xbigman15x
Jan 15, 04:39 PM
Will there an update to the macbook soon or should i buy one right now, i am disappointed in the mba
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
logandzwon
Mar 25, 06:29 AM
Happy birthday!
Ryeno
May 3, 05:11 PM
Just like communism
i love it when people say stuff, i mean type stuff, without thinking.
android being free and open is more comparable to a capitalist system which ironically also doesn't work out too well in real life.
i love it when people say stuff, i mean type stuff, without thinking.
android being free and open is more comparable to a capitalist system which ironically also doesn't work out too well in real life.
fyrefly
Apr 29, 04:50 PM
They are currently sorted into the four categories first, and then alphabetically in those categories. It seems Lion is throwing everything together and doing away with categories
I can go to View --> Organize Alphabetically on my SL MBA. Same result. All icons, no categories.
I've never seen this before, but it's not new to this Lion build.
I can go to View --> Organize Alphabetically on my SL MBA. Same result. All icons, no categories.
I've never seen this before, but it's not new to this Lion build.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
SeaFox
Oct 28, 11:10 PM
APPLE, DO NOT MAKE THE SAME MISTAKE AGAIN!!!
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
Apple made a big mistake not licensing Mac OS 22 years ago allowing clones. Otherwise Mac OS X would be now the mainstream operating system.
Now history repeats. Apple has now the oppotunity to take over and beat Windows. But for that it is absolutely essential to allow Mac OS X to run on ANY PC out there.
Why does Apple make the same mistake?
I was going to write a replay to this. But John Gruber has done one already (http://daringfireball.net/2004/08/parlay).
But I will say. HELLO? WHERE WERE YOU IN 1997? Apple did license the MacOS. And it almost put them out of business.
Repeat after me:
Apple is a hardware company.
Apple is a hardware company.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
If they didn't sell Macintoshes and iPods they would be out of business.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is what makes the hardware valuable.
The software is easy to use and works well.
The software is easy to use and works well.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
If the software worked on any hardware, it would not be so easy to use.
It would also not work so well.
It would also not work so well.
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 10:48 AM
Am I meant to be able to rate my own post?
If you click the down arrow on your own post, it should just delete the post IMO.
If you click the down arrow on your own post, it should just delete the post IMO.
IBradMac
Apr 15, 08:24 PM
thats a lot of ports. :eek:
AP_piano295
May 4, 03:19 PM
1. What business is it if a pediatrician asks if there are guns in the home? A child is more likely to get hit by a car, should the doctor be asking if their home is situated on a street? This reeks of a doctor playing politics.
Religiosas, Poemas Amistad
poemas de amistad, imagenes de
poemas de amistad cristianos
amor y amistad poemas
Amistad | Tarjetas Postales
amor y amistad poemas
Poemas de amor y amistad:
poemas en ingles de amistad
poemas de amistad
Reacent Post
840quadra
Nov 24, 07:03 AM
Well I went to the Mall of America Apple Store (Bloomington Minnesota) that opened at 6am CST, bought a Macbook, and have since returned home.
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
I was the first person in the store at the register, and the 1st to buy a computer today at that store :)
I got the C2D 1.83 GHZ (Base model ;) ) for $1062.87 out the door :) .
zephxiii
Dec 23, 08:57 AM
i usually just read these and do not post, but i decided to finally register and join the action. i know the arguement against lte in the iphone for vzw, but i say why wouldnt they? they like to be on the cutting edge dont they? as to the arguement on the original being edge not 3g, there was no 3g android when the original iphone came out now android has a significant share of the smartphone market and they are coming out with lte devices at ces for verizon. why would apple wnat to be so far behind android phones in terms of lte and 3g. i think that if apple were to launch a lte phone in june, then why not just launch it in february? what is the difference in a few months when people will be buying up lte android phones in droves after CES
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
Apple usually isn't cutting edge. I mean why wasn't the first iPhone 3g when there was 3G in the US and EU? That and LTE chipsets are kinda new, voice isn't working over LTE yet. It would probably be easier and cheaper to just do CDMA (which Apple is already new at). LTE also might cause a negative effect on batt. life which Apple doesn't like etc. etc.
Remember all the reasons why the first iPhone didn't have 3g? something about chipsets not mature enough (i disagree), battery life (disagree), and I thought there was something about PCB space too but dunno.
Hell we haven't seen any job ads for LTE engineers either.
So no, it most likely will not have LTE, and there has not been any valid hints that it would either.
SthrnCmfrtr
Jan 10, 01:55 PM
This was a personal meaning and yes i use logic when i express myself, maybe you're iq is low and you must attack somebody to make you're higher thats youre personal meaning to(low iq as well - haha(dont take it personally).And yes i think the iphone sucks i have had so much telephones over the years and i think it's just a ipod halo effect(like much off apple is).Look at the ipod touch - go figure.
And like allways some guys must have with a spoon.the membersname is ironic...put faith in what you want i dont care..(buddha ore jesus)thats your personal faith..here we go with that spoon - "dadda....
haha...allways funny.. your sincerly
best regards
I regard you with serene curiosity. Please continue.
And like allways some guys must have with a spoon.the membersname is ironic...put faith in what you want i dont care..(buddha ore jesus)thats your personal faith..here we go with that spoon - "dadda....
haha...allways funny.. your sincerly
best regards
I regard you with serene curiosity. Please continue.
goober1223
Apr 6, 09:39 AM
Their store, their rules I guess.
Exactly. That's the good and bad part. I love Apple products, but I hate blatant hypocrisy when I see it. This is certainly one of those cases.
Exactly. That's the good and bad part. I love Apple products, but I hate blatant hypocrisy when I see it. This is certainly one of those cases.
Nicolasdec
Jan 9, 05:29 PM
i was whatching it and it ****ed up in the middle
Rodimus Prime
Oct 6, 02:22 PM
It was a good message until they stated "Before you pick a phone, pick a network." That would be valid in an iPhone-less world. They would still be selling us phones based on a spinning CGI rendering of a phone's outer shell. "Look! A plastic candy bar! You like candy, don't you? Then you'll love our rectangular phone! Brand new features like rounded edges and three colors!"
Apple changed the game. The device should now be the focus. The service should be an afterthought in the background.
No the add is right. To many people drool over apple so they go with ATT. If you picked AT&T for the iPhone and knew the service was spotty in your area you loose all right to complain about it.
The smart people out there first pick a network that offers them the price they want and the coverage. Then your worry about what phone to get. The iPhone is not game changing and it sure as hell is not THAT much better any more with all the other phones hitting the market.
As for the add that was the exact reason why I left them. Verizon had crappy service out in Lubbock Texas and lied about them moving there network out there. They told us 6 months and that 6 months claim turn was not filled 4 years later of course I left at the end of the first year when my contract was up. I switch to AT&T because service was great there and in Houston so I choose them. I choose a network that works were I lived and spend my time.
They are correct choose a network then worry about your phone. Apple Fan seem to not understand that.
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
Well sorry you have no right to complain your dropped calls. You CHOOSE to go with AT&T for the iPhone knowing these problems are in your area. You ACCEPTED that as part of the problem. I recommend you go back to Verizon as soon as your contract is up.
The iPhone is NOT that great. Good phone but not some super phone that is poor local network.
Apple changed the game. The device should now be the focus. The service should be an afterthought in the background.
No the add is right. To many people drool over apple so they go with ATT. If you picked AT&T for the iPhone and knew the service was spotty in your area you loose all right to complain about it.
The smart people out there first pick a network that offers them the price they want and the coverage. Then your worry about what phone to get. The iPhone is not game changing and it sure as hell is not THAT much better any more with all the other phones hitting the market.
As for the add that was the exact reason why I left them. Verizon had crappy service out in Lubbock Texas and lied about them moving there network out there. They told us 6 months and that 6 months claim turn was not filled 4 years later of course I left at the end of the first year when my contract was up. I switch to AT&T because service was great there and in Houston so I choose them. I choose a network that works were I lived and spend my time.
They are correct choose a network then worry about your phone. Apple Fan seem to not understand that.
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
Well sorry you have no right to complain your dropped calls. You CHOOSE to go with AT&T for the iPhone knowing these problems are in your area. You ACCEPTED that as part of the problem. I recommend you go back to Verizon as soon as your contract is up.
The iPhone is NOT that great. Good phone but not some super phone that is poor local network.
noservice2001
Oct 10, 04:45 PM
6g?
tman07
Apr 12, 04:35 PM
Nice! Meet mine; :D
Hey!
I got one too! Meet my lil man!
...and the new 42" 1080p 120hz lcd :)
(bonus interweb pts if you know what music video is playing!)
Hey!
I got one too! Meet my lil man!
...and the new 42" 1080p 120hz lcd :)
(bonus interweb pts if you know what music video is playing!)
nwcs
May 4, 09:48 AM
I don't know any medical staff that actually uses one on the job. You simply can't input information on the thing while on the go and holding it in your other hand.
You clearly don't know much about the medical world. Here's one link just to get things going:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/physician-mobile-use-grows-45-percent
Oh, and here's the story about a hospital that just ordered 1800 iPads...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/20/ottawa-ipads-hospital374.html
You clearly don't know much about the medical world. Here's one link just to get things going:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/physician-mobile-use-grows-45-percent
Oh, and here's the story about a hospital that just ordered 1800 iPads...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/20/ottawa-ipads-hospital374.html
John Purple
Jan 15, 02:47 PM
Do you edit HD video? Do you do mobile multitrack recording (32 tracks or more at a time)?
If not, my question is... why are you "ready" for a new computer?
By the way, I have a PB 1GHz, running OS X 10.5 smoothly, and it works just fine. I have the money to go blowing on new gadgets but, I've mellowed out on that.
However, if you want to buy yourself a new toy every year "just cos"... be my guest. I'm an Apple shareholder and I appreciate the money going out of your pocket and into mine.
Well, then try to run Aperture on your PB. Good luck.
No money from me until MBP is state of the art. I'm not going to pay nearly $ 3.000 in January 2008 for a notebook without SSE4 and Blue-Ray.
I just sold my shares.
If not, my question is... why are you "ready" for a new computer?
By the way, I have a PB 1GHz, running OS X 10.5 smoothly, and it works just fine. I have the money to go blowing on new gadgets but, I've mellowed out on that.
However, if you want to buy yourself a new toy every year "just cos"... be my guest. I'm an Apple shareholder and I appreciate the money going out of your pocket and into mine.
Well, then try to run Aperture on your PB. Good luck.
No money from me until MBP is state of the art. I'm not going to pay nearly $ 3.000 in January 2008 for a notebook without SSE4 and Blue-Ray.
I just sold my shares.
carlgo
Sep 29, 07:31 PM
You won't be able to make phone calls in that house. And then Steve will release youtube videos showing how nobody can make phone calls from their houses, either. ;)
I already posted that there was an antenna hidden in the wall. Now my source tells me the copper rain gutters are really antennas.
I already posted that there was an antenna hidden in the wall. Now my source tells me the copper rain gutters are really antennas.
madhatter61
Apr 8, 02:17 PM
Why would you run a promotion on something that sells out the moment they come into inventory? Sales are for Android products that can't be moved any other way.
Perhaps it is something like, "Purchase an Android device and we will let you buy an iPad."
I think you noted the situation. It doesn't play that a promotion is needed for the hottest selling product ever launched. Promotions are to get rid of stuff. so they don't have to give it back to the vendor at a loss.
This is so confusing. At least you and I are on the same page ... and still confused.
Perhaps it is something like, "Purchase an Android device and we will let you buy an iPad."
I think you noted the situation. It doesn't play that a promotion is needed for the hottest selling product ever launched. Promotions are to get rid of stuff. so they don't have to give it back to the vendor at a loss.
This is so confusing. At least you and I are on the same page ... and still confused.
noservice2001
Aug 1, 01:56 PM
interesting....
trunten
Apr 5, 03:03 PM
Next up, iAd the movie!
0 comments:
Post a Comment