jetjaguar
Apr 8, 09:09 AM
- New faucets for bathroom & kitchen
- 2 tickets for "Insidious"...do yourself a favor, go and watch it... I havent been scared like that since Saw...it is scary as hell :eek:
really? i was really disappointed with insidious .. the previews made it seem so much scarier
- 2 tickets for "Insidious"...do yourself a favor, go and watch it... I havent been scared like that since Saw...it is scary as hell :eek:
really? i was really disappointed with insidious .. the previews made it seem so much scarier
Thomas Veil
Mar 4, 12:05 PM
Keep talking Veil, 2010 was just the 'coming attractions.'Outdated graphs aside, you really think so? With the tri-cornered hat brigade being vastly outnumbered at rallies? With public opinion siding with the unions? With people watching good workers threatened with jail, and thinking to themselves, "If it can happen to them, it can happen to us?"
And the fact that she married 5P. ;)You have to wonder, if she was in a union and they declared a strike, who would he side with? A thread that runs through his posts seems to be that people and practicality take a back seat to strict adherence to rigid dogma. Would he let his wife get dragged off to jail, just so he could remain righteous in his beliefs?
And the fact that she married 5P. ;)You have to wonder, if she was in a union and they declared a strike, who would he side with? A thread that runs through his posts seems to be that people and practicality take a back seat to strict adherence to rigid dogma. Would he let his wife get dragged off to jail, just so he could remain righteous in his beliefs?
Ommid
Apr 25, 01:19 PM
ok, thought it was
cute funny quotes for girls.
cute funny quotes about love
cute funny quotes
Really Cute Quotes that Make
cute love quotes and poems.
Cute Funny Quotes
funny quotes in marathi. funny
Cute Funny Quotes about Love
Funny Quotes About Love
.jpg "funny quotes cute. funny")
funny quotes cute. funny
really funny quotes
Funny quotes cute and funny
Funny quotes cute and funny
cute funny quotes pictures
10 Funny Cute Cat Quotes and
cute and funny quotes
Lammergeier
Mar 28, 02:40 PM
Cynical move. But it's naive to expect independent awards from Apple.
Ardchoille
Jan 15, 08:31 PM
I find the comments and whining on this forum absolutely amazing. Surely a Windows forum would have fewer complaints about Apple.
I don't own an iPhone; I have no use for Time Capsule; and I don't want to rent movies. However, I am happy for those people who find these products useful.
I use my computer basically for email and writing reports (still doing them in Appleworks!), and I travel around a lot with my iBook. The MacBook Air really interests me. I don't need a powerful chip for that. I don't need a lot of hard drive space for that. For me, Air is quite tempting, although I might get a MacBook Black instead until the bugs are worked out of Air (price with 2 gigs is roughly the same for the two machines). I am prepared to pay the same for less because I know I am paying for the latest and new toys cost more.
It seems that many of the complainers expected Jobs to phone them first to ask what they wanted. They also want the very latest technology for very little money.
Thanks, Apple. Enjoyed today!
I don't own an iPhone; I have no use for Time Capsule; and I don't want to rent movies. However, I am happy for those people who find these products useful.
I use my computer basically for email and writing reports (still doing them in Appleworks!), and I travel around a lot with my iBook. The MacBook Air really interests me. I don't need a powerful chip for that. I don't need a lot of hard drive space for that. For me, Air is quite tempting, although I might get a MacBook Black instead until the bugs are worked out of Air (price with 2 gigs is roughly the same for the two machines). I am prepared to pay the same for less because I know I am paying for the latest and new toys cost more.
It seems that many of the complainers expected Jobs to phone them first to ask what they wanted. They also want the very latest technology for very little money.
Thanks, Apple. Enjoyed today!
D1G1T4L
Mar 17, 05:06 PM
Love this forum for a good laugh. Obviously the OP was wrong with what he did but love laughing at all the holier than thou responses. :D
sotorious
May 2, 09:44 AM
How is this going to work for Verizon users im on 4.3.7 if im not mistaken...
edit scratch that its 4.2.7 and i just went into settings and it says carrier settings update if i click not now or update now will it do it Over the Air?
edit scratch that its 4.2.7 and i just went into settings and it says carrier settings update if i click not now or update now will it do it Over the Air?
dunk321
Mar 17, 10:59 AM
And I'm also a Microsoft Fanboy!!! Haaaaaaa Long live the Microsoft Zune the ultimate iPod Killer!!!
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.
twoodcc
Oct 3, 12:19 PM
i guess the countdown starts about now :).
hard to believe its been nine months since macworld 2006.
yes it is. looking forward to hear the keynote though. i love those things :)
i really think the iphone will be announced
hard to believe its been nine months since macworld 2006.
yes it is. looking forward to hear the keynote though. i love those things :)
i really think the iphone will be announced
PhoneyDeveloper
Apr 26, 10:39 PM
You should have used Philip Endecott's code.
mscriv
Apr 27, 04:13 PM
Hmmm... how can I use this new system to my advantage in the MRville WW game? ;)
jonhcox
Apr 15, 03:01 PM
Honestly, I dig the look of it but I have my doubts about the sharp edges. I can almost promise you that the photos are faked but I'm seeing that most of us already know that. I can see the body being aluminum- isn't the Droid aluminum? There would definitely need to be a place for the antenna- black plastic or something.
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
I'm hoping for something different this time. My 3G has held up well except for a broken ear speaker, but I'd like to see them push it a little as far as design. Every time I see an EVO 4G- I look at it longingly.
dukebound85
Jan 10, 09:35 PM
Wow- imagine if someone had the button pressing capability of shifting to Steve's next slide during his keynote. He's building suspense, toying with us, and bam. Revealed. On to next slide, hold, next slide, finally A/V guy turns projector off.
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
No SDK for you! 1 year!
i would be a tad upset
MacRumors
Oct 10, 04:22 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com)
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
Engadget claims that Apple is ready to announce their rumored video/wireless iPod (http://www.engadget.com/2006/10/10/apple-about-to-announce-wireless-video-ipod/) in the "very near future," which the site takes to mean before the end of the year. According to the report, the much-hyped widescreen iPod would contain wireless connectivity, however which specific technology would be used was not detailed.
Meanwhile, ThinkSecret has gone back (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/09/20060916223336.shtml) and forth (http://notes.thinksecret.com/secretnotes/0609secretnote2.shtml) on the possibility of the device coming before the new year. While quoting "reliable" sources, Endgadet has repeatedly been off the mark with their Apple phone rumors, which may give insight into how good the site's sources are at Apple (claims of the iPhone in August (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/07/20060729213347.shtml), fake 'iChat Mobile' pics (http://www.macrumors.com/pages/2006/08/20060802215346.shtml)).
8CoreWhore
May 2, 02:19 PM
is there any way we can view our own tracked info. it would be cool to see where i have been.
There are GPS apps that allow you to leave "breadcrumbs"... a trail of your travels with data like avg speed, distance, etc.
There are GPS apps that allow you to leave "breadcrumbs"... a trail of your travels with data like avg speed, distance, etc.
DoFoT9
May 15, 01:39 AM
Wirelessly posted (nokia e63: Mozilla/5.0 (SymbianOS/9.2; U; Series60/3.1 NokiaE63-1/100.21.110; Profile/MIDP-2.0 Configuration/CLDC-1.1 ) AppleWebKit/413 (KHTML, like Gecko) Safari/413)
twoodcc, logmein.com is a wonderful (free) web based app. You install a task bar application tht runs whenever the computer turns on.. You then connect in via a web based interface.
Also you could use team viewer to connect. Its free as well but is an app that needs to be opened (auto start might work), its a much much better experience then logmein.com but not as reliable/portable/accessible.
You could also setup port forwarding yourself and run vnc servers :)
twoodcc, logmein.com is a wonderful (free) web based app. You install a task bar application tht runs whenever the computer turns on.. You then connect in via a web based interface.
Also you could use team viewer to connect. Its free as well but is an app that needs to be opened (auto start might work), its a much much better experience then logmein.com but not as reliable/portable/accessible.
You could also setup port forwarding yourself and run vnc servers :)
AppleMacDudeG4
May 4, 06:33 PM
They forgot to include if you ask us whether you can buy one in an Apple store, we would say "order online".
Otherwise nice commercial.
Otherwise nice commercial.
Tymmz
Sep 12, 05:56 AM
Call me na�ve, but aren't they supposed to receive you?
hehe, good one!
hehe, good one!
bcslay
Sep 12, 03:06 AM
no, I wouldn't prefer osx media player, i'm not saying that I would prefer anything different, imedia would make more sense, but there's no way apple would change the name of there most well known software.
lapeno
Apr 7, 03:05 AM
About damn time too...
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Really nice choice!
http://i54.tinypic.com/5n30z.jpg
Looking forward to shooting with this new gear...
Really nice choice!
cal6n
May 2, 10:31 AM
<snip>
The database at Apple was 'crowd sourced' and you opted in to that when you clicked on 'Accept' in the SLA, but that was a twice-per-day, anonymous, encrypted data packet sent back to HQ.
</snip>
Not quite. The data collection dialog was separate from the EULA agreement and was a voluntary opt-in. Whether you chose to opt-in or not did not affect how your device operated.
Personally, I opted-in. I have no problem helping Apple to maintain their location database.
The database at Apple was 'crowd sourced' and you opted in to that when you clicked on 'Accept' in the SLA, but that was a twice-per-day, anonymous, encrypted data packet sent back to HQ.
</snip>
Not quite. The data collection dialog was separate from the EULA agreement and was a voluntary opt-in. Whether you chose to opt-in or not did not affect how your device operated.
Personally, I opted-in. I have no problem helping Apple to maintain their location database.
sunfast
Sep 12, 07:37 AM
Does this mean we won't be seeing iTunes 7.0? I mean if they were releasing a new iTunes wouldn't they make the changes on the new release?
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
dmelgar
Jul 22, 09:46 AM
ALL phones are subject to detuning. The amount of detuning is up to the phone but this is natural. When someone told me, your signal drops when hold the iphone in a wierd way....no s***.
.
Untrue. The iPhone is the only phone affected this way. Apple implying a lie doesn't make it true.
.
Untrue. The iPhone is the only phone affected this way. Apple implying a lie doesn't make it true.
