NinjaHERO
Sep 28, 09:16 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
skunk
Apr 21, 12:22 PM
It's only because the page is changing so quickly and the vote count you see may not be accurate at the time you place your vote but your vote is included and the vote count refreshed after you make a vote.Not the case, as I can reverse it at will.
twoodcc
May 16, 03:46 PM
On an i7 720 you won't get bigadv units done in time to get bonus points also I have an i7 980x that hasn't gotten any bigadv units even though I have it set up to get them. I suspect some recent changes on the server end are allowing only certain cpu's to get bigadv units and i7's probably aren't getting them. as far as the passkey I'm not sure it makes any difference for someone like you, I don't think there are any other wu's that get a bonus...
You can minimize the window and it will keep folding...
a3 units get a bonus.
i'm still getting some bigadv units with my i7s
You can minimize the window and it will keep folding...
a3 units get a bonus.
i'm still getting some bigadv units with my i7s
WestonHarvey1
Jul 21, 11:13 AM
- The call loss issue is 1/100 or less, worse for the new 4 model than the prior 3GS model.
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all. Either almost no one is dropping additional calls because of the antenna, or if the issue is more widespread, it is made up for by antenna performance improvements elsewhere. The net result? Same performance as 3GS which no one complained about.
You can either accept that or accuse AT&T and Apple of faking that 1/100 number, in which case your argument is standing in the tinfoil hat section.
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all. Either almost no one is dropping additional calls because of the antenna, or if the issue is more widespread, it is made up for by antenna performance improvements elsewhere. The net result? Same performance as 3GS which no one complained about.
You can either accept that or accuse AT&T and Apple of faking that 1/100 number, in which case your argument is standing in the tinfoil hat section.
seydurin
May 2, 09:59 AM
Not that I really care about the tracking services...but I wonder if Apple will skip the 3G again with this update...
In case you didn't catch it, 4.2.1 was the last firmware ever for the iPhone 3G. The hardware simply can't handle more features.
In case you didn't catch it, 4.2.1 was the last firmware ever for the iPhone 3G. The hardware simply can't handle more features.
leekohler
May 5, 05:13 PM
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when you just need to drive to the next town to buy them. If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
Uh huh- then what? Get our neighboring countries to do the same? We've all seen how well that works. All you'll do is create a huge black market if you attempt to ban guns. Then crime gets even worse. Not the way to go about the problem at all. Not to mention the fact that you would have a huge constitutional issue on your hands.
Uh huh- then what? Get our neighboring countries to do the same? We've all seen how well that works. All you'll do is create a huge black market if you attempt to ban guns. Then crime gets even worse. Not the way to go about the problem at all. Not to mention the fact that you would have a huge constitutional issue on your hands.
wtfk
Oct 2, 08:30 PM
Jobs apparently warned that while Apple was not a litigious company, other tech firms might not take kindly to whatever DVD Jon might be up to.
LMFAO. In case there is any doubt--Apple is a litigious company.
LMFAO. In case there is any doubt--Apple is a litigious company.
skunk
Oct 11, 01:04 PM
that's not the criteria.Nor is it the criterion.
Ketsjap
Jan 5, 07:23 PM
I love the idea of a non-spoiling keynote-experience.
BUT
As I can recall, just after the keynote is posted online, there seem to be that much people viewing it that it just becomes worthless to watch. Such as: image hickups, buffering-probs, vid/sound synchronization-probs...
That is if you even can connect to the stream! Most of the times, the feed just wasn't accessible!
Don't you guys have that problem over there in the States? Maybe it is because I'm in the EU? It really sucks, I guarantee..
BUT
As I can recall, just after the keynote is posted online, there seem to be that much people viewing it that it just becomes worthless to watch. Such as: image hickups, buffering-probs, vid/sound synchronization-probs...
That is if you even can connect to the stream! Most of the times, the feed just wasn't accessible!
Don't you guys have that problem over there in the States? Maybe it is because I'm in the EU? It really sucks, I guarantee..
CharBroiled20s
Oct 11, 04:22 PM
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
I too came from Verizon where I hardly ever dropped a call. I can't remember it ever being a problem. Now I have my second iPhone (first was with tmobile) and I have to say that AT&T is the worst carrier I've ever used. I live in Chicago and not a day goes by where at least 1 call is dropped (usually more than 1).
I'd be right behind you in line at verizon to get one of their iPhones.
AT&T should be penalized for their garbage coverage by apple ripping the exclusivity deal away from them.
We in America would really benefit from legislation that bans anticompetitive exclusivity contracts. Similar laws to that which Europe enjoys would make everyone here a little happier.
Choice is never a bad thing.
xwk88
May 2, 03:56 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8G4 Safari/6533.18.5)
is there any way we can view our own tracked info. it would be cool to see where i have been.
Do people just read the titles on these thing and forgets there is an actual article under it IT'S NOT U LOCATION!!!!!! ITS CROWD SOURCED!!!!!
is there any way we can view our own tracked info. it would be cool to see where i have been.
Do people just read the titles on these thing and forgets there is an actual article under it IT'S NOT U LOCATION!!!!!! ITS CROWD SOURCED!!!!!
Piggie
May 4, 07:11 AM
Wait, what, a CD? Do you come from the 90s? Why do you need to put it on a CD? Do you even know how this works? Do you know how heavy a laptop is compared to an iPad 2? Do you know how much it sucks to "just hand over" a laptop?
I didn't use the CD. The poster said they got the CD from the hospital with the scans on it, and then reviewed the images on the iPad.
And here lies the problem, when you REALLY need to do something, you need to have the flexibility to handle things that are thrown at you.
I didn't use the CD. The poster said they got the CD from the hospital with the scans on it, and then reviewed the images on the iPad.
And here lies the problem, when you REALLY need to do something, you need to have the flexibility to handle things that are thrown at you.
Zwhaler
Jan 5, 03:16 PM
Awesome idea, this will be a cool way to discover new products! Ahh...
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 09:33 AM
This thread has 4 groups of people:
1. The op
2. People who think it is unethical to knowingly steal
3. People who are defending him, who have likely done a similar thing in the past and therefore feel attacked by 2s criticism
4. Philosophy students
1. The op
2. People who think it is unethical to knowingly steal
3. People who are defending him, who have likely done a similar thing in the past and therefore feel attacked by 2s criticism
4. Philosophy students
apachie2k
Sep 12, 07:21 AM
Will we be able to watch this event live? How will coverage (if there will be any) be brought to us?
through mac rumors of course...
through mac rumors of course...
zap2
Apr 16, 02:01 PM
But that's nothing new, to either Microsoft or Apple.
I can't imagine how different things would be today if "Cairo" and "Copland" had materialized with all the technologies they promised over 15 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_(operating_system)
Since then, I just wait to see what sticks, and even then, features can get deprecated in subsequent releases. I think Windows Home Server 1's Drive Extender technology was awesome, but they've pulled it from the next major release.
B
Apple doesn't have much in common with the company that promised that updates. MS might have changed since their Longhorn days, but they are still much closer times wise for MS. We'll see in Vista a screw up for MS after resting on XP's success for so long, or if 7 was a fluke and MS has lost it.
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
I can't imagine how different things would be today if "Cairo" and "Copland" had materialized with all the technologies they promised over 15 years ago.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copland_(operating_system)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cairo_(operating_system)
Since then, I just wait to see what sticks, and even then, features can get deprecated in subsequent releases. I think Windows Home Server 1's Drive Extender technology was awesome, but they've pulled it from the next major release.
B
Apple doesn't have much in common with the company that promised that updates. MS might have changed since their Longhorn days, but they are still much closer times wise for MS. We'll see in Vista a screw up for MS after resting on XP's success for so long, or if 7 was a fluke and MS has lost it.
I'm seeing 8 as a good OS X, but not the upgrade 7 was. Which is in part due to the mess that was Vista and the age of XP at the time of 7's launch.
solvs
Jan 15, 01:33 AM
Blogging isn't journalism,
No, but there are some who are trying to be taken seriously. They had a press pass. As has been repeated multiple times, this hurts the entire blogging industry (and it is an industry) who cover things as journalists. This isn't some old lady down the street, this is a tech blog that's a business itself that has been built up over the years in an attempt to be taken seriously and get press access to just events and products to test for their articles. That's all been destroyed with one stupid act, which they're now trying to turn into an act of defiance. They made some interesting points in the last spiel, but it doesn't change the fact that if they want to be taken seriously, and they claim to want to be, at least more than those who are bought or don't ask the tough questions, this isn't going to help.
So when they do try to post something serious, and they have, is it any wonder if we won't trust them or believe them, or even care?
No, but there are some who are trying to be taken seriously. They had a press pass. As has been repeated multiple times, this hurts the entire blogging industry (and it is an industry) who cover things as journalists. This isn't some old lady down the street, this is a tech blog that's a business itself that has been built up over the years in an attempt to be taken seriously and get press access to just events and products to test for their articles. That's all been destroyed with one stupid act, which they're now trying to turn into an act of defiance. They made some interesting points in the last spiel, but it doesn't change the fact that if they want to be taken seriously, and they claim to want to be, at least more than those who are bought or don't ask the tough questions, this isn't going to help.
So when they do try to post something serious, and they have, is it any wonder if we won't trust them or believe them, or even care?
MBPLurker
Mar 17, 10:59 AM
What is the law (or for these purposes, a crime) and what is ethically "right" or "good" are not always the same thing.
Acting morally is not necessarily equal to acting legally.
Of course, but dishonesty is immoral. Dishonesty coupled with theft and injury is illegal.
Acting morally is not necessarily equal to acting legally.
Of course, but dishonesty is immoral. Dishonesty coupled with theft and injury is illegal.
*LTD*
Apr 23, 04:09 PM
LTD answer the question that was ask multiple times of you. Your refusal to answer is tell me that you are nothing than someone who will defend apple at all cost and can not think for your self. So please provide reasoning.
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
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 phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
We have provided multiple bad reasons and you have failed to deliver us some good reasonings. Come on we ask you last night and you still have not provided one good reason must less several.
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 phone towers you were near, unless you've done something you shouldn't have or been somewhere you shouldn't have.
Is it any reason to get all worked up over?
Absolutely not. That's my position.
As for paedophiles using it (LOL you keep coming back to pedos for some reason), judging by the very good informational post by menlotechnical, it's almost impossible for any one individual to access this remotely, nor is there much they could do with it that they can't already do. This isn't key-logging.
Do you know any paedophiles that have worked this into their master plans? :D How are they accessing it? What's the scenario?
The fact that there is no good reason for something to exist (and the jury's still out on the actual reason for this - it might be an understandable one), does not immediately mean it's dangerous and that something horrible is going on.
In fact, it would appear this is normal behaviour for not only the iPhone, but other phones as well.
There is a galaxy of difference (ah, Samsung pun!) between looking in to the nature of this specific sort of tracking, and slagging on Apple for an egregious violation of your privacy (when for all practical purposes none has actually occurred.)
leetlamer
Apr 29, 04:36 PM
For the love of god get rid of the faux leather.
bowlerman625
Mar 17, 07:06 AM
Yeah you're really a classy person....dork
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
hana
Nov 23, 06:42 PM
Link to inspire to get to the Apple Store for the holiday....
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061122_386136.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index
http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/nov2006/tc20061122_386136.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index
Consultant
Mar 28, 02:26 PM
If you don't want the free publicity, then don't submit your app to the Mac App Store.
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.
Of course, all the haters will cry foul.