NT1440
Mar 4, 02:10 PM
They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
Mr. Chewbacca
Mar 24, 03:10 PM
Wish I had gotten a few shares of stock then!!
puckhead193
Mar 18, 07:05 PM
i used to hate iphone owners (because i wanted one) but now that I have the perfect phone i'm happy and don't care what people say.
frenchroast
Sep 28, 08:00 PM
They also forgot to mention that it will be machined out of a solid block of aluminum billet.
Nermal
Oct 3, 10:53 PM
If they do that it probably wouldn't work with iTMS purchased tracks.
Indeed, there would need to be a "helper" that checks to see where the track came from, and redirects it to DoubleTwist if necessary.
I'm interested in seeing where this all goes, it'll hopefully silence the complaints of the lack of an NZ iTMS.
Indeed, there would need to be a "helper" that checks to see where the track came from, and redirects it to DoubleTwist if necessary.
I'm interested in seeing where this all goes, it'll hopefully silence the complaints of the lack of an NZ iTMS.
spicyapple
Oct 3, 12:20 PM
Leopard secret features are what I'll be waiting for. :)
patp
Mar 17, 07:45 PM
Whenever an Adroid user gives me any crap, I just say one thing to them and it always shuts them up.
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
"battery life"
Works all the time. :D
one1
May 4, 10:26 AM
The "Only way" ?
What, you could not use a laptop?
And how would an iPad only owner read the CD in the 1st place?
Yes the iPad made a nice easy to use picture viewer once you had put the images on it from your real computer at home is what you are saying.
You could just of easy taken a laptop which read the CD images off directly onto the screen and no needed this new device whatsoever.
Who owns a laptop? Not I. Should I pull one out of thin air to appeal to your invalid response?
How would an iPad only owner USE an ipad without activation? Your argument is completely without merit. They make these things called iMacs, try one! They are fantastic for the home, but a little hefty for trip to the doc.
I could have driven a Daewoo, but I took a BMW. *WINK* (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d5/audiogodz1/IMG_0053copy.jpg)
What, you could not use a laptop?
And how would an iPad only owner read the CD in the 1st place?
Yes the iPad made a nice easy to use picture viewer once you had put the images on it from your real computer at home is what you are saying.
You could just of easy taken a laptop which read the CD images off directly onto the screen and no needed this new device whatsoever.
Who owns a laptop? Not I. Should I pull one out of thin air to appeal to your invalid response?
How would an iPad only owner USE an ipad without activation? Your argument is completely without merit. They make these things called iMacs, try one! They are fantastic for the home, but a little hefty for trip to the doc.
I could have driven a Daewoo, but I took a BMW. *WINK* (http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d5/audiogodz1/IMG_0053copy.jpg)
maclaptop
May 3, 02:26 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
Here's my take on it.
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
Here's my take on it.
One of the carriers source of income is data charges. Within that category of data sales is:
1) Data used via smartphone for web access.
2) Data used via tethering your phone & laptop.
3) Data used via a laptop air card bought from the carrier.
When you use method 2 illegally, the carrier loses out on that data sale. It's been like this for years, yet not been a problem as large as it is now.
relimw
Sep 25, 11:10 AM
So... what are we supposed to run this monstrosity on? The G5 QUADS had a hard enough time running the first one. I can't imagine running this on an iMac or worse... a mac mini.
JOKE JOKE JOKE
And to think, I can run Lightroom on a G4 mini...
JOKE JOKE JOKE
And to think, I can run Lightroom on a G4 mini...
kevinliu4
Oct 11, 05:25 AM
initially i was skeptical of the design as i was wondering how anyone is supposed to hold this thing (while watching video) without blocking the screen. then i realised when i use the ipod to watch video, it's usually resting on a table (at work) or in my palm (on the train). i don't actually watch video while i'm walking down the street for example.
however, i think with a virtual touch screen click wheel, the screen of the ipod is gonna be a mess in no time...fingerprint city. i also have visions of me forgetting to click hold as i wipe the screen to remove the finger prints, then inadvertently blasting my ears off as the volume on the virtual wheel goes up. i dunno. having said that, can't wait to see it!
however, i think with a virtual touch screen click wheel, the screen of the ipod is gonna be a mess in no time...fingerprint city. i also have visions of me forgetting to click hold as i wipe the screen to remove the finger prints, then inadvertently blasting my ears off as the volume on the virtual wheel goes up. i dunno. having said that, can't wait to see it!
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Mr. Chewbacca
Mar 24, 03:10 PM
Wish I had gotten a few shares of stock then!!
iOS v Android
May 3, 02:18 PM
why are you on macrumors.....you have something to do with Android to....practice what you...ah you know the rest
Yes and this story has little to do with iOS. It has nothing to do with openness vs Close. It is just something to mislead people. Read the article and look at all the comments.
Yes and this story has little to do with iOS. It has nothing to do with openness vs Close. It is just something to mislead people. Read the article and look at all the comments.
Hephaestus
Mar 17, 07:35 PM
I get it a lot too but I just say "nah, this phone sucks it's the worst phone in the world" and they usually shut up.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
That was exactly my point. I don't see why people care so much about what phone someone else has. It's only the Android folks that engage in this, I have yet to see an iPhone owner behave so pathetically.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
That was exactly my point. I don't see why people care so much about what phone someone else has. It's only the Android folks that engage in this, I have yet to see an iPhone owner behave so pathetically.
Eidorian
May 4, 12:16 AM
You really want to watch video on a 10" screen?That's the joke.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
On a more serious note, not really. I was trying to think of something other than web browsing. I have a HTPC that I cobbled together that takes care of that.
Anthony T
Apr 15, 10:44 PM
As much as I hope they are fake, they look like real photos.
japanime
Mar 25, 03:46 AM
the release in retrospect was a milestone in Apple's transformation from a struggling computer company into the major technology behemoth it is today.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
Odd choice of words. "Behemoth" is most often used to describe something that that it is so large that it is unpleasant. And "major behemoth" is redundant.
deejemon
Jan 14, 09:55 PM
*
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:26 PM
well i'm about to leave my apartment tonight again for the next 2 months. this time i'll only be 2 hours away, so i can come back on the weekends if something messes up again. we'll see.
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
Reach
Jan 12, 02:03 PM
Just stupid.. I sure wouldn't invite them to my expo, but kids will be kids I guess..
sparkleytone
Oct 28, 03:51 PM
Its not that big of a deal. Every "OSx86" release we have seen so far share the same fundamental problem: they are "one-off" builds.
This means they are not upgradeable via Software Update and the build can be easily obsoleted by a subsequent Apple release. This combined with the fact that Joe User wouldn't touch this with a 10ft pole means that it can't really harm Apple very much. In fact, until it is truly hacked, OSx86 builds will probably contribute more to Apple sales than hurt them.
This means they are not upgradeable via Software Update and the build can be easily obsoleted by a subsequent Apple release. This combined with the fact that Joe User wouldn't touch this with a 10ft pole means that it can't really harm Apple very much. In fact, until it is truly hacked, OSx86 builds will probably contribute more to Apple sales than hurt them.
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:10 PM
I don't think so... They skipped iPhone 2 and iPhone 3 and went right to "iPhone 4" because it was the 4th generation. Why wouldn't they call it iPhone 6 if it's the 6th generation?
Because its Apple, and that is what they will do. Trust me, Ive seen the future
Because its Apple, and that is what they will do. Trust me, Ive seen the future
liketom
Sep 12, 07:38 AM
5 hours before the event has to be a first
No comments:
Post a Comment