Calidude
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Indeed.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
rtdunham
Oct 10, 10:34 PM
i made a quick mockup of what it could be like, i left out some details. I changed the dvd icon to a mail/gtube one(youtube) because it supossdly has wi-fi.....opinions?
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/374/ipodmockzr0.jpg
...and an integrated spell-checker! :D
http://img223.imageshack.us/img223/374/ipodmockzr0.jpg
...and an integrated spell-checker! :D
citizenzen
May 5, 12:25 PM
Oh wait, you may not even have the chance to ask, because now you're dead. He shot you because he felt like it, and there was nothing you could do to stop him.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
Thanks for making my point.
The proliferation of guns in America makes it easier for people to end my life with a simple pull of the trigger.
Fewer guns would mean that fewer people would have that capability.
Azathoth
May 3, 05:46 PM
Two answers come to mind:
Vincent Valentine lt;Final
Vincent_Valentine_Wallpaper_.
Vincent Valentine Background
Vincent Valentine. Wallpaper
Vincent Valentine Cartoon Red
Vincent Valentine Cosplay
Vincent Valentine PSPWallpaper
vincent valentine wallpapers
picture
vincent valentine quotes
Vincent Valentine
Vincent Valentine from
vincent valentine wallpapers
Vincent Valentine by
vincent valentine final
skunk
Apr 21, 11:57 AM
Mostly I was explaining that you really aren't moving the post vote by 2.But you aren't. You are moving it by 2. And it's inconsistent.
I just clicked your "down" arrow and it went from 0 to -2. Is that 1 or 2 in your math?
I just clicked your "down" arrow and it went from 0 to -2. Is that 1 or 2 in your math?
arn
Apr 21, 10:37 AM
Hi,
You will notice a new feature we are testing. Each post now has an up/down arrow associated with it. Clicking on either arrow will record your vote for that post. Right now, the votes are simply tallied next to the post, but may be used in other ways in the future.
- You must be logged in for your vote to register
- Criteria for up/down voting should be relatively obvious. Posts you like or would like to see more of, you can up vote. Those you dislike you can downvote.
- Please continue to use the "report" post button to report spam and other rules vioations.
- Assume that your votes are public, even though at the moment there is no way to see how people have voted. That may change.
arn
You will notice a new feature we are testing. Each post now has an up/down arrow associated with it. Clicking on either arrow will record your vote for that post. Right now, the votes are simply tallied next to the post, but may be used in other ways in the future.
- You must be logged in for your vote to register
- Criteria for up/down voting should be relatively obvious. Posts you like or would like to see more of, you can up vote. Those you dislike you can downvote.
- Please continue to use the "report" post button to report spam and other rules vioations.
- Assume that your votes are public, even though at the moment there is no way to see how people have voted. That may change.
arn
Eidorian
Nov 16, 09:04 PM
You are obviously not a systems programmer.
Check out the source code for Xen, and then try to tell me that a Xeon and an Opteron have identical instruction sets....Let's be nice to the mundanes and stick to x86 instead of comparing vendor based virtualization technologies. :D
Check out the source code for Xen, and then try to tell me that a Xeon and an Opteron have identical instruction sets....Let's be nice to the mundanes and stick to x86 instead of comparing vendor based virtualization technologies. :D
cherrypop
Oct 11, 09:00 AM
Makes total sense to me: Microsoft's Zune introduction naturally raised the bar for MP3 players. Some of the press Zune is getting for its larger display, clean design and usability is adding to the pressure for Apple to ship an answer to the Zune.
Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod
Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod
TheNewDude
Nov 8, 02:09 PM
Yeah, pre-ordered mine at Best Buy. Will go there tomorrow and pick up my copy!! A busy weekend coming up!!!
Popeye206
May 4, 06:56 AM
Great ad! but giving a sense that frequent upgrade is required
Interesting.... I got the feeling from the commercial that more is coming soon, but I didn't see it as "upgrades" which implies costly.
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time. They need to tout this and I think that's basically what's coming when iOS 5 is released.
Interesting.... I got the feeling from the commercial that more is coming soon, but I didn't see it as "upgrades" which implies costly.
One of Apple's HUGE advantages over Android based devices is that all iOS devices can use the same OS and they all get upgraded at the same time. They need to tout this and I think that's basically what's coming when iOS 5 is released.
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.
TrulyYuki
Apr 12, 12:48 PM
a gift from my fiance. Not quite a personal purchase. I have a little obsession with cupcakes.
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2345/photokhu.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/photokhu.jpg/)
http://img26.imageshack.us/img26/2345/photokhu.jpg (http://img26.imageshack.us/i/photokhu.jpg/)
rdowns
Apr 22, 07:02 AM
All seems rather silly to me.
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
Over the years, there must have been 85 threads on some type of reputation/like/thanks system and it's always been shot down (thankfully). What changed?
iBunny
Jan 8, 10:29 PM
I want a 15'' MacBook Pro.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
2.6GHz Penryn
1680x1050 Display
512MB of Video Memory
I will be happy to sell my current MBP which I bought in August for the Above mentioned computer.
TimUSCA
Apr 15, 10:37 PM
And by that what do you mean. iPhones had little impact on phones like the BB Curve
He said *smart* phone.
He said *smart* phone.
acslater017
Apr 15, 06:01 PM
Dear Google:
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
In fairness to Google, no one said that they were out to destroy iTunes or anything like that. They've got a growing mobile business, and it makes sense that they want to make some cohesive media store.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
Apple *already* revolutionized the music industry.
Try copying something of theirs that's a little less established.
(and then just leave it in beta like you do with everything else.)
Cheers.
In fairness to Google, no one said that they were out to destroy iTunes or anything like that. They've got a growing mobile business, and it makes sense that they want to make some cohesive media store.
Likewise, Apple is trying to grow its online/cloud services (Google's strength)! Funny, they are kind of moving towards each other in that sense...
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 11:46 AM
In other words, there is no allowance for apathy. I can't be arsed with a system that doesn't allow for apathy. **** that.
Apathy would be not clicking anything.
Apathy would be not clicking anything.
Ugg
Apr 15, 07:32 PM
Honestly, there isn't enough time, we are rushing through WWII to know it before the CST. I also don't remember people pushing creationism in California
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
What's CST? I honestly have no idea. Actually, the entire sentence is confusing, could you clarify?
KnightWRX
Mar 10, 04:34 AM
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
Mikeadelic
Apr 6, 06:54 AM
There's another, much more messed up story (http://www.slashgear.com/apple-rejects-iphone-app-for-lack-of-functionality-later-releases-app-with-same-functionality-itself-06144635/) behind this app. For those too lazy to click on the link, basically Apple decided to reject a third-party app that has the same functionality as the iAd Gallery for -- get this -- "lack of functionality". Then it turns around and develops the exact same app.
If what Apple has done here doesn't demonstrate anti-competitiveness, then I don't know what does.
If what Apple has done here doesn't demonstrate anti-competitiveness, then I don't know what does.
chrono1081
Apr 5, 04:23 PM
anyone that would download this app is a complete moron
Not really. You know this app is more for people interested in creating iAds right? This way they can see what is possible to be done and create their own. Think of it like when you go to the paint store and they have swatches for you to look at. Its kind of the same thing.
Not really. You know this app is more for people interested in creating iAds right? This way they can see what is possible to be done and create their own. Think of it like when you go to the paint store and they have swatches for you to look at. Its kind of the same thing.
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 02:31 PM
While I agree with you overall, I think there have been plenty of features that NeXT-Apple has teased, but not ultimately delivered on. "Home on the iPod" is one and "resolution independence" is another, I'm sure there are more but these are two that might actually have mattered to me.
B
I think 'Home on iPod' might be coming in iOS 5.
But yes, Resolution Independence did matter to me a lot. But somewhere, I feel that it might not be the best thing available; but still Mac OS X has better capabilities of displaying content than windows (incl. windows 7) although I really think win8 will be a game changer in this regard; they have had tones of time, now.
B
I think 'Home on iPod' might be coming in iOS 5.
But yes, Resolution Independence did matter to me a lot. But somewhere, I feel that it might not be the best thing available; but still Mac OS X has better capabilities of displaying content than windows (incl. windows 7) although I really think win8 will be a game changer in this regard; they have had tones of time, now.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 03:16 AM
EDIT - Don't everybody else do what conditionals just tried to do. A few people did it last Tuesday night and we broke the internet.
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
MikhailT
Apr 6, 11:59 PM
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
No comments:
Post a Comment