not Exxon's.
If you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, you can't take food for your wife and six hungry children.
Since you mention fuel, you can use the same fuel to heat your home or to drive a car with Diesel engine. In Europe, there will be a _huge_ difference in tax. In some European countries, farmers can get tax free or low tax diesel fuel for use in their tractors and other farming machines. You can safe a lot of money by using this low tax fuel to run your car. You will also get into an awful lot of trouble if you get caught doing it.
In my opinion, and that of Websters dictionary, I have an unlimited data plan, therefor I already do pay for it.
Oh if only I had the dough, I would sue AT&T into the ground. A decent lawyer and fair judge would find against AT&T for the use of the word unlimited and their unfair anti-consumer practices that have followed.
AT&T can do whatever it wants, but it NEVER should have used the word unlimited, because theyve opened themselves up for failure in a future lawsuit. Someone will do it.
Whatever plan you have, AT&T will calculate the average cost of users on that plan, add some profit, and that is what they will charge. People on "unlimited without tethering" use less data and cost less money on average than people on "unlimited with tethering", and therefore are charged less. You basically want to get rid of the two different plans, only one plan "unlimited with tethering" would exist. The average data usage would be higher than for those on the plan without tethering, the average cost is higher, so the charge will go higher. In other words, cost goes up for people who don't tether.
I don't give a damn. If I pay for a chunk of data, it isn't up to the provider to dictate how I use my data. If I want to syphon fuel out of my vehicle for use in another, that is my decision not Exxon's.
If you go to an "all you can eat" buffet, you can't take food for your wife and six hungry children.
wordoflife
Mar 24, 03:03 PM
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
iliketomac
Nov 23, 08:12 PM
As early as 6am, actually.
yeah that's early! hmmm, what about the new york city 5th ave store? since they're 24/7, when would the sale start off for that store?? ...at 12 midnight tonight??:rolleyes:
yeah that's early! hmmm, what about the new york city 5th ave store? since they're 24/7, when would the sale start off for that store?? ...at 12 midnight tonight??:rolleyes:
FreeState
Sep 12, 02:51 AM
Does anyone know what time this even will be in GMT?
GMT-7
(edited to fix errrr)
GMT-7
(edited to fix errrr)
I WAS the one
May 4, 07:11 AM
Finally... They realized the word "Magic" is childish.
unlinked
Apr 6, 09:14 AM
She'd be taking money for worthless ad impressions.
What makes them worthless?
Anyway, you live by the Apple you die by the Apple. Your choice to make your choices theirs.
What makes them worthless?
Anyway, you live by the Apple you die by the Apple. Your choice to make your choices theirs.
samcraig
May 2, 12:36 PM
Well I'm sure Steve Jobs could trot out the explanations given here and point out it is nothing right?
Email him the argument that this is nothing and blown all out of proportion. He might have a news conference.
I hate this because it feels like I am ridiculing Steve Jobs like the trolls that come on here. I am not. The world simply isn't black and white. And that is more the case with corporations than individuals.
Agreed. And just because there are those of us that are being vocal - that doesn't mean we don't like Apple or their products. There's no trolling going on here (from me, for example). And I fully understand that companies (all companies) act in their best interest most of the time.
Many posters here see the world as polarized and you're either "with us" or "against us".
Holding Apple accountable does not mean we are against them. And if you don't understand the semantics of that, then there's little hope in explaining it to you.
Email him the argument that this is nothing and blown all out of proportion. He might have a news conference.
I hate this because it feels like I am ridiculing Steve Jobs like the trolls that come on here. I am not. The world simply isn't black and white. And that is more the case with corporations than individuals.
Agreed. And just because there are those of us that are being vocal - that doesn't mean we don't like Apple or their products. There's no trolling going on here (from me, for example). And I fully understand that companies (all companies) act in their best interest most of the time.
Many posters here see the world as polarized and you're either "with us" or "against us".
Holding Apple accountable does not mean we are against them. And if you don't understand the semantics of that, then there's little hope in explaining it to you.
mrblack927
Apr 25, 12:09 PM
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
I don't think so... They skipped iPhone 2 and iPhone 3 and went right to "iPhone 4" because it was the 4th generation. Why wouldn't they call it iPhone 6 if it's the 6th generation?
I don't think so... They skipped iPhone 2 and iPhone 3 and went right to "iPhone 4" because it was the 4th generation. Why wouldn't they call it iPhone 6 if it's the 6th generation?
tvachon
Jan 9, 02:01 PM
Well I know that the keynote is encoded and uploaded with 90% certianity by now, but they use Akamai for distrubuted large files. It takes a file about 45 minutes to populate across Akamai's servers globally. Apple won't post the link until that is done.
Moyank24
Apr 15, 10:02 PM
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
Lucky girl.
Lucky girl.
emw
Aug 9, 12:42 PM
I'd hope that anything purchased online would be new stock, since it lists the new specs at the store.
The only way to really tell would be to test it when you received it, or if someone had a some way to identify new model serial numbers.
The only way to really tell would be to test it when you received it, or if someone had a some way to identify new model serial numbers.
ct2k7
Apr 17, 08:15 PM
Anyone to comment on the iPhone pics at engadget.com
Rocketman
Oct 3, 03:54 PM
the VAST majority of users and customers neither know nor care. And to be perfectly honest, the speed difference in 99% of the things people use their computers for are unnoticeable.
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
No comments:
Post a Comment