D1G1T4L
Mar 17, 05:14 PM
You mean like posting just to say "I'm laughing at you all?" Welcome to the "holier than thou club, buddy.
Please read my post again. Never did I say I was laughing at "you all" but rather the post "buddy". Hope I didn't touch a nerve.
Also who are you quoting?
Please read my post again. Never did I say I was laughing at "you all" but rather the post "buddy". Hope I didn't touch a nerve.
Also who are you quoting?
nicroma
Apr 5, 03:10 PM
This app is nothing more/less than an ad for Apple's ad network.
My head may implode.
No kidding. Ridiculous.
My head may implode.
No kidding. Ridiculous.
ironsienna
Apr 30, 04:40 AM
That's interesting. The way you used a capital letter at the start of the sentence reminded me of my new project, available soon etc,,..
Hilarious :p
Now that Im looking on that though, I think that they got the idea from the tea round app site:
http://www.tearoundapp.com/
The slider looks so similar to the older - new ical design
Hilarious :p
Now that Im looking on that though, I think that they got the idea from the tea round app site:
http://www.tearoundapp.com/
The slider looks so similar to the older - new ical design
jettredmont
Sep 25, 08:23 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "It runs fine on my <insert computer here>."
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
I have an experiment for those that say "My car runs fine on Chevron gas."
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
Open up (in full screen mode) a landscape oriented RAW image and:
1. Use the straightening tool.
2. Try to rotate it 180.
I have an experiment for those that say "My car runs fine on Chevron gas."
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
Plutonius
Aug 3, 12:05 PM
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:53 PM
Indeed.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
affront |əˈfrənt|
noun
an action or remark that causes outrage or offense
Yikes, another one that doesn't understand the meaning of the word.
thejadedmonkey
Apr 7, 09:18 AM
If Windows 8 doesn't have something as simple as Spaces or multiple desktops, then it's an inferior OS.
If someone can make such a broad statement, they are an inferior person
If someone can make such a broad statement, they are an inferior person
Nekbeth
Apr 25, 04:49 PM
No problem dejo, I understand.. It can be frustrating for others as well as myself and that's why some people tell you to go read all Apple's documentation for a simple question and some others help you no matter what. Speaking a language fluidly could take years, I can hardly speak French myself but that is not stoping me from going to France & ask for coffee in their language. (even if they get upset cause I talk awful, which some do, but some others like it :P).
About my issue, I think I solve it. I was able to show up an alarm with using that method after I declare it appropriately.
I now have some thing like this :
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender
{
angel wings (tattoos angel
Cross Tattoos On Back For
Angel Wings Tattoos For Men.
Photobucket Frankie#39;s Back
The cross is an ancient symbol
yellow flying cross tattoo
Cross Wings Tattoos
Categories: Wings Tattoos
Cross With Angel Wings Tattoos
Wings tattoos symbolism
Flowers cross with flowers
About my issue, I think I solve it. I was able to show up an alarm with using that method after I declare it appropriately.
I now have some thing like this :
- (IBAction) cancelTime: (id) sender
{
minnesotamacman
Oct 18, 05:47 PM
It has been said here already, but Apple is smart to back both. I have a feeliing that HD DVD is going to win out in the end. Sure Sony is going to Blu Ray everyone, but not many people over 30 are going to get a PS3...
DStaal
Oct 4, 08:58 AM
...I'd like The Steve to walk on stage and announce that they absolutely will not release certain products, so the ones that keep coming up as rumours over and over again that stand no chance of ever seeing the light of day (Apple phone, I'm looking at you) stop getting taken seriously, and the rumour sites that have promoted the idea finally get egg on their faces.
You do realize that would only vindicate the rumor, and people would say he's only saying that because he doesn't want anyone leaking the info on the product Apple's developing...
Steve standing up there, bringing in the head of every development department, and having each one describe precisely what they are working on still would not stop the rumors of 'secret' projects. :rolleyes:
You do realize that would only vindicate the rumor, and people would say he's only saying that because he doesn't want anyone leaking the info on the product Apple's developing...
Steve standing up there, bringing in the head of every development department, and having each one describe precisely what they are working on still would not stop the rumors of 'secret' projects. :rolleyes:
puckhead193
Sep 7, 10:19 PM
Kanye West does not care about mac people.
if the price is right he'll care about anything ;)
if the price is right he'll care about anything ;)
ctdonath
Sep 29, 09:07 AM
Thats not apart of what a home should be. Homes are for eating, sleeping, loving, and relaxing. A screening room is for... Well, none of those.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
Nicely put. I follow the "no TV in the bedroom" rule for similar reasons (that room is for two things); will now extend the rule accordingly and start planning for the next house with suitable layout.
I WAS the one
May 4, 07:11 AM
Finally... They realized the word "Magic" is childish.
BWhaler
Jan 9, 12:58 AM
This is a great idea.
one1
May 4, 12:08 AM
Wow... I rarely run across the checkerboard on mine and when I do it's gone in a second or two. Not obtrusive.
Surf more than just text pages. The heavier it gets the more checkerboards.
Surf more than just text pages. The heavier it gets the more checkerboards.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
dicklacara
Jul 21, 01:25 PM
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Couple of things:
1) What isn't factored into your calculations is that because of its more-sensitive antenna, the iP4 was able to make calls, in marginal signal areas, where the 3GS showed no signal and was not able to attempt or receive a call... dropping any of these "never-before-possible" calls would reflect poorly on the iP4, and be included in the "< 1 call per hundred" more dropped calls by the iP4.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
All of this has been widely reported (or obvious) to those who care to objectively examine the facts. So it is a bit disingenuous to make your assertions, without qualification.
.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Couple of things:
1) What isn't factored into your calculations is that because of its more-sensitive antenna, the iP4 was able to make calls, in marginal signal areas, where the 3GS showed no signal and was not able to attempt or receive a call... dropping any of these "never-before-possible" calls would reflect poorly on the iP4, and be included in the "< 1 call per hundred" more dropped calls by the iP4.
2) <1 per 100 more dropped calls by the iP4 than the 3GS. "< 1" can mean anything from, say, .0000000001 to .9999999999. Without knowing the real delta fraction it is difficult to base calculations on it.
3) The 3GS came into being with a plethora of available cases-- the iP4 with 1 case, that was in so short supply as to be non-available. Apple stated that 80% of the 3GSs left their store with a case. So, many 3Gs had 2 layers of antenna shielding, the 3GS plastic housing and an external case. The bulk of iP4s had neither-- 0 levels of antenna shielding.
All of this has been widely reported (or obvious) to those who care to objectively examine the facts. So it is a bit disingenuous to make your assertions, without qualification.
.
TomCondon
Apr 5, 03:11 PM
This totally reminds me of when capitalism goes too far...
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 06:00 PM
From your original post --> "It seems that most people feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
Ok fair enough, that was poorly phrased. What I meant was "It seems that some smart phone owners feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
Just sayin...
Ok fair enough, that was poorly phrased. What I meant was "It seems that some smart phone owners feel some kind of envy to me because I own an iPhone 4."
yanki01
Dec 13, 09:42 PM
i think its too late to start the adds for this if they want everyone to jump and buy before christmas.
w_parietti22
Oct 4, 07:32 PM
I might be going for my 16th Bday :D :D :D
milo
Sep 12, 07:33 AM
Can we please burn them so we can watch films on normal DVD players!
Not gonna happen. Apple will let you watch in the living room, it will just be via wireless streaming.
Not gonna happen. Apple will let you watch in the living room, it will just be via wireless streaming.
MonkeyET
Dec 18, 04:08 PM
My question is if AT&T's exclusivity indeed DOESN'T expire until 2012, then what's the deal with the lack of AT&T iPhone commercials on TV these days? There was a time, not so long ago, when it seemd like every other TV commercial was AT&T whoring the iPhone. Now, it seems like I never see iPhone ads on TV and AT&T is touting every other phone EXCEPT the iPhone.
Didn't Apple just release a new commercial in the last few weeks about the longer life of the iPhone 4 battery compared to other smartphones? If not for this commercial, I would have gone alone with your argument.
Didn't Apple just release a new commercial in the last few weeks about the longer life of the iPhone 4 battery compared to other smartphones? If not for this commercial, I would have gone alone with your argument.
Patrick J
Apr 15, 04:03 PM
In the second picture, it seems like whoever was doing the editing couldn't quite get the text in the right position. It looks completely off, kinda in a downward slant to the right.
http://www.cheeplinux.com/images/bugfeaturemug.jpe
http://www.cheeplinux.com/images/bugfeaturemug.jpe
