theLimit
Jan 15, 02:34 PM
Second MW in a row with disappointing new stuff that I have no use for and not a mention of stuff that I can use. I'll just wait out the next two or three weeks hoping for a silent MBP refresh.
JayMysterio
Dec 6, 12:41 AM
I was playing this game today and the final kill cam was of a guy getting shot who was standing in the middle of a road (where he spawned) aimed at the sky shooting at a helicopter with what looked like a Light Machine gun of some sort. The guy who shot him was in a room looking out a window. As the replay was going on i stated over the mic "now there's an intelligent player" referring to the guy who was under no cover trying to take down a chopper with a gun. The guy who was shooting at the chopper stated that he was trying to fulfill and achievement by taking the chopper down.
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
Cradle Of Filth - Bitter
Cradle Of Filth — Venus In
cradle of filth by ~grimmrain
Cradle of Filth Photo Stream
Cradle Of Filth (Red
Cradle Of Filth - To Eve The
Cradle of Filth#39;s pictures:
CRADLE OF FILTH Sign To
Cradle of Filth
cradle of filth - the
Cradle of Filth - Thornography
icons Cradle of Filth will
Cradle of Filth Image
Cradle of Filth
The Cradle of Filth-headlined
Cradle Of Filth,Godspeed on
In 1994, Cradle of Filth was
I thought about this and realized that this goal/reward system in the game (this goes for most online FPS's) in a way made this player do something so stupid. The player was only looking to fulfill his own personal goals and thought nothing of the team and the loss that occurred cause of it.
So I ask you, (the reader) does this make sense to have in the game when it forces players to go out of there way for personal goals and shift away from the overall team play?
Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 11, 12:50 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 24, 10:44 AM
What trolls? If you're on about *LTD* here, he is entitled to his opinion, and whereas our opinions differ, it does not mean he is a troll.
Their opinions aren't what bothers me. People are free to have whatever opinion they like. But when they constantly come into threads with no intention of discussing the topic at hand, only to remind us of what their opinion is for favorite brand, that is troublesome, and behavior that does NOT need defending. But hey, that's just MY opinion.
Their opinions aren't what bothers me. People are free to have whatever opinion they like. But when they constantly come into threads with no intention of discussing the topic at hand, only to remind us of what their opinion is for favorite brand, that is troublesome, and behavior that does NOT need defending. But hey, that's just MY opinion.
bluewire
Mar 29, 10:16 AM
BUMP!!!
Can someone get David Caruso on this case?
::Cue music for CSI: Goldfish::
Good luck, hope we hear word TODAY! :cool:
Can someone get David Caruso on this case?
::Cue music for CSI: Goldfish::
Good luck, hope we hear word TODAY! :cool:
ratzzo
Apr 29, 03:44 PM
I like it as it is in Snow Leopard.
synth3tik
Jan 10, 05:17 PM
Thats something that should stay at the hackers convention. not CES and most definitely not MWSF.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:23 AM
His point was remove the TSA security check and only have only armed air marshals. Bringing a gun to a bomb fight is like bringing a knife to a gun fight.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
My point was that the TSA security does provide a buffer to keep terrorists from boarding a plan packed with explosives where an armed masrhal is going to be useless.
The world we once knew no longer exists, time to get used to it.
No, my point was to scale it back to what it was before 9/11 and maintain both domestic and international security at the pre 9/11 level of international security.
snberk103
Jan 15, 04:43 PM
One thing I think people need to keep in mind about the MB Air... it's NOT a replacement laptop or a replacement workstation!
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
I'm not the target market for the MBA, and I suspect most of us on MR aren't either. We like our Macs for more 'technical' reasons. So while I can appreciate the technology and looks of an MBA, I would never buy one for myself - it doesn't do what I need it to do. However.... My wife, who is a road warrior, is starting to sound intrigued specifically because it had "less". Less size, Less weight. Less energy consumption (longer battery life).
Harddrive specs? She uses not quite half of her existing 80gigs. CPU specs - Does it run Word? Safari? MSN Messenger? Optical Drive? I'm the only one who uses it (I'm her IT dept). Firewire? Same as the optical drive.
She sees her MBP as a tool with which to research, and to write, and to play the occasional song while researching and writing. And solitaire. She is also a missing demographic in Apple's market. Look at the airport lounges full of Mac users. The majority are men and likely in a media or tech field. Not all, but a majority.
For my wife (and others like her) the specs that matter to her are weight - she travels with carry-on luggage only - even for 1 or 2 week trips. Size - she is not a lumberjack - that 1 kg savings over her MBP is *huge*. Does it run the non-media centric apps that are her livelihood? Yes.
The deal breaker for her was the ethernet port. Still is if she can't use it and a USB memory stick simultaneously. Maybe I'll get her current MBP in a year when Apple puts out Rev B of the MBA....
Stop looking for the big power and flexibility! It's a product designed for the road warrior. Someone that is always on the road and needs a light but functional laptop will find the Air useful and not a bad value compared to others on the market in the category.
People should look at the MB Air as a technology demonstration of whats possible and what will come in the future to more laptops... I'm guessing the next MB's and MB Pros are going to be thinner and have solid state drives as an option.
All I'm saying is keep it in perspective... the MB Air is NOT FOR EVERYONE!
I'm not the target market for the MBA, and I suspect most of us on MR aren't either. We like our Macs for more 'technical' reasons. So while I can appreciate the technology and looks of an MBA, I would never buy one for myself - it doesn't do what I need it to do. However.... My wife, who is a road warrior, is starting to sound intrigued specifically because it had "less". Less size, Less weight. Less energy consumption (longer battery life).
Harddrive specs? She uses not quite half of her existing 80gigs. CPU specs - Does it run Word? Safari? MSN Messenger? Optical Drive? I'm the only one who uses it (I'm her IT dept). Firewire? Same as the optical drive.
She sees her MBP as a tool with which to research, and to write, and to play the occasional song while researching and writing. And solitaire. She is also a missing demographic in Apple's market. Look at the airport lounges full of Mac users. The majority are men and likely in a media or tech field. Not all, but a majority.
For my wife (and others like her) the specs that matter to her are weight - she travels with carry-on luggage only - even for 1 or 2 week trips. Size - she is not a lumberjack - that 1 kg savings over her MBP is *huge*. Does it run the non-media centric apps that are her livelihood? Yes.
The deal breaker for her was the ethernet port. Still is if she can't use it and a USB memory stick simultaneously. Maybe I'll get her current MBP in a year when Apple puts out Rev B of the MBA....
Christian247
Apr 15, 01:16 PM
I agree, these photos are not of the real product. although I have seen other photos of a similar iPhone design, but with a chromed bezel that wraps around the entire image, and makes it look much better. and a polished back casing; because Apple is; a well polished company...They arent going to have another unfinished backing.
FAKE, now it's on to the next one...
FAKE, now it's on to the next one...
Frosties
Jul 21, 12:22 PM
don't complain about the iPhone 4 unless YOU ACTUALLY HAVE AN iPHONE 4! Secondly, don't complain cuz you can make your bars disappear on your iPhone 4 unless you've EXPERIENCED PROBLEMS DURING NORMAL USE. Yes i can make my phone drop bars. Yes Apple screwed up some with the design or at least by giving everyone an "X" marks the spot.
It's the typical internet forum user review problem. Any product be it a TV, stereo, vacuum cleaner or now a phone get more positive feedback than it is entitled to because the customer is satisfied and want the product to be perfect. That is why a user review often is "it's the best "named product category" I have ever had!
Reviews are for prospective customers, that is why they exists! Naturally a potential customer wishes a product that he is interested in to be fixed if it has problems and faults as you yourself in the post above claims. Why sweep it under the rug?
It's the typical internet forum user review problem. Any product be it a TV, stereo, vacuum cleaner or now a phone get more positive feedback than it is entitled to because the customer is satisfied and want the product to be perfect. That is why a user review often is "it's the best "named product category" I have ever had!
Reviews are for prospective customers, that is why they exists! Naturally a potential customer wishes a product that he is interested in to be fixed if it has problems and faults as you yourself in the post above claims. Why sweep it under the rug?
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 03:12 PM
I'll give it does have advantages. I don't think I would agree that it is "a hell of a lot easier", as most apps have an automatic updater or some mechanism to make you aware that an update is available.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
Lord Blackadder
Aug 7, 11:43 PM
The batteries are no more dead weight than a tank of gasoline.
Arguably true - but that illustrates a big weakness of the hybrid design...they are always going to take a weight penalty over a pure diesel or pure electric car.
Until we come up with a way to make batteries a lot lighter, more efficient and more green, they are going to force engineers to make big compromises.
Arguably true - but that illustrates a big weakness of the hybrid design...they are always going to take a weight penalty over a pure diesel or pure electric car.
Until we come up with a way to make batteries a lot lighter, more efficient and more green, they are going to force engineers to make big compromises.
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.
dont24
Nov 24, 08:12 AM
Hopefully it still applies to corporate discounts too. Can anyone confirm what?
Looks like it does. I checked the corporate discount page. The 24" iMac regular $1999, is $1880 - $101. Not bad. $1779 shipped.
Too bad there's no savings on the Mac Pro.
Looks like it does. I checked the corporate discount page. The 24" iMac regular $1999, is $1880 - $101. Not bad. $1779 shipped.
Too bad there's no savings on the Mac Pro.
andrewbecks
May 2, 08:55 PM
Really its not brain surgery.
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Windows 1.0, 2.0, 3.0, 4.0, XP (5.0), Vista (6.0), Windows 7 (7.0).
Actually, if I'm not mistaken, I believe that Windows 7 is actually version 6.1.
v1: Windows 1.0
v2: Windows 2.0
v3: Windows 3.x, Windows NT 3.1
v4: Windows 95 (4.0.x), Windows NT 4 (also 4.0.x), Windows 98 (4.1.x), Windows ME (4.9)
v5: Windows 2000 (5.0.x), Windows XP (5.1.x), Windows XP 64-bit (5.2.x)
v6: Windows Vista (6.0.x), Windows 7 (6.1.x)
Don't ask me why--seems a bit illogical to me. Especially since, at some point, they'll likely have a v7.x and it will likely create additional confusion.
Wikipedia has a little more detail on this:
There has been some confusion over naming the product Windows 7, while versioning it as 6.1 to indicate its similar build to Vista and increase compatibility with applications that only check major version numbers, similar to Windows 2000 and Windows XP both having 5.x version numbers. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_7
Meandmunch
May 4, 12:27 AM
Thinner and Faster dammit!
I am already tired of my iPad 2, I look at her and she's all like chubby and lazy. The magic just isn't there anymore, I need a new girl.
I am already tired of my iPad 2, I look at her and she's all like chubby and lazy. The magic just isn't there anymore, I need a new girl.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 22, 11:20 AM
If you don't like reading pro-Apple posts, then you can put me on ignore or hang out on Neowin.
The thing is, we all know you are pro-Apple. That is fine. Everyone can like whatever they want. It is your incessant need to come into any and EVERY thread about their competition just to bash and mud-sling that gets old and makes people hate you. I like Android, but you don't see me going into every single thread on MR about the iPhone bashing it and spreading FUD because of that.
You don't like Windows, MS, Android, Google, RIM, etc, and think Apple is way better. We get it. How about you make a new thread. It could be ["Things I hate" by *LTD*], where you talk ALL about the things that bug you with the competition, and why Apple's version of everything is so much better. That way you, hopefully, won't come in and derail these other threads, where you clearly have nothing of substance to add.
The thing is, we all know you are pro-Apple. That is fine. Everyone can like whatever they want. It is your incessant need to come into any and EVERY thread about their competition just to bash and mud-sling that gets old and makes people hate you. I like Android, but you don't see me going into every single thread on MR about the iPhone bashing it and spreading FUD because of that.
You don't like Windows, MS, Android, Google, RIM, etc, and think Apple is way better. We get it. How about you make a new thread. It could be ["Things I hate" by *LTD*], where you talk ALL about the things that bug you with the competition, and why Apple's version of everything is so much better. That way you, hopefully, won't come in and derail these other threads, where you clearly have nothing of substance to add.
yoda13
Sep 12, 12:39 AM
I can't wait to see what they got up their sleeve, hope I am stoked...:D
Mord
Apr 27, 01:19 PM
Where to start....
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
- How about the definition of "Gender".... I am not talking about "Gender roles" or "norms" or any of that. I am speaking ONLY about the scientific aspect of "Gender".
Case in point: Lets say a transgendered individual is stricken with a life threatening ailment. Now we all know that certain illnesses are more prone to certain genders. The doctor asks you what gender you are, in order to diagnose and cure you before you die. No matter how much you are convinced that you are actually gender "X" despite being born gender "Y", you are still going to be disposed to illnesses that effect gender "Y".
Anyone care to debate that?
Another thing- I find it very interesting how quickly you guys started to assume I'm being "narrow minded" and how I need to "broaden my horizons"...
I find it even more interesting that you jumped to the same conclusions (prejudicial conclusions, perhaps) despite my twice stating that I support transgender rights and that it is not a personal choice but an inherent predisposition.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gender it's all a bit grey there....
Having been a transgender individual in a potentially life threatening situation a couple of times, generally I informed them of my medical history like any sane patient would.
You're focusing on selective binary aspects of sex in a topic relating to transgender people, do you not think that this could be seen as somewhat offensive and inappropriate?
As I said, I am what I am, I'm fine with that, I just don't appreciate you "helpfully" pointing out that there are certain aspects of sex-differentiation you can't erase.
That does not mean you're not being a douchebag when you directly or indirectly call a transsexual woman a man or male, even citing your oversimplified ideas of sex and gender. It propagates a culture that sees us in terms of our troubled history rather than who we are and in some cases will be.
Does that make things clear for you? I'm not trying to be confrontational for the sake of it.
CerealKillers
Mar 17, 12:49 AM
Hahah sweet. This happened to me a couple yrs ago with an iPod touch. I put $75 on my credit card and was gonna pay the rest with cash when I was handed a receipt and the iPod Touch.
Red Defiant
Mar 25, 04:09 AM
10 years is a long time
phineas
Oct 6, 01:20 PM
Isn't Verizon's 4G network going to be GSM?
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
I believe the way to say it is LTE, which boils down to GSM and yes there supposed to start in 2010
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
I believe the way to say it is LTE, which boils down to GSM and yes there supposed to start in 2010
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 10:29 PM
What if after pressing the start button, you create a timer and start it. Then pressing the cancel button invalidates and releases it. Then pressing the start button would create another timer, using the same pointer.
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
Update *** "I though it worked but the timer kept going on the background.
crashed :confused:
wlh99, do you get an exception in the invalid method " [myTimer Invalidate]" ?
Totally untested and probably broken code below, but should demonstrate the idea:
-(IBAction)startButton:(id) sender {
// myTimer is declared in header file ...
if (myTimer!=nil) { // if the pointer already points to a timer, you don't want to create a second one without stoping and destroying the first
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release];
}
// Now that we know myTimer doesn't point to a timer already..
myTimer = [NSTimer scheduledTimerWithTimeInterval:aTimeInterval target:self selector:@selector(echoIt:) userInfo:myDict repeats:YES];
[myTimer retain];
}
-(IBAction)cancelIt:(id) sender {
[myTimer invalidate];
[myTimer release]; // This timer is now gone, and you won't reuse it.
}
Update *** "I though it worked but the timer kept going on the background.
crashed :confused:
wlh99, do you get an exception in the invalid method " [myTimer Invalidate]" ?
No comments:
Post a Comment