yellow
Jan 10, 04:07 PM
Kind of like using a MBP Front Row Remote at an Apple Conf and switching people's displays to Front Row?
leekohler
Apr 27, 01:48 PM
Ok, I'll agree with you on all counts.
Very nice of you. Much appreciated. It so rarely happens here.
Very nice of you. Much appreciated. It so rarely happens here.
LethalWolfe
Nov 11, 08:33 PM
I'm a Nazi zomb expert (and I do mean expert) and let me say that they made it hard this time around. It seems to be made specifically for the cult players. If you couldn't get past lvl 15 in the last levels, you aren't grtting past 4-5 here.
I agree. I love how the difficulty ramps up so quick now. In CoD:WaW I felt like things didn't really start to get going until the low teens.
All of our NAT types are open. We even did test connection to make sure on the dashboard but it still horrible.
such a let down
Sucks to hear. Hopefully it's something server side that they'll have squared away soon.
Lethal
I agree. I love how the difficulty ramps up so quick now. In CoD:WaW I felt like things didn't really start to get going until the low teens.
All of our NAT types are open. We even did test connection to make sure on the dashboard but it still horrible.
such a let down
Sucks to hear. Hopefully it's something server side that they'll have squared away soon.
Lethal
RichP
Aug 7, 07:01 PM
Hmm..I wonder if this means that we wont see the issues plaguing the 23"s (poor color, banding, etc etc etc)
If so, time to make an upgrade!
If so, time to make an upgrade!
bartelby
Apr 21, 11:16 AM
The counter is crap anyway. It goes from -1 to +1 without a 0. And it seems completely random.
I noticed that too.
How many times has this idea been dismissed when suggested. It was always said it was a terrible idea that would add nothing.
What's changed?
I noticed that too.
How many times has this idea been dismissed when suggested. It was always said it was a terrible idea that would add nothing.
What's changed?
err404
May 2, 09:41 AM
I'm glad that Apple listened to the user demand for this change, despite their feeling that this wasn't a big deal. They could have just as easily ignored the issue saying that it is functioning as intended.
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.
free printable world map with
printable world map with
printable world map
world map printable countries.
PRINTABLE. World map
World Map New Countries Quiz
printable world map with
printable world map with
printable world map with
blank world map outline with
World Map Countries pictures
free printable world map with
Reacent Post
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.
rtdunham
Sep 12, 08:21 AM
iMovie is taken obviously. iTunes is already very well known, so they must have decided to just stick with that. The "i" doesn't really mean a whole lot anymore anyway (iWeb = Internet Web?!), so why should "Tunes"? ;)
The iMedia store.
The iMedia store.
IJ Reilly
Oct 23, 10:27 AM
I would love for apple to use 10 billion to innovate fantastically, enter new markets, go green, and more. I don't think it's going to happen- the purpose of 10 billion in the bank for apple is having 10 billion in the bank. Apple's expertise is in taking big risks (at least large for a compnay of their size), a good number of which pay off very, very well. But people- investors, CEOs, are risk adverse, and a huge pile of cash to operate on, so big they can operate and continue to invest in risky and exciting products, mitigates their risks. For apple, a pile of money might actually be worth more than investing that money at a high rate of return.
Huge cash hordes are only good for three things, in order of desirability: reinvesting in future growth (which is why it's called capitalism); returning to the stockholders in the form of dividends; or holding for a rainy day. The last reason, which you seem to think is the best one, should be seen by investors as a signal that the company lacks confidence in the future.
Actually, there's a fourth use of excess cash: a stock buy-back. Apple isn't doing this with the money currently, either.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
Huge cash hordes are only good for three things, in order of desirability: reinvesting in future growth (which is why it's called capitalism); returning to the stockholders in the form of dividends; or holding for a rainy day. The last reason, which you seem to think is the best one, should be seen by investors as a signal that the company lacks confidence in the future.
Actually, there's a fourth use of excess cash: a stock buy-back. Apple isn't doing this with the money currently, either.
I agree, the huge stockpile of cash is an issue. That's money that should be working for Apple, and IMHO that should be in the form of purchasing other companies that will strengthen Apple in key areas, like music distribution and/or audio/video/graphics production.
And I also agree with you on the dividend issue. A small investment of that money into dividends may have the exact effect as you describe. On the other hand, putting that money into new products/enhancing existing products, may do more for Apple's long-term health vs. providing a dividend to improve the 'optics' of the company in shareholders' eyes.
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
mex4eric
Apr 29, 03:28 PM
Is Lion going to appear on the Mac App Store for less and with all in one home being able to share it?
John Purple
Jan 15, 03:13 PM
Genius move, that.
"Old old old?" Not compared to my early-2003 computer. It's dramatically faster, dramatically more efficient, and dramatically more capacious than the machine I've got. Based on the Penryn tests I've seen so far, an MBP update will result in only a marginal improvement. I don't NEED a few extra percent of battery life or performance here and there.
Yes, but for $ 2.500 to 3.000 I would prefer to buy the newest technology.
It is always wiser in the long run IMHO to be a late adopter and buy near the end of a product lifecycle than near the beginning. Early adopters are, and have always been, late beta testers.
Yes, but switching to Penryn and adding Blue-Ray should be no rocket science. I'm not waiting for a fully re-designed MBP.
They still make great products.
Yes, but movie and music markets are quite different to the computer market. And I would be perfectly happy if they would focus as much on their computer business as they do for the rest.
"Old old old?" Not compared to my early-2003 computer. It's dramatically faster, dramatically more efficient, and dramatically more capacious than the machine I've got. Based on the Penryn tests I've seen so far, an MBP update will result in only a marginal improvement. I don't NEED a few extra percent of battery life or performance here and there.
Yes, but for $ 2.500 to 3.000 I would prefer to buy the newest technology.
It is always wiser in the long run IMHO to be a late adopter and buy near the end of a product lifecycle than near the beginning. Early adopters are, and have always been, late beta testers.
Yes, but switching to Penryn and adding Blue-Ray should be no rocket science. I'm not waiting for a fully re-designed MBP.
They still make great products.
Yes, but movie and music markets are quite different to the computer market. And I would be perfectly happy if they would focus as much on their computer business as they do for the rest.
bembol
Mar 17, 11:04 AM
TBH, I would probably wouldn't say anything either.
I just WOULDN'T post it here or any other forums.
Life is a b**ch sometimes, just a few months ago my 21" Ironhorse Bike was stolen after just a few months owning it.
I just WOULDN'T post it here or any other forums.
Life is a b**ch sometimes, just a few months ago my 21" Ironhorse Bike was stolen after just a few months owning it.
Sedrick
Mar 19, 05:46 AM
iPhone is a great target because of the "holier than thou" culture that Steve Jobs helped create. And now they come out with a phone with a shatter-prone back, flat/square as a brick, still retains the small 3.5" screen and the antenna problems. This is all excellent fuel for the haters.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Even with all that it's still the best phone out there, but the 4 is an even easier target and it's starting to wobble on it's pedestal. Now, when you pull out an iPhone 4, you can expect "oh, you got one of those."
You can thank Apple for making this all worse with it's stupid design decisions on the iPhone 4. They have a chance to fix a lot of this come June.
Benjy91
Apr 7, 11:38 AM
According to Wikipedia, Windows 8 will be NT version 6.2, not 7.0 - just in case you were wondering.
Thats what I said.. I didnt say it would be NT 7.0
Thats what I said.. I didnt say it would be NT 7.0
Mooey
Mar 23, 05:09 AM
So last night I was checking my email after work and my computer makes a weird beep. I realized that the sound is made by Connect360 when a connection is made to an Xbox. I opened the program and it says my 360 is connected and media is being shared with it. This means that whoever stole my 360 is still in range of my wireless network.
Got in my car with my laptop and found the range on my network is a bit larger than I had expected. About 8-10 houses on my block get at least some signal from my network
This morning at 5am, my 360 connected to the network again and I decided to take a walk around the neighboorhood to see who was awake. I found two houses within range of my network that had a blue glow in the window from a TV. When the 360 was disconnected from the network about 30 mins later, I walked back around and there was one house that no longer had the TV on.
I'm going to call the police department and talk to the officer that has been handling my case. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough information for them to get a search warrant but I'm getting more confident about actually getting my 360 back than I was three days ago.
Bust some balls, HOOAH!
It's like CSI for gamers, lol.
Got in my car with my laptop and found the range on my network is a bit larger than I had expected. About 8-10 houses on my block get at least some signal from my network
This morning at 5am, my 360 connected to the network again and I decided to take a walk around the neighboorhood to see who was awake. I found two houses within range of my network that had a blue glow in the window from a TV. When the 360 was disconnected from the network about 30 mins later, I walked back around and there was one house that no longer had the TV on.
I'm going to call the police department and talk to the officer that has been handling my case. I'm pretty sure I don't have enough information for them to get a search warrant but I'm getting more confident about actually getting my 360 back than I was three days ago.
Bust some balls, HOOAH!
It's like CSI for gamers, lol.
ju5tin81
Sep 12, 07:27 AM
I'm in Washington D.C. (8:24am EST) and just tried going into iTMS and there's a black page, with white text, announcing "It's Showtime. The iTunes Store is being updated." Here come the movies!
in UK, I just get a 'sorry, music store busy message'.... hmmm....
in UK, I just get a 'sorry, music store busy message'.... hmmm....
trebormik
Nov 16, 10:59 PM
This rumor should sound familiar to anyone that followed Dell and their long courtship with Intel. One analyst/pundit after another announced a rumor that Dell would put AMD into their grey boxes and year after year they were wrong (until this year :) ).
But seriously, I would welcome this move. Keep Intel (C2D, C2Q, and future) on the high end Pro models, use AMD with ATI integrated chipsets on consumer models. Or if/when it happens switch so that whatever is the best performing cpu/chipset combo is in the Pro line and vice versa.
But seriously, I would welcome this move. Keep Intel (C2D, C2Q, and future) on the high end Pro models, use AMD with ATI integrated chipsets on consumer models. Or if/when it happens switch so that whatever is the best performing cpu/chipset combo is in the Pro line and vice versa.
adamfilip
Sep 12, 08:04 AM
• Some analysts believe (http://www.appleinsider.com/article.php?id=2032) that this is the first of many consumer electronic announcements from Apple in the coming months.
Wow those analysts really are going out on a limb with those predictions.
Hmm a consumer electronics company will introduce comsumer electronics over time.. crazy crazy.. who would have thunk it
:rolleyes:
Wow those analysts really are going out on a limb with those predictions.
Hmm a consumer electronics company will introduce comsumer electronics over time.. crazy crazy.. who would have thunk it
:rolleyes:
demo
Oct 14, 01:17 PM
Just noticed something at work (large retailer). The iPod case is unusually empty of iPod videos. We may have 15 total when the case usual has 50-100. The iPod Nanos on the other hand are completely stocked full. Usually this only happens when Apple is going to release a new version and stops sending the store product. I know it sounds weird because they just upgraded the 5G but it was a very insignificant update. Just thought I'd add that to the rumor mill.
woo, that sound excited.
woo, that sound excited.
Sannekita
Jan 15, 01:41 PM
The macbook air looks really cool i think. but it's so useless!
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
Hm... i'll quitly wait for the MBP update... got too excited.
and it was quite the bummer when he didn't say OMT... :-(
Cynicalone
Apr 29, 02:05 PM
iCal still looks terrible.
Much quicker update than the last one for me.
I think the realistic minimal RAM requirements will move to 4GB with Lion. Installing on an older MacBook with 2GB of RAM has proven that Lion loves RAM and Beachballs :) .
It is fairly stable for a "Beta/Preview" build though and seems to be closer to being ready to ship.
Much quicker update than the last one for me.
I think the realistic minimal RAM requirements will move to 4GB with Lion. Installing on an older MacBook with 2GB of RAM has proven that Lion loves RAM and Beachballs :) .
It is fairly stable for a "Beta/Preview" build though and seems to be closer to being ready to ship.
Jimmy James
May 4, 08:56 AM
just getting started...iPad 3!
Exactly. Makes it sound like it's still underdeveloped.
Exactly. Makes it sound like it's still underdeveloped.
ortuno2k
Jan 13, 01:10 AM
I really want a new 20" Apple Display.
That's all for now...
That's all for now...
swy32x
Sep 8, 09:45 AM
Waaah
What about Madonna being there? What a stupid skank. What an absolute, no-talent whore, wannabe religious wack job.
She annoys me with all her whining and she is no good at what she does ...
^^
Replace Madonna with Kanye and that is exactly how you guys sound ...
What about Madonna being there? What a stupid skank. What an absolute, no-talent whore, wannabe religious wack job.
She annoys me with all her whining and she is no good at what she does ...
^^
Replace Madonna with Kanye and that is exactly how you guys sound ...
0 comments:
Post a Comment