BHP41
Dec 13, 08:23 PM
A verizon phone without that ugly ass logo on the front and back. No way!!! LOL. The next iPhone will have hsdpa+ not CDMA. Does verizon need the iPhone. Yes. Will they get it next year. No. To all those that say "I can't wait because I "need" better service". Sit down please. If you "needed" better service you'd be with verizon,sprint or tmobile already. It funny how people will buy the iPhone, comlaon about service then start threads like this. News flash.... A PHONE IS ONLY AS GOOD AS THE NETWORK IT IS CONECTED TO. In my case, it doesn't matter. I don't live in the hills so I have great service from all the wireless providers. I choose the iPhone 4 as my main device for work and play even though I have many BB's,a nexus 1, and a incredible. Verizon is stuck so far up motorolas,htc,and samsungs ass that they can't handle apple. Their too busy releasing and stocking a new android every 3 weeks.
SuperCachetes
Apr 17, 02:48 PM
Adding those decreased time for other things, ideally World History and American History would be 1.5 years. JFK gets summarized as the first Catholic to get elected to president, led the disastrous Bay of Pigs and then got shot, ignoring the Peace Corps and the Space Program. John Hinckley Jr. isn't in the textbooks at all, IIRC he tried to kill Reagan and there was something about Jodi Foster
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
phillipjfry
Jan 15, 12:09 AM
...
"I love practical jokes" is just another way of saying "I don't have the intelligence or sophistication to appreciate genuine humour, but I know how to hurt people".
Morons.
Practical jokes are very possible to pull off while being humorous and not hurt anyone. It's the dumb "jokes" that hurt people (if you mean physically). I've pulled practical jokes a lot over the years and the people I did it too took it very lightheartedly and went home unscathed.
That said, I do agree that maybe once (maaaybe twice) would have been a good chuckle, but the line was drawn and passed after they did it to the moto guy. They owe him a serious apology cause that's just too harsh to have things messing up in his face. He probably spent a lot of time getting his stuff together to stand up there and jabber on in the name of his company.
My .02$, I've never read Gizmodo and will probably pass up the opportunity seeing as how they don't have much regard for reporting the news as they do BEING it.
"I love practical jokes" is just another way of saying "I don't have the intelligence or sophistication to appreciate genuine humour, but I know how to hurt people".
Morons.
Practical jokes are very possible to pull off while being humorous and not hurt anyone. It's the dumb "jokes" that hurt people (if you mean physically). I've pulled practical jokes a lot over the years and the people I did it too took it very lightheartedly and went home unscathed.
That said, I do agree that maybe once (maaaybe twice) would have been a good chuckle, but the line was drawn and passed after they did it to the moto guy. They owe him a serious apology cause that's just too harsh to have things messing up in his face. He probably spent a lot of time getting his stuff together to stand up there and jabber on in the name of his company.
My .02$, I've never read Gizmodo and will probably pass up the opportunity seeing as how they don't have much regard for reporting the news as they do BEING it.
twoodcc
Aug 1, 09:00 AM
well this doesn't seem too good. let's hope everything will get worked out
more...
NorCalLights
Jan 5, 02:49 PM
It's awesome not having spoilers. I think I'll watch the keynote oldschool this year.
slb
Mar 29, 11:26 AM
Welcome to 1984.
This has nothing to do with 1984.
This has nothing to do with 1984.
more...
Thomas Veil
Mar 3, 08:29 PM
While it's nominally leaving the unions intact, it's telling them that they have no more power over their health care benefits or pensions. Those can be deeply cut or taken away at any time. Other things, like hours worked and days off, will be non-negotiable as well. And while the union is still free to negotiate wages, the single real bargaining tool they have -- striking -- would now be a jailable offense. So they really have no power to negotiate wages either. Everything will essentially be "take it or leave it."
I agree, this is going to swing the state back to the Democrats in 2012. And yes, unless this is defeated in the courts or by a ballot initiative, anybody who wants to be a teacher or a cop or whatever will look elsewhere, outside of Ohio.
This is going to be terrible for our economy.
I agree, this is going to swing the state back to the Democrats in 2012. And yes, unless this is defeated in the courts or by a ballot initiative, anybody who wants to be a teacher or a cop or whatever will look elsewhere, outside of Ohio.
This is going to be terrible for our economy.
iBlue
Apr 26, 10:59 AM
What box? Not seeing one here (Firefox 4 on Windows Vista at work)
Like this: 283005
more...
with animal print animal
animal print backgrounds. neon
more...
Download The Background Image
Hot Pink Leopard Print Myspace
more...
animal print backgrounds.
Zebra+print+ackground+
more...
animal print backgrounds for
30th Birthday Zebra Print
more...
pink animal print wallpaper.
Zebra Animal Print Background
These hot animal print nail
Like this: 283005
more...
weldon
Oct 17, 01:54 PM
I realize that the discussion has gone off towards the relative merits of each format, but I'm going to go back to the original statement that Apple is going to support both...
This is non-news. Because Apple is involved in content creation (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, etc.), they are going to support both formats so that people can author discs for HD-DVD and Blu-ray and create fancy menus, etc. It's no big leap to go from supporting authoring content targeted at both formats to supporting hardware to play and burn both formats.
This is non-news. Because Apple is involved in content creation (Final Cut Pro, DVD Studio Pro, etc.), they are going to support both formats so that people can author discs for HD-DVD and Blu-ray and create fancy menus, etc. It's no big leap to go from supporting authoring content targeted at both formats to supporting hardware to play and burn both formats.
pmz
Mar 25, 10:08 AM
Can't believe it's been 10 years. I had my iMac G3 running OS 9 and didn't evenknow about OS X until I visited a friends house, who had the same iMac running OS X. Ill never forget how blown away I was, and that first look was truly the first look at everything that still makes Macs great today.
more...
paolo-
Apr 30, 01:12 AM
Don't really see the point of making OSX look like something that was designed to be used with a touch interface when they specifically said there would be no mac device with a touch screen.
Good thing they are changing it up, I hope we don't get an orange faux-cuir iCal. I can just see what great inspiration that'll be to so many great designers of the App Store :rolleyes:
Good thing they are changing it up, I hope we don't get an orange faux-cuir iCal. I can just see what great inspiration that'll be to so many great designers of the App Store :rolleyes:
Desertrat
May 5, 12:05 AM
Aw, Ugg, c'mon. Sounds like the NRA lobbyist merely said something on the order of, "If you're gonna do this sort of thing, don't do the fine." This issue has been a source of turmoil in Florida for quite a while. I've no idea what doofus started wanting pediatricians to snoop into family affairs, but the anti-gun crowd has pushed for it. (An appropriate answer to such an idiotic question would be, "Well, of course! What kind do you want? What do you carry?")
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
As far as "Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.":
Wrong. Dead wrong. Au colntraire, support for numerous studies has come from the NRA. They've supported Prof. Gary Kleck of FSU, for example, even after he commented that as a card-carrying member of the ACLU that he thought both sides in the gun control arguments were making foolish claims.
John Lott is another. Wright/Rossi/Dalily have published several books about the inefficacy of gun control laws, and they aren't even shooters.
Overall, what I find amusing about folks taking potshots at the NRA--and missing--is that some pro-gun groups gripe that the NRA doesn't do enough. One is Jews For the Preservation of Firearms Ownership, JPFO. Another is the Gunowners of America, GOA, which I myself find to be rather severely hardline.
more...
QuarterSwede
Oct 12, 08:26 AM
I'm not sure I understand the people who (a) don't believe this is coming soon, or (b) don't believe it's coming at all because "people won't use it - it's too small." That's garbage.
Not everything Apple releases has to be an "earth shattering" revolution. Some stuff can just have a niche market and be better than what's out there. They're in it to make money first and foremost. And frankly, if people could carry an iPod-sized object, with wireless headphones, and that could play widescreen movies on a 4" or so screen (AND, oh by the way, carry their iTunes library to boot), it would be the death of the portable DVD player.
No, that's not a huge market, or a cash cow by any means. Nor is it a revolutionary product. But at the end of the day, it's pretty damned cool which means most of us will buy it (despite our attempts not to), and it's certainly another cha-ching to add to the list for Apple.
That's exactly what happened with the iPod. It was just another mp3 player but had an interface that was very simple to use, plus it looked much nicer than the competition.
Not everything Apple releases has to be an "earth shattering" revolution. Some stuff can just have a niche market and be better than what's out there. They're in it to make money first and foremost. And frankly, if people could carry an iPod-sized object, with wireless headphones, and that could play widescreen movies on a 4" or so screen (AND, oh by the way, carry their iTunes library to boot), it would be the death of the portable DVD player.
No, that's not a huge market, or a cash cow by any means. Nor is it a revolutionary product. But at the end of the day, it's pretty damned cool which means most of us will buy it (despite our attempts not to), and it's certainly another cha-ching to add to the list for Apple.
That's exactly what happened with the iPod. It was just another mp3 player but had an interface that was very simple to use, plus it looked much nicer than the competition.
ramram49
May 3, 11:02 PM
- if you asked an iPad 2 speculator, it is $$$ and more $$$
- if you asked an iPad 2 user who want to buy one from shop, it is queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, (endless)
- if you asked the Apple Online shop, it is "Ships: Currently unavailable"
- if you asked the retailed shop manager, "you need to buy this with a protected screen at USD70 and case at US60"
- if you asked the retailed shop staff, "No stock....but we have reserved for other customer, do you really want one urgently? Take it, with the crap accessories at USD100."
-
-
:(:(:(
- if you asked an iPad 2 user who want to buy one from shop, it is queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, queue up, disappointed, (endless)
- if you asked the Apple Online shop, it is "Ships: Currently unavailable"
- if you asked the retailed shop manager, "you need to buy this with a protected screen at USD70 and case at US60"
- if you asked the retailed shop staff, "No stock....but we have reserved for other customer, do you really want one urgently? Take it, with the crap accessories at USD100."
-
-
:(:(:(
more...
SkyStudios
May 2, 02:01 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
i love your post, we are in trouble if this was not intentional, security issues for sure haha
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/18/what-steve-jobs-said-about-google/
lol
i love your post, we are in trouble if this was not intentional, security issues for sure haha
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/18/what-steve-jobs-said-about-google/
lol
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 04:55 PM
yes. what's your point?
Then it should be pretty obvious that those comments can't be misinterpreted as compliments. Hell, I don't even understand why people make such a big deal out of what phone someone else has in the first place, thats why I made this thread, to see if I was the only one that experiences this. It seems that there are people that genuinely dislike Apple products and label anyone who purchases one as stuck up or a fanboy, which is so silly. This is my own personal experience and obviously doesn't apply to everyone.
I'm also struggling to grasp how anything in my posts can depict me as a 'fanboy'. This is in fact my first iPhone and the only other Apple product I've ever owned is my Macbook Pro. So I hardly think I'm a 'fanboy'. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.
Then it should be pretty obvious that those comments can't be misinterpreted as compliments. Hell, I don't even understand why people make such a big deal out of what phone someone else has in the first place, thats why I made this thread, to see if I was the only one that experiences this. It seems that there are people that genuinely dislike Apple products and label anyone who purchases one as stuck up or a fanboy, which is so silly. This is my own personal experience and obviously doesn't apply to everyone.
I'm also struggling to grasp how anything in my posts can depict me as a 'fanboy'. This is in fact my first iPhone and the only other Apple product I've ever owned is my Macbook Pro. So I hardly think I'm a 'fanboy'. You seem to be jumping to conclusions.
more...
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 08:06 AM
Think they will close the store this morning to update the laptop line??? or will they do it when they close the store during the live session?
overcast
Jan 15, 03:37 PM
Rentals should be $2 MAX.
flopticalcube
Apr 21, 12:07 PM
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
EDIT: Counts are update after you make a selection so it may appear that your vote was not counted but the count may not be accurate on your page when you make the vote. Got it.
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
EDIT: Counts are update after you make a selection so it may appear that your vote was not counted but the count may not be accurate on your page when you make the vote. Got it.
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.
twoodcc
Sep 12, 12:37 AM
Here's to a CRAZY Tuesday morning. :D
i 2nd that. let's hope it's good
i 2nd that. let's hope it's good
840quadra
Sep 12, 10:11 AM
Minimal impact, or importance, but interesting..
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06/images/sjwwdc.jpg
http://images.apple.com/quicktime/qtv/wwdc06/images/sjwwdc.jpg
NAG
Jan 12, 09:12 PM
If given a chance? What does that mean?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
See, loaded. You're warping what I'm saying so you can brush me off and continue to scapegoat gizmodo for something completely separate.
Think about this.
Did I ever say gizmodo probably wasn't going to get banned?
Did I actually say the opposite?
Did I bring up Wired anywhere in this thread or link them to various pranks?
Was I actually trying to make you look at the statement that implied blind faith in print media as being a bastion of truth and being isolated from such pranking?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
See, loaded. You're warping what I'm saying so you can brush me off and continue to scapegoat gizmodo for something completely separate.
Think about this.
Did I ever say gizmodo probably wasn't going to get banned?
Did I actually say the opposite?
Did I bring up Wired anywhere in this thread or link them to various pranks?
Was I actually trying to make you look at the statement that implied blind faith in print media as being a bastion of truth and being isolated from such pranking?
Jay42
Jan 6, 08:26 AM
^^That would be excellent if someone could capture the stream.
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070105150245.shtml
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
This was just what I was looking for, thanks arn. I like to get the full effect ;)
http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2007/01/20070105150245.shtml
We'll update that page. It's linked to this thread.
arn
This was just what I was looking for, thanks arn. I like to get the full effect ;)