NamJangNamJa
Nov 16, 04:49 PM
Very interesting! :D
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
slackpacker
Apr 29, 04:06 PM
This is good the slider metaphor was very annoying and slow to use.
CaoCao
Apr 18, 11:20 PM
oh my stars and garters, please don't get me started...
it's nice that the word is getting out tho, and people are waking up. took me long enough!
What about the absolutely peaceful Muslims brutally attacked out of nowhere by rapacious imperialist crusaders who wanted to savagely impose their religion upon the tolerant and free society?
it's nice that the word is getting out tho, and people are waking up. took me long enough!
What about the absolutely peaceful Muslims brutally attacked out of nowhere by rapacious imperialist crusaders who wanted to savagely impose their religion upon the tolerant and free society?
Earendil
Sep 25, 11:07 AM
So how many people rated the news of Aperture being updated as negative just because you whiners didn't get what you wanted, i.e. a different product release? Huh?
Get over yourselves. Not every Apple event is about what you want. As a photographer this is great news, not "ok" news or even "bad" news. As an Apple users it's decent news because Apple is growing and developing.
[/rant]
I would have liked to see some performance gains from the software. Perhaps they are there, they just weren't mentioned.
~Tyler
Get over yourselves. Not every Apple event is about what you want. As a photographer this is great news, not "ok" news or even "bad" news. As an Apple users it's decent news because Apple is growing and developing.
[/rant]
I would have liked to see some performance gains from the software. Perhaps they are there, they just weren't mentioned.
~Tyler
toddybody
Apr 29, 01:25 PM
...enable trim on 3rd party ssds.
amen
amen
yellow
Apr 11, 01:47 PM
I purchased a stay at this Castle. I hope the wife likes it.
What are you doing with a camera shot of my servant's quarters? :confused:
What are you doing with a camera shot of my servant's quarters? :confused:
MrMac'n'Cheese
May 2, 01:27 AM
Suggestion:
Have it show who plus'ed you and who neg'ed your each post.
I've seen it implemented in other forums, or just allow a thank you button type of thing, no negative option allowed please.
People have the cojones to neg you anonymously, but if their name was attached to the negative rep/karma, whatever you wish to call it, it would be a vastly different story.
Otherwise I'm for the removal of this seemingly annoying feature, faceless jerks can team up to negative rep your posts, and before you know it its war to neg' each other.
EDITHow long are you going to test this before 'it is permanetly tossed in favor a better, less abusable alternative'?
Have it show who plus'ed you and who neg'ed your each post.
I've seen it implemented in other forums, or just allow a thank you button type of thing, no negative option allowed please.
People have the cojones to neg you anonymously, but if their name was attached to the negative rep/karma, whatever you wish to call it, it would be a vastly different story.
Otherwise I'm for the removal of this seemingly annoying feature, faceless jerks can team up to negative rep your posts, and before you know it its war to neg' each other.
EDITHow long are you going to test this before 'it is permanetly tossed in favor a better, less abusable alternative'?
ten-oak-druid
Apr 29, 09:38 PM
Calling it Windows 7 sort of makes no sense, technically it's the 10th version of Windows, if you dont count server editions.
It's only the 7th if you start counting from Windows 98.
And
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
OS X came naturally after OS 9. I wonder if the version after OS X.9 will be OS X.10 or OS XI? I guess OS X.10 would make sense if the OS doesn't change significantly as it did from 9 to X.
Microsoft needed the good luck after Vista. :p
LOL - maybe 8 is their lucky number...
It's only the 7th if you start counting from Windows 98.
And
major kernel version
1,2: 1.0 and 2.0
3: 3.0, WfW3.11, NT 3.51
4: 95, 98, NT4
5: 2000, XP
6: Vista
7: Windows 7 (but really 6.1):confused:
So the answer is, "marketing"
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
OS X came naturally after OS 9. I wonder if the version after OS X.9 will be OS X.10 or OS XI? I guess OS X.10 would make sense if the OS doesn't change significantly as it did from 9 to X.
Microsoft needed the good luck after Vista. :p
LOL - maybe 8 is their lucky number...
iAndrea
May 3, 04:27 PM
Seems like the software guys will always stay one step ahead in an open market.
The carriers are going to end up loving iPhone!
The carriers are going to end up loving iPhone!
Rodimus Prime
Apr 23, 11:22 PM
My answer is that I don't know what purpose it serves, and neither do you. This does not mean it's dangerous.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
Can it be used for nefarious purposes? That depends. No one really knows a lot about it. There's not a whole lot anyone can do by tracking what cell ....
Stand fanboy crap refusing to answer the question.
*LTD* That is not an answer to the question.
To me your refusal to answer screams that You are nothing more than a blind Apple fanboy who refuses to think for once self. The question gave you a broad latitude to answer it but you refused to.
This tells me if it was ANY ONE else but Apple you would be all over it. But because it is Apple you will worship it and say it is good.
So if you feel it is so GOOD. PROVIDE REASONS.
We have provided list of bad reasons and you have yet to provide a single good reason. You seem to be defending it so therefor you must have a long list of good reasons for it. So provide some good reasons why Apple should be data collecting like this.
For Cell phone providers I can understand why but I have yet to see a single reason why Apple or Google should.
At least when ask why Google responded. Apple has yet to respond and that is worry some.
mrgreen4242
Sep 12, 08:43 AM
How you gonna burn it to DVD if it's Hi-Def?
You can burn HD video to DVD as long as you have something that can play it back, eg a Mac mini Media Edition. A DVD-R DL would hold a 2hr 1080p H.264 movie (with only stereo sound and a less than perfect, imo, bitrate). More better would be 720p with 5.1 and a very high bitrate on a DVD-R DL.
All new Macs have DL SD (well, all new Macs with SDs)... I know DVD-R DL blanks are still $1-2 a piece, but have you seen the price for a BR or HDDVD movie?
You can burn HD video to DVD as long as you have something that can play it back, eg a Mac mini Media Edition. A DVD-R DL would hold a 2hr 1080p H.264 movie (with only stereo sound and a less than perfect, imo, bitrate). More better would be 720p with 5.1 and a very high bitrate on a DVD-R DL.
All new Macs have DL SD (well, all new Macs with SDs)... I know DVD-R DL blanks are still $1-2 a piece, but have you seen the price for a BR or HDDVD movie?
firsttube
Sep 12, 08:38 AM
*SMACK!*
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
Yeah, I just posted that same response on digg, right before it went down for maintenance. One of those "CONFIRMED" headlines saying they had confirmation of the iTMovieStore. Makes me want to roll my... oh yeah :rolleyes:
Those are Movie Trailers for the iPod.
Yeah, I just posted that same response on digg, right before it went down for maintenance. One of those "CONFIRMED" headlines saying they had confirmation of the iTMovieStore. Makes me want to roll my... oh yeah :rolleyes:
bedifferent
Apr 29, 07:06 PM
I used Photoshop.
lol :p
lol :p
xVeinx
Nov 16, 01:11 PM
Part of this might also be involved in other components aside from processors. As AMD now includes ATI, there are other products that might require the mentioned passive components. I'm willing to bet these capacitors might be required for a more robust video iPod or new graphics options in the current processor/laptop lineup. The Intel GMA 950 graphics are functional, but reviews on the integrated graphics included in the P965 desktop chipsets are just short of apalling. Apple would probably have seen this comming and might be trying to incorporate a form of integrated graphics from ATI without dropping the whole Intel chipset base for Santa Rosa. So yes, "AMD" would be involved, and more capacitors would be needed, but not for some new laptop. Sure, I'm flying blind, but it's fun to speculate anyways :p
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
Moonlight Sonata Sheet Music
Moonlight Sonata item Screen
Sheet Music
Beethoven#39;s Moonlight Sonata
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 09:30 AM
Oh my god...
did Apple seriously just make pointing fingers apart of their campaign?
I thought they were above that!
I understand that it's unfair that the other companies do that and all, but Apple really doesn't need to stoop to their level, do they?
They're not stooping. They are defending their product by demonstrating that the issue is not unique to their phone. I think most people instinctively knew this before the iPhone - telling someone that holding a phone a certain way might reduce the signal would have resulted in a shoulder shrug. Of course it will, it's a radio.
The N1 can't maintain a 3G signal when touched, period. Yet it didn't cause this kind of outcry because it wasn't from Apple.
did Apple seriously just make pointing fingers apart of their campaign?
I thought they were above that!
I understand that it's unfair that the other companies do that and all, but Apple really doesn't need to stoop to their level, do they?
They're not stooping. They are defending their product by demonstrating that the issue is not unique to their phone. I think most people instinctively knew this before the iPhone - telling someone that holding a phone a certain way might reduce the signal would have resulted in a shoulder shrug. Of course it will, it's a radio.
The N1 can't maintain a 3G signal when touched, period. Yet it didn't cause this kind of outcry because it wasn't from Apple.
rhett7660
Apr 21, 11:07 AM
What additional value does this provide?
I was thinking the same thing. What is the purpose and reasoning behind it? Maybe a little more insight.
I don't see this ending well. See ratings for front page articles.
I can see this going down in flames also especially in some of the other sections of the forums. IE PRSI and any thread LTD responds in! :)
I was thinking the same thing. What is the purpose and reasoning behind it? Maybe a little more insight.
I don't see this ending well. See ratings for front page articles.
I can see this going down in flames also especially in some of the other sections of the forums. IE PRSI and any thread LTD responds in! :)
UnReel ATX
Apr 6, 12:28 PM
These :] time to get ******.
asphalt-proof
Jan 10, 07:34 PM
I started to think more about this and I think they are going to get punished where it will really hurt: Ad revenue and sample products to review. If i was a vendor, there is no way I would send something to them to review would i advertize on their site. Especially if I were Motorola. I wouldn't be surprised if Gizmodo is shuttered in a month or so. Let them come to Macworld... it will probably be the last conference they ever cover.
Highland
Aug 2, 11:33 AM
Norway is doing you all a favor. Do not act as stupid ass consumers with no brain. It is your right when you by music to listen to i where ever you want it too.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
VERY WELL SAID.
A couple of points people always seem to miss.
#1 -- This is not solely about iTunes. It isn't an attack on Apple... it's FOR ALL online music stores.
#2 -- "Just buy CDs" DOES NOT cut it. They won't be around for much longer.
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.
You payed for it didn't you so now it is yours ....
DRM is ******** and it takes away your rights as a consumers.
Act now stop that ********.
One more thing. At least we have the freedom and our goverment tries too help.
VERY WELL SAID.
A couple of points people always seem to miss.
#1 -- This is not solely about iTunes. It isn't an attack on Apple... it's FOR ALL online music stores.
#2 -- "Just buy CDs" DOES NOT cut it. They won't be around for much longer.
Stop being such asses and realise that proprietary DRM on music, video, pictures or digital books is a really, really, ridiculously stupid thing for consumers and society. I'd rather have no DRM, but if we have to, let's make it something that everyone can use.
Also... this isn't being driven entirely by Apple. The content owners are as much, if not more to blame. We all need to start speaking up about this or we're going to REALLY regret it in a few year's time.
HyperZboy
Apr 9, 08:31 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
Eidorian
Nov 24, 08:02 AM
AirPort Express Base Station
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
save $41.00
$129.00
$88.00$8 cheaper this year.
andiwm2003
Apr 25, 09:50 PM
if it looks like this, has 16GB, A5, 512MB Ram, a good 5MP camera, the same facetime camera as before I'll upgrade from my 3GS. This is likely to happen anyway. When will it be out? Any guesses in the absence of data?
zim
Nov 24, 08:04 AM
$8 cheaper this year.
I know! :) Looks like I am buying another (replacing one that fried after a power outage). So to those who doubted me :p
I know! :) Looks like I am buying another (replacing one that fried after a power outage). So to those who doubted me :p
No comments:
Post a Comment