Benjy91
Mar 28, 03:33 PM
http://scoopertino.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/kool-aid_lime.jpg
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
Ooh the arguments are getting heated up in this thread :D
Thought I'd offer a light refreshment.
twoodcc
Aug 11, 06:19 PM
well guys i might be getting back up there soon. the last couple of days i've been working on my home built system, and i had it stable folding at 3.8 ghz. of course i got greedy, and am currently trying to manage 4.0 ghz. but right now heat is in the way, and i might have to take it back down a notch. we'll see
Howmanoid
Apr 15, 10:30 PM
Apple's success is in large part driven by the ecosystem that they have built around iPod/iTunes/iPhone/iPad. Good luck to anyone breaking into that anytime soon. The day I can buy a song on Mac/PC, synch it to my Android phone, then stream it around my home to HiFi or TV then we will have a competitor. Apple knows it, the record companies and studios know it, someone needs to tell Google.
MattInOz
Apr 6, 08:38 PM
Product is designed to help people realize value.
I mean it's taken them this long to work that out.
I mean it's taken them this long to work that out.
Suture
Mar 29, 06:54 AM
The cops are working on background info on both houses to try and get a warrant. It seems there have been other break-ins in the area and they are hoping to catch the guy (or girl) who has been doing it. Right now, my 360 showing up on my network has been the biggest lead they have gotten because it narrows down the area by quite a bit.
Glad to hear this. Hopefully you'll get your 360 back soon!
Glad to hear this. Hopefully you'll get your 360 back soon!
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:30 PM
I don't see it. Holding my iPhone at nearly the same angle and about the same distance they look identical.
iCon police.
iCon police.
theBigD23
Apr 29, 03:05 PM
Please make iOS more like OS X, not the other way around.
The reason why I won't buy an ipad is because of iOS.
You are in for a long time of not liking OSes of the future as everything is moving in the completely opposite direction.
The reason why I won't buy an ipad is because of iOS.
You are in for a long time of not liking OSes of the future as everything is moving in the completely opposite direction.
dayloon
Apr 9, 05:28 PM
A lot of the 'rumours' you posted are nonsense. Windows 8 will not and will never be unix based
bac4Christ
Nov 17, 12:32 PM
I'm sure that somewhere in their headquarters Apple keeps a build of OS X on AMD like they did with Intel. But Idon't think that anyone outside of Apple will see it at least for several years.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
Apple did not have a version of OS X running in it's labs. Intel has had every version running on their chips since the early 1990s when they first entered into discussions about using Intel chips. Intel some of the best software programmers in the world, wrt making an OS work on Intel chips. Apple got the OS X port from Intel to speed up the process of introducing the chips.
getalifemacfans
Jan 9, 11:48 AM
What are your predictions for this years MacWorld?
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
i expect a new iphone(yes i do).the current iphone i think sucks i rather buy a nokia/sony ericson.
a new mbp.ore even bether i really want that new ultraportebole with nice penryn to go.
and what about that blueray?after warner has gone for the kill in toshibas heart and the theory microsoft just want chaos in blueray/hd sales so they can sell downloaded movies from the internett-maybe apple likes that theory as well ?would not suprise me.
And if they update the macpro why dont they update the cinema displays?(look at the name "cinema" displays you really expect something juicy with that name)
but like allways apple are allways interestet in proclaming that there products state of the art some of the products are.But if the product are state of the art - the product often speaks for it selfs..and if you are interested in a new fancy screen with that macpro check out the dell glass screen thats really something.
'And what about that games?why cant apple/steve jobs close the deal with more gamedesigners so that mac/appleusers can stop playing on windows on ther mac(never gonna hapend i supouse)...
dont allways wait for apple thats my tip but i really expect something groundbreaking to hapend inn MWSF - if not i would be just as shocking(thypical apple)...
bdj21ya
Oct 3, 12:43 PM
but I'm always convinced by ol' Steve that I'l
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
Aaron was suddenly whacked by the iLife secret police for even intimating that purchasing yearly upgrades might not be worth it:D
mtwilford
Jul 21, 10:30 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/iphone/2010/07/21/apple-targets-nokia-with-new-signal-attenuation-video/)
Apple you are pathetic :confused:
Apple you are pathetic :confused:
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:30 AM
If not today, we could see an MB/MBP update sometime after Sep 16th when the free ipod nano promo expires. That's my best guess, but even i am hoping desperately for the update to happen today!
Probably not. We might see an updated iPod nano after the rebate is over if we don't see it today, but not an updated portable line. That'll come later down the road.
Probably not. We might see an updated iPod nano after the rebate is over if we don't see it today, but not an updated portable line. That'll come later down the road.
Jimmieboy
Sep 12, 02:56 AM
3.00 am! I don't think I'll be up then. I love to sleep. I guess getting up at around 6 won't matter though. Hopefully the new products if any will be on the apple site. If not I"ll check out macrumors to see the latest news on the conference. I can't wait! Yahooooo for apple
LastLine
Nov 23, 04:30 PM
Would a US .Mac code bought now work in the UK in February? ;-)
tristangage
Apr 22, 02:50 PM
To me, the whole idea is completely redundant.
Yeah, we can tell.
Yeah, we can tell.
dunnick
May 2, 03:16 PM
How about a 4.2.1.1 update for "legacy" iPhones?
And includes a way to shut off the stupid compass which seems to be borderline cripple-ware for phones that lack the magnetometer.
And includes a way to shut off the stupid compass which seems to be borderline cripple-ware for phones that lack the magnetometer.
twoodcc
May 11, 10:23 AM
got a big one going now.
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
oh ok good. now we can see how it does!
pivo6
Apr 22, 12:57 PM
That's why you need meta-moderation. Weighs the balance of votes in favour of those who rate sensibly, stops people from just burying personalities they dislike.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
jaykk
Sep 28, 10:58 PM
Here is a pic of his office in 1982.
kernkraft
Oct 1, 04:11 PM
Wow. I suggest finding a phonebook and looking up your nearest therapist because you have major issues. House rapist? You are mental? You have gone bananas so I suppose that avatar suits you. I have no problem with people being good neighbours by not building an eye sore but ultimately those damn conservationists can stick their concerns where the sun does not shine because it is not their property and they would not have paid a single red cent to make that old house livable and earthquake safe. Everything has a life span and that includes houses.
Those conservationists should have given up early on when the facts were presented about the costs of saving the house. They are just crazy busy bodies who are jealous of Job's wealth and expected him to spend money on a house that was not worth saving.
You should realize that everything we have in the physical world deteriorates eventually and that things are not really what is important.
Give me your best shot, not this patronising, insulting crap! The house rapist part was meant to be a bit of a joke, but clearly, it was wasted on you.
I could insult you, but what's the point? You have issues with my banana, whereas you named yourself after one of the greatest classic philosophers? Who the hell do you think you are?! I suggest you suck my banana and put me on your ignore list, because I don't need a monkey on my back, whatever it's called.
Those conservationists should have given up early on when the facts were presented about the costs of saving the house. They are just crazy busy bodies who are jealous of Job's wealth and expected him to spend money on a house that was not worth saving.
You should realize that everything we have in the physical world deteriorates eventually and that things are not really what is important.
Give me your best shot, not this patronising, insulting crap! The house rapist part was meant to be a bit of a joke, but clearly, it was wasted on you.
I could insult you, but what's the point? You have issues with my banana, whereas you named yourself after one of the greatest classic philosophers? Who the hell do you think you are?! I suggest you suck my banana and put me on your ignore list, because I don't need a monkey on my back, whatever it's called.
RichP
Aug 13, 12:13 PM
klaus,
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
so, based on your experience, we can still say the "new" 23s are junk? That really is upsetting.
I gave up on 23s a while ago, although I would really like the increased resolution. I agree with what you said, for the price we pay, we should get quality and consistency, (especially with a company that really pushes dual screen configurations) There is NOTHING more irritating than when the monitors dont "match"
Vidder
Nov 28, 06:31 PM
The RC Car is the least of the problems with the game. While it is plain out "GAY"...it very easy to stop...just ****ing shoot it...i've done it countless times.
The size of the maps and the god awful spawns are the biggest issue with the game. The design forces people to shoot and move or die. And thats the only strategy in the game. It doesn't allow for different styles of play. Its the worst Call of Duty yet.
The size of the maps and the god awful spawns are the biggest issue with the game. The design forces people to shoot and move or die. And thats the only strategy in the game. It doesn't allow for different styles of play. Its the worst Call of Duty yet.
