kiljoy616
Jul 23, 12:03 AM
The 'haters'? Are you serious? So anyone that DARES to show a sign of critisism towards Apple is labelled a hater now? "If you are not for us you are against us". Some people have a personal reality distortion field I tell you. It's only a phone man, it's not like the Sun is collapsing on itself.
So if its only a phone why comment. No distortion here. Its a good phone, has some issues, same as many phones. But other phones no one cares, just like I don't care about other phones, you should not care about the Iphone 4.
So if its only a phone why comment. No distortion here. Its a good phone, has some issues, same as many phones. But other phones no one cares, just like I don't care about other phones, you should not care about the Iphone 4.
Kiwi Jones
Jul 21, 12:12 PM
Umm, that's still less than 1%. That's pretty good. That would be out of 100 million calls. 99 million calls were fine.
Not to mention the thousands and thousands of people purposely replicating the issue to show others how it can drop a call. I wonder how many dropped calls were during normal use. I know i've replicated it a few times but have dropped 1 call since launch. And that was in an area with sh***y reception.
Not to mention the thousands and thousands of people purposely replicating the issue to show others how it can drop a call. I wonder how many dropped calls were during normal use. I know i've replicated it a few times but have dropped 1 call since launch. And that was in an area with sh***y reception.
triceretops
Sep 29, 03:20 PM
Oh i'm sure there will be LOTS of technology in the house.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
5000 square feet isn't small.
I bet he'll be able to control everything via an app on his iPhone.
The house itself doesn't need to be HUGE. He can still apply a lot of technology into the house making it worth millions!
5000 square feet isn't small.
moderately
Apr 30, 10:19 AM
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
more...
bluebomberman
Oct 2, 04:50 PM
When will this hacking nerd do something REALLY positive and productive to the world?
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
Well, he currently eyeing selling the tech to companies, presumably some of which are willing to spend big bucks to jam their way into the iPod + iTunes ecosphere. At least now, it's clear it's mostly about making moola.
Last time I heard, his occupation was to break into companies' IPR without any legal permission to do so...not commendable, to say the least.
Well, he currently eyeing selling the tech to companies, presumably some of which are willing to spend big bucks to jam their way into the iPod + iTunes ecosphere. At least now, it's clear it's mostly about making moola.
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:16 AM
Good catch, but someone found that yesterday or last night also. Apple must be getting SO much traffic right now...:p
No, probably the same as usual with the only extra being from us bozo's :D :D
No, probably the same as usual with the only extra being from us bozo's :D :D
more...
Bonte
Oct 29, 10:26 AM
Remember the years of the clones? Apple is a whole widget company. They will not suceede by emulating M$ and selling software to other peoples hardware. Ever.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
Steve wasn't on board with the first clones and Apple wasn't on Intel yet, in my eyes there have been clear signs (now and in the past) that Apple and Steve are still open for the idea of licensing osX to other vendors if necessary. There big time investors also won't take 'just because' as an answer to why Apple won't license there OS, if the growth stops than there is no alternative.
Don't forget hell did froze over several times lately.
sarper
Apr 26, 07:34 AM
Before posting it's always a good idea to read the article and a little bit of the thread, not just the headline. Had you done any research, something I expect of developers, you would know that the general consensus is that it will be a larger screen with the same resolution. Also, Apple is giving you quite an amazing product and App Store to sling your wares instead of complaining you should maybe just put a little more effort into your applications and thank Apple for the opportunity they're giving you and others.
How come people still keep picking up on this point, it surprises me, especially from a developer. A larger screen doesn't necessarily mean problems for apps, a change in resolution does. That, coupled with the previous rumors of a bigger screen with the same resolution mean that if this is true, it doesn't make any difference to developers because there will be the same number of pixels in the screen. All it means is that everything will be very slightly bigger.
It's exactly like you say, if you assumed a certain resolution when coding your app, only a change in resolution affects you. Screen size means nothing, it's all about the pixels. 960x640 is the same whether it is on a 3.5" screen or a 4" screen for a developer.
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
How come people still keep picking up on this point, it surprises me, especially from a developer. A larger screen doesn't necessarily mean problems for apps, a change in resolution does. That, coupled with the previous rumors of a bigger screen with the same resolution mean that if this is true, it doesn't make any difference to developers because there will be the same number of pixels in the screen. All it means is that everything will be very slightly bigger.
It's exactly like you say, if you assumed a certain resolution when coding your app, only a change in resolution affects you. Screen size means nothing, it's all about the pixels. 960x640 is the same whether it is on a 3.5" screen or a 4" screen for a developer.
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
more...
lewis82
Apr 12, 08:22 PM
http://img38.imageshack.us/img38/571/dtbinfinity.jpg
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
Great album from Devin Townsend :)
stoid
Aug 8, 08:46 AM
I just hate to read people making comments like "if you think apple monitors are expensive, enjoy your sucky dell monitor". It's annonying and childish.
Please tell me where I said that I thought that Apple monitors were better than Dell monitors in anything other than asthetics? I have not made any claim anywhere!
All I said was that tech specs in some places were listed different so something about the panel seems to be different. Yes I bought an Apple monitor, yes I'm an Apple fanboy because I like the look of their electronics, but no I never stated that Apple's monitors were functionally better. On the contrary my statements are to the effect that Dell montiors show functionally better specs, so logically aren't they (not Apple) using the better panel.
Also, what say you to blonde redhead's post about Apple and Dell using different suppliers? Is that correct, or more disinformation.
Get off your soap box, have a cup of tea (or whatever will calm your attitude) and let's have a civil discussion.
Please tell me where I said that I thought that Apple monitors were better than Dell monitors in anything other than asthetics? I have not made any claim anywhere!
All I said was that tech specs in some places were listed different so something about the panel seems to be different. Yes I bought an Apple monitor, yes I'm an Apple fanboy because I like the look of their electronics, but no I never stated that Apple's monitors were functionally better. On the contrary my statements are to the effect that Dell montiors show functionally better specs, so logically aren't they (not Apple) using the better panel.
Also, what say you to blonde redhead's post about Apple and Dell using different suppliers? Is that correct, or more disinformation.
Get off your soap box, have a cup of tea (or whatever will calm your attitude) and let's have a civil discussion.
more...
franswa za
May 2, 10:26 AM
No thanks.
thanks, much ado about nothing
people, stop over-reacting about this NON issue
or sue.........
sent from my white ipad2 from afrika
steve
thanks, much ado about nothing
people, stop over-reacting about this NON issue
or sue.........
sent from my white ipad2 from afrika
steve
pondosinatra
May 2, 03:47 PM
Weird, I don't know anyone who owns a truck. But that's irrelevant anyway. You can't really think that there are as many trucks as there are automobiles around. :)
Apparently you've never been to Calgary...
Apparently you've never been to Calgary...
more...
bommai
Oct 17, 09:41 AM
That comment about not including the burner is interesting, and I'm at least trying to give it some more thoughtful consideration. Who really needs to burn 30 - 50 GB of data? For backup solutions, wouldn't just getting a huge external hard drive be more practical? Portability might be a factor there, but external drives aren't that cumbersome I don't think. I'm thinking that the majority use of those HD media burners would be to copy movies with illicit applications. Could Apple put in place some protection framework that attempted to only allow creative-works-originating software to burn HD discs, (ie, iMovie, iDVD, FinalCut and other pro apps that use full quality, large size files) therefore denying use of a program that takes a quick and dirty imported disc image and burn it to disc, so that you'd have to work around some long and annoying solution to make an illegal copy (ala burning audio CDs in iTunes and reimporting them to strip the DRM) that would deter any easy mass pirating?
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
If Apple wants to sell a lot of movies online and if the movies eventually become 720p or 1080p, users will need big discs like these to backup their movies. Right now I cannot even backup my iPhoto library into one DVD because it is about 11 GB.
More simply, I'm curious of who out there needs to burn 30 to 50 GB chunks of data, too large for a dual layer DVD to hold, and why.
If Apple wants to sell a lot of movies online and if the movies eventually become 720p or 1080p, users will need big discs like these to backup their movies. Right now I cannot even backup my iPhoto library into one DVD because it is about 11 GB.
sikuss
Apr 8, 07:28 PM
Refurbed iPad1 after I gave my previous ipad to my grandmother to use
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apple-ipad-official-04.jpg
http://i.zdnet.com/blogs/apple-ipad-official-04.jpg
more...
madmaxmedia
Jan 11, 04:53 PM
Doing it during somebody's presentation is just plain cold.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
I heard that the Gizmodo people pushed all the buttons in the elevators too.
shartypants
Mar 24, 03:19 PM
Happy Xth Birthday! Are there any more big cat names left after Lion? Maybe they will have to move to OS XI
more...
leekohler
Mar 3, 09:44 PM
Go Ohio! Crush the unions! Return to fiscal sanity. No more hiding behind a union... time to return to personal responsibility. Ohio today, Wisconsin tomorrow, who's next? Sweep the states clean, Tea Party!
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
Interesting quote by Bill Gates recently: (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/foundationnotes/Pages/bill-gates-110302-ted-2011-line-up.aspx) (thanks for the help twice in one day, Billy boy!)
Hahaha, keep telling yourself that! http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx ;)
Fivepoint- you act as if teachers make lots of money. The don't, even though they are required to have masters degrees. People understand if the belt is tight. People do NOT understand being denied the right to unionize and fight when they feel taken advantage of. NO ONE should ever be jailed for striking. That you support this is nothing short of sickening. I am absolutely disgusted. Just wait- you guys will get yours soon enough, trust me.
BTW, I don;t know what your point was with that link, but it indicates for the most part that the political tide can tip quite easily.
And Bill Gates said nothing about union busting. Fail to see your point there as well.
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
Will federal employees be jailed if they unionize?
BTW, there is no 'RIGHT' to collective bargaining.
Collective bargaining is a legislative privilege granted by friendly law makers in some localities which can be quickly and abruptly eliminated (as you've all just observed.)
Public unions are idiotic. Imagine a private sector union where the union members themselves were able to contribute to the election and vote for the individual whom they'd be bargaining against. BRILLIANT! It's a conflict of interest - straight up.
Interesting quote by Bill Gates recently: (http://www.gatesfoundation.org/foundationnotes/Pages/bill-gates-110302-ted-2011-line-up.aspx) (thanks for the help twice in one day, Billy boy!)
Hahaha, keep telling yourself that! http://www.gallup.com/poll/125066/State-States.aspx ;)
Fivepoint- you act as if teachers make lots of money. The don't, even though they are required to have masters degrees. People understand if the belt is tight. People do NOT understand being denied the right to unionize and fight when they feel taken advantage of. NO ONE should ever be jailed for striking. That you support this is nothing short of sickening. I am absolutely disgusted. Just wait- you guys will get yours soon enough, trust me.
BTW, I don;t know what your point was with that link, but it indicates for the most part that the political tide can tip quite easily.
And Bill Gates said nothing about union busting. Fail to see your point there as well.
I heard somewhere that federal employees are not able to collectively bargain for their benefits package. If this is true, why are recent states' attempts to restrict unionized bargaining seen as being so draconian, and why isn't there an outcry to give federal employees the same "rights"?
Will federal employees be jailed if they unionize?
yg17
Sep 12, 10:36 AM
...I know the media invite says "It's Showtime" and we know what the connotation is for that. But I find it interesting that the theater where the event is being held is done up with huge silhouette iPod ads, which doesn't really fit the "It's Showtime" theme, unless the new true video iPod is also going to be announced in conjunction with the movie download service. :confused: :confused: :confused:
I think the true video iPod is pretty much guaranteed to be released today.
I think the true video iPod is pretty much guaranteed to be released today.
shurcooL
May 1, 10:24 PM
Look at us debating this, I am sure Apple is having a hard time determining what to do too! I have a feeling they like it to, but you are correct that it is confusing when there are only two options.
However, this doesn't mean I think it should go away. It just needs a little more tweaking! :D
I agree with that last sentence!
The idea of sliders is great, because you can grab it and switch between different tabs without having to look at the tab buttons. You can focus on the tab content instead.
However, this doesn't mean I think it should go away. It just needs a little more tweaking! :D
I agree with that last sentence!
The idea of sliders is great, because you can grab it and switch between different tabs without having to look at the tab buttons. You can focus on the tab content instead.
Koronis
Apr 8, 12:45 PM
What a surprise, Tech Crunch got a story completely wrong
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.
Reacent Post
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.
berniemac
Nov 24, 09:10 AM
Are they giving any additional discounts at the retail stores? I thought somebody said that last year they received a scratch off card with 10% off.
Calidude
Apr 16, 05:13 PM
This is no value to me, if you consider your position to be narrow-mind, and not an abomination, sorry...., affront.
Make more sense. This sentence of yours makes none.
Make more sense. This sentence of yours makes none.
VideoFreek
May 4, 03:11 PM
Are you an NRA member?Not at all, I despise the NRA and I don't even own guns. To be clear, I feel Dr. Choi should be free to ask such questions without losing his license or going to jail; likewise I should be free to decline to discuss such matters with him.
0 comments:
Post a Comment