NAG
May 3, 01:48 PM
And why is this on mac rumors.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It shows you how superior their open os is. Because if it wasn't open it would be controlled by evil Apple who would force you to use tethering.
Does it really matter what the competition does.
It shows you how superior their open os is. Because if it wasn't open it would be controlled by evil Apple who would force you to use tethering.
Ochyandkaren
Sep 29, 06:14 AM
In an age where architect and design firms are just starting to apply to Apple's design principles to the building of homes,
Quite the opposite!
oesn't live in a shell, its products reflects the evolutions in art and technology. designs, thanks to Ive doesn't look odd alongside F. L. Wright or Alvar Aalto buildings and furnitures.
Quite the opposite!
oesn't live in a shell, its products reflects the evolutions in art and technology. designs, thanks to Ive doesn't look odd alongside F. L. Wright or Alvar Aalto buildings and furnitures.
AHDuke99
Apr 15, 04:07 PM
The only thing that makes me call BS is the fact that it looks to be completely metal. Apple would need it to be plastic or rubber, otherwise signal issues will be even worse than it is with the current 3G and 3GS.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:23 AM
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
more...
eemsTV
May 3, 09:25 PM
magic!
Stella
Aug 1, 01:52 PM
If that is the case, you guys must be *********g miserable.
Why?
Believe or not, iTunes is *not*the secret of happiness - it does not make or break a country.
:-\
Why?
Believe or not, iTunes is *not*the secret of happiness - it does not make or break a country.
:-\
more...
TimUSCA
Apr 25, 12:11 PM
No it will go from 4S to 5 lol
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
Uh, no... the iPhone 4 was called the iPhone 4 because it was the 4th version of the iPhone (not because it came after 3 in 3G). If the next iPhone is called the 4S, that'd be the 5th iPhone model. So the next one after that would be called the iPhone 6.
It would go:
iPhone
iPhone 3G
iPhone 3GS
iPhone 4
iPhone 4S (or iPhone 5)
iPhone 6
altecXP
Apr 29, 07:32 PM
Hello
I just bought a 15" MBP
I have to pay for new Lion? to upgrade
This is just a release for developers to test, you can get it via paying $99 for a Developer account at Developer.apple.com. It is full of bugs and other problems though. Unless you are a developer you probably won't want it right now.
When Apple releases Lion to everyone else it will be a paid upgrade. It will probably be out later this year as the pace it is moving.
I just bought a 15" MBP
I have to pay for new Lion? to upgrade
This is just a release for developers to test, you can get it via paying $99 for a Developer account at Developer.apple.com. It is full of bugs and other problems though. Unless you are a developer you probably won't want it right now.
When Apple releases Lion to everyone else it will be a paid upgrade. It will probably be out later this year as the pace it is moving.
more...
zombitronic
Oct 6, 04:47 PM
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
SkippyThorson
Sep 28, 12:05 PM
Is this the iHouse prototype? :p
I personally like it. It is simple, and I'll admit, I thought Steve would go lavish. I love the touch with the veggie garden. Tomatoes and spices galore, I say. It sounds like he's going to retire there, and that he's really going for the "retreat" feel.
Applause, even if it means taking down a 1920's mansion. Not everything can be saved forever. It'll exist in memory. What's the point of saving old buildings that won't be used? So they can be cleaned and saved for no one? For people to look at once and leave? Better use of the land. It had its time, and now it's passed.
Make way for Jobso.
I personally like it. It is simple, and I'll admit, I thought Steve would go lavish. I love the touch with the veggie garden. Tomatoes and spices galore, I say. It sounds like he's going to retire there, and that he's really going for the "retreat" feel.
Applause, even if it means taking down a 1920's mansion. Not everything can be saved forever. It'll exist in memory. What's the point of saving old buildings that won't be used? So they can be cleaned and saved for no one? For people to look at once and leave? Better use of the land. It had its time, and now it's passed.
Make way for Jobso.
more...
maclaptop
Apr 29, 10:11 PM
+1
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
They have the technical skills to do so, it's the marketing side that seems to rule Apples every move.
Never before have they seemed so adrift. While revenue is always of great importance, usually its one element, not the only one that matters. While Apple makes an effort to appear as though they want to make a difference, a contribution to progress and change, its the race to the bottom that is of concern.
To simplify every aspect to its lowest common denominator. No education required.
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
They have the technical skills to do so, it's the marketing side that seems to rule Apples every move.
Never before have they seemed so adrift. While revenue is always of great importance, usually its one element, not the only one that matters. While Apple makes an effort to appear as though they want to make a difference, a contribution to progress and change, its the race to the bottom that is of concern.
To simplify every aspect to its lowest common denominator. No education required.
iJohnHenry
Apr 25, 05:49 PM
That lady has "issues", just looking at her demeanour. :eek:
more...
clientsiman
Apr 2, 12:34 PM
It's too early to compare those two OS.
I like using both OS X and Windows. I am not impressed with Lion so far. (From what I have read, as I haven't try it). I hope Apple has same surprises to show in the WWDC.
I am really looking forward to see what Ubuntu can achieve till next year. I am not sure if I like the new Unite shell but I agree that Ubuntu needs to create something new and stop copying OS X and Windows.
I like using both OS X and Windows. I am not impressed with Lion so far. (From what I have read, as I haven't try it). I hope Apple has same surprises to show in the WWDC.
I am really looking forward to see what Ubuntu can achieve till next year. I am not sure if I like the new Unite shell but I agree that Ubuntu needs to create something new and stop copying OS X and Windows.
jazz9
Apr 10, 10:37 PM
Street Kings
I think my favorite thing about this movie is it's soundtrack... prob in top 10
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2485/streetkingsbluray.jpg
I think my favorite thing about this movie is it's soundtrack... prob in top 10
http://img849.imageshack.us/img849/2485/streetkingsbluray.jpg
more...
MacFan1957
Jul 21, 11:07 AM
Really classy apple. Try to cover up your mistake by confusing users and trying to insult competitors you didn't think you even had to worry about.
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
If users are confused that is their own fault not Apples. A part of that confusion is that this is some kind of design "mistake" on Apples part, its not, it was a design choice! It was a trade off of battery life, form factor and signal strength. I can only say that for me the phone is as perfect as it could be given obvious limitations, battery life isn't limitless and all cell phone suffer with signal issues of some kind.
I trust Apple, they are smarter than your average blogger and for sure smarter than your average forum poster! More power to them I say! :-)
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
If users are confused that is their own fault not Apples. A part of that confusion is that this is some kind of design "mistake" on Apples part, its not, it was a design choice! It was a trade off of battery life, form factor and signal strength. I can only say that for me the phone is as perfect as it could be given obvious limitations, battery life isn't limitless and all cell phone suffer with signal issues of some kind.
I trust Apple, they are smarter than your average blogger and for sure smarter than your average forum poster! More power to them I say! :-)
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:05 PM
http://events.apple.com.edgesuite.net/j47d52oo/event/
more...
Arcady
Sep 12, 01:26 AM
don't think we're just getting Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck movies
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
Daffy Duck is from Warner, not Disney.
Northgrove
May 3, 02:26 PM
Fees for the data for that one device. But please don't start a "tethering is awesome v. tethering is against the rules" war here, there's plenty of other threads for that.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
I'm not starting any war. I just think that their data fees should be set to cover the bandwidth usage. Who cares how many devices are used? Shouldn't the bytes count? To the operator it's just a stream of bytes. A stream of bytes that intensifies if you use more bandwidth, so the bandwidth used should be covered, not the devices.
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 26, 10:55 AM
P.S. The box surrounding the up/down buttons is baboon-ass ugly.
I agree. What browser are you using? IE at work has the ugly boxes you are describing, but Safari at home, doesn't. It looks MUCH better.
I agree. What browser are you using? IE at work has the ugly boxes you are describing, but Safari at home, doesn't. It looks MUCH better.
Applejuiced
Apr 29, 10:59 PM
Update. it started working again for me on IE9 and I didnt do anything.
Maybe something the Admin updated on their end.
Edit.
Ok 15 minutes after this post it started kicking me back to the main forum section again:D
I give up:D
Maybe something the Admin updated on their end.
Edit.
Ok 15 minutes after this post it started kicking me back to the main forum section again:D
I give up:D
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.
Eraserhead
Mar 4, 02:10 AM
Firing incompetent teachers sounds like a great idea, but it doesn't require unions to be disbanded to achieve. The British teachers unions aren't that strong, and still we have huge problems getting rid of poor teachers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
Jail time for strikers is bizarre and totally unacceptable.
Additionally there is no way you can claim that it is a "individual liberty" position to hold to be for jailing strikers.
Sined
Apr 10, 06:17 PM
Are keri and LTD married or do they share a room in an asylum? I'm confused.