JAT
Apr 8, 02:59 PM
As a former BBY employee I can tell you a few things that are flawed.
#1 no former or current Best Buy employee would call themselves BBemployee, BBYEmployee would seem more likely. I know its stupid but it is the culture of Best Buy to shorten it to BBY.
#2 You would have no clue if Best Buy was in trouble. As a simple Blue Shirt or even a Black Shirt you would not have this information passed down to you.
#3 Your rant show that you either hate Best Buy for personal reasons or possibly a former employee who has a huge vendetta against the company.
#4 Your rant does nothing to support this discussion.
Did you actually read it? I see nothing to support the use of "rant". But s/he did say "I don't really like Best Buy", so that's hardly news at this point.
I will say that I didn't realize 17.4GB text files would actually post on the forum!
#1 no former or current Best Buy employee would call themselves BBemployee, BBYEmployee would seem more likely. I know its stupid but it is the culture of Best Buy to shorten it to BBY.
#2 You would have no clue if Best Buy was in trouble. As a simple Blue Shirt or even a Black Shirt you would not have this information passed down to you.
#3 Your rant show that you either hate Best Buy for personal reasons or possibly a former employee who has a huge vendetta against the company.
#4 Your rant does nothing to support this discussion.
Did you actually read it? I see nothing to support the use of "rant". But s/he did say "I don't really like Best Buy", so that's hardly news at this point.
I will say that I didn't realize 17.4GB text files would actually post on the forum!
steadysignal
Apr 10, 06:59 PM
I refuse to buy anything from Best Buy because of their ethics and practices.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
+1. been done with best buy for a long time. the markup on hdmi cables alone is enough to make me want to throw up in my mouth.
rats.
chrisdazzo
Apr 7, 11:20 PM
Just purchased a date on April 19th at my Mac with these 2 goofballs. :D
http://kttns.org/iyjbj
Also, $30 worth of 87 gasoline. I'm dying here; this crap costs so damn much now.
http://kttns.org/iyjbj
Also, $30 worth of 87 gasoline. I'm dying here; this crap costs so damn much now.
nebulos
May 4, 03:09 AM
Seriously, you think Drs and CEOs need pressure sensitive styluses? You are the one being ridiculous.
The thing about all those lines, they are all true. You latch on to a single feature and try to use it to disqualify 1000s of unrelated use cases.
- most people, even professionals do not require any stylus to effectively use an iPad.
- there are dozens of good styluses for the iPad already. Some even do a decent job of approximating pressure sensitive. These syluses cover 95%+ of what the people who want styluses are looking for. The other 5% or trying to replace a specialized drawing device with an iPad.
So 5% of .01% care about pressure sensitive styluses. (I am being very generous here, the number is actually quite a bit smaller then that).
I do use a stylus on my iPad, every single day. I take notes with it and sign contracts....
i'm very surprised that you can defend the ipad's handwriting capabilities.
pressure sensitivity is not the issue.
when writing on ipad with a stylus you can not let any part of your hand rest on the screen, either that, or you can wear a crazy glove; this makes writing incredibly awkward.
but what's worse is the accuracy with which the stylus registers. the ipad was simply not built for this. lines come out jagged and disfigured. you can probably scribble something awful but readable. try drawing the simplest thing.
tell me i'm wrong.
as for your percentages:
what do people want to do with styluses? mostly write. some want to draw, artists, but also people that want to be able to sketch figures and ideas.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
tell me you do.
even if we said 100% of people simply want to be able to write, as on a regular pad, as i see it, all 100% will find the ipad dreadfully unsuitable.
yes, you can do a lot without a stylus. yes, i was unfair in my statements. yes, the ipad can still be useful.
is it MORE useful than a regular laptop? No. how could it be?
... if it had accurate stylus input.
yes, that would make it more expensive. in fact, what we're essentially talking about here is nothing more than a 'slate' tablet PC, which has been around forever. they're making a comeback thanks to the ipad, and i hope they will become the standard, for the higher end tablets anyways. they are more expensive than ipads, but they're actual computers that run full operating systems. they have touch and they have pen input.
that's a direction Apple should have gone in a long time ago. i hope, hope, hope they will go there in the future.
The thing about all those lines, they are all true. You latch on to a single feature and try to use it to disqualify 1000s of unrelated use cases.
- most people, even professionals do not require any stylus to effectively use an iPad.
- there are dozens of good styluses for the iPad already. Some even do a decent job of approximating pressure sensitive. These syluses cover 95%+ of what the people who want styluses are looking for. The other 5% or trying to replace a specialized drawing device with an iPad.
So 5% of .01% care about pressure sensitive styluses. (I am being very generous here, the number is actually quite a bit smaller then that).
I do use a stylus on my iPad, every single day. I take notes with it and sign contracts....
i'm very surprised that you can defend the ipad's handwriting capabilities.
pressure sensitivity is not the issue.
when writing on ipad with a stylus you can not let any part of your hand rest on the screen, either that, or you can wear a crazy glove; this makes writing incredibly awkward.
but what's worse is the accuracy with which the stylus registers. the ipad was simply not built for this. lines come out jagged and disfigured. you can probably scribble something awful but readable. try drawing the simplest thing.
tell me i'm wrong.
as for your percentages:
what do people want to do with styluses? mostly write. some want to draw, artists, but also people that want to be able to sketch figures and ideas.
can the ipad do this effectively now? can a student take notes in class on an ipad? do you really think a student can take readable notes, fast enough, while writing with a 'hovering' hand?
tell me you do.
even if we said 100% of people simply want to be able to write, as on a regular pad, as i see it, all 100% will find the ipad dreadfully unsuitable.
yes, you can do a lot without a stylus. yes, i was unfair in my statements. yes, the ipad can still be useful.
is it MORE useful than a regular laptop? No. how could it be?
... if it had accurate stylus input.
yes, that would make it more expensive. in fact, what we're essentially talking about here is nothing more than a 'slate' tablet PC, which has been around forever. they're making a comeback thanks to the ipad, and i hope they will become the standard, for the higher end tablets anyways. they are more expensive than ipads, but they're actual computers that run full operating systems. they have touch and they have pen input.
that's a direction Apple should have gone in a long time ago. i hope, hope, hope they will go there in the future.
linux2mac
Mar 30, 09:12 AM
This is why I switched to Mac. I don't miss these Windows headaches or spending money on anti-virus software every year. :D
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
xparaparafreakx
Mar 24, 01:21 AM
A bunch of ********* kids I'm guessing. "Oh, lets steal the $400 Xbox instead of the $1500 TV or the laptop." What is this world coming to??
Back when I was about 8, we were jacked. However it was our house and the house next to us. We lost all of our console GAMES, the system still there. The other house lost their console SYSTEM, the games still there. Its nice to know that the world has not changed 10 years later.
Back when I was about 8, we were jacked. However it was our house and the house next to us. We lost all of our console GAMES, the system still there. The other house lost their console SYSTEM, the games still there. Its nice to know that the world has not changed 10 years later.
PsykX
Apr 5, 04:45 PM
Desperate is as desperate does...
No. The idea is very good in fact, it’s a pure showcase for companies that are interested in making iAds, but who are still reticent.
I’m really astounded by the quality of the comments in this thread, not just by yours.
Don’t tell me that you thought it was for the average end-user for real? :eek:
No. The idea is very good in fact, it’s a pure showcase for companies that are interested in making iAds, but who are still reticent.
I’m really astounded by the quality of the comments in this thread, not just by yours.
Don’t tell me that you thought it was for the average end-user for real? :eek:
QuarterSwede
Apr 25, 01:32 PM
iCon police.
Took me a minute to get that. Nice. ;)
Took me a minute to get that. Nice. ;)
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
twoodcc
Apr 10, 11:21 PM
I know... but I can always hope :p
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.
yeah that's true, but now what's the excuse? the processors are out now!
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.
yeah that's true, but now what's the excuse? the processors are out now!
macenforcer
Nov 24, 02:39 PM
You are correct!
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
I should go back to the Apple store, and give them $101 + the extra tax associated (making it $107.56) for the MacBook I just bought. Only because this sale is lame! :rolleyes:
Yeah you should. You could have gotten it cheaper from Macconnection. No tax, free shipping, free carrying case, free mouse and $100 off. Hmmm :rolleyes:
Drag'nGT
Oct 6, 12:08 PM
Isn't Verizon's 4G network going to be GSM?
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
Verizon bought many different CDMA companies that didn't take off during the early years of cell phones. Because of that, they have infrastructure that can be upgraded. In other words, they have towers in those areas that shaded red. CDMA or GSM doesn't matter so much as having a tower in the area to put equipment on. So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
on another note if it is wouldn't their coverage also be spotty?
Verizon bought many different CDMA companies that didn't take off during the early years of cell phones. Because of that, they have infrastructure that can be upgraded. In other words, they have towers in those areas that shaded red. CDMA or GSM doesn't matter so much as having a tower in the area to put equipment on. So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
Anthony T
Apr 16, 09:54 AM
My only question is if the new iPhone will just come in one color/look. I like how there is a choice of white or black with the 3GS, but if they go aluminum, I can't see them making more than one color/look.
airforce1
May 2, 10:51 AM
- iPod bug fixes
Hopefully fixes the bug when album artwork doesn't show on the lock screen. It's not a critical bug, just kinda annoying.
At least apple admitted for the first time ever that they have a bug, i guess they mean BUG as in eavesdropping!
Hopefully fixes the bug when album artwork doesn't show on the lock screen. It's not a critical bug, just kinda annoying.
At least apple admitted for the first time ever that they have a bug, i guess they mean BUG as in eavesdropping!
MacinDoc
Sep 12, 12:57 AM
Disney is the 2nd largest media company in the world. I surely hope you don't think we're just getting Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck movies. Here's just the movie companies that Disney owns:
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Pixar
I think that's quite a good start.
-Matt
I realize that, but there are more major studios that are not on that list owned by Disney than there are on the list. But maybe it will work out like the TV downloads have, as some have suggested, starting with just a few and adding more. The problem is, Apple does not currently dominate that market; there are other players right now that are equally strong with their video download services. It seems that the market seems to favor having a dominant player, like Windows for OS and iTMS for music downloads. This could leave the door open for Microsoft to dominate this market if Apple doesn't ramp up its selection quickly.
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Pixar
I think that's quite a good start.
-Matt
I realize that, but there are more major studios that are not on that list owned by Disney than there are on the list. But maybe it will work out like the TV downloads have, as some have suggested, starting with just a few and adding more. The problem is, Apple does not currently dominate that market; there are other players right now that are equally strong with their video download services. It seems that the market seems to favor having a dominant player, like Windows for OS and iTMS for music downloads. This could leave the door open for Microsoft to dominate this market if Apple doesn't ramp up its selection quickly.
xUKHCx
Apr 27, 04:54 AM
What version of IE are you on?
arn
Currently 8.0.6001.18702 on Windows XP, not sure of the version of XP as I am on a citrix connection that is locked down so can't check.
arn
Currently 8.0.6001.18702 on Windows XP, not sure of the version of XP as I am on a citrix connection that is locked down so can't check.
nosen
Sep 25, 01:58 PM
Breaking News: First Look at Aperture 1.5
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/24732.html?cprose=daily
by Ben Long - coAuthor Aperture Pro Training
Thanks for the link! After reading this, I'm VERY excited about upgrading now! The enhancements to the library are very welcome for me. It might even tempt me to import my entire photo library... :o
http://www.creativepro.com/story/news/24732.html?cprose=daily
by Ben Long - coAuthor Aperture Pro Training
Thanks for the link! After reading this, I'm VERY excited about upgrading now! The enhancements to the library are very welcome for me. It might even tempt me to import my entire photo library... :o
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 12:16 PM
Very inexactly. The system is borked.
Before you assume that, try xUKHCx's suggestion. In testing on dormant threads, where others aren't voting constantly, it works accurately every time. This thread has 67 posts but 341 views... you don't know how many of those viewing are clicking to vote on various posts.
I do agree that you should be able to remove your vote, rendering a net change of zero, but otherwise, it appears to be accurate.
The Arabs invented 0 some time ago.
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
Before you assume that, try xUKHCx's suggestion. In testing on dormant threads, where others aren't voting constantly, it works accurately every time. This thread has 67 posts but 341 views... you don't know how many of those viewing are clicking to vote on various posts.
I do agree that you should be able to remove your vote, rendering a net change of zero, but otherwise, it appears to be accurate.
The Arabs invented 0 some time ago.
http://www.thegeminigeek.com/who-invented-the-zero/
SkyStudios
May 2, 02:01 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
i love your post, we are in trouble if this was not intentional, security issues for sure haha
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/18/what-steve-jobs-said-about-google/
lol
i love your post, we are in trouble if this was not intentional, security issues for sure haha
http://tech.fortune.cnn.com/2010/10/18/what-steve-jobs-said-about-google/
lol
countrydweller
Jul 21, 09:36 AM
Show me another phone that can drop calls from just the position of one finger. Nokia have their problems at the moment, but their reception has always been rock solid.
As for people being surprised at Apple's childishness, have you forgotten about the douchetastic "I'm a Mac campaign".
I can't, but my iPhone 4 hasn't dropped any of my calls, my 3G use to drop calls 2 or 3 calls a month.
As for people being surprised at Apple's childishness, have you forgotten about the douchetastic "I'm a Mac campaign".
I can't, but my iPhone 4 hasn't dropped any of my calls, my 3G use to drop calls 2 or 3 calls a month.
zoetropeuk
Sep 25, 11:42 AM
That is good to know, because 1.1.2 runs like crap on a Quad with a 6800GT and 8GB of RAM. Unacceptable, really. I basically abandoned the workflow and went back to Photoshop. I can actually get work done that way.
Damn then there must be something wrong with you Quad again Gary. I regularly use 1.1.2 on my 1.67 powerbook and I find it perfectly acceptable. And on my G5/X800XT it's super fast.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
Damn then there must be something wrong with you Quad again Gary. I regularly use 1.1.2 on my 1.67 powerbook and I find it perfectly acceptable. And on my G5/X800XT it's super fast.
I think the issue with people finding it slow is there lack of understand of what Aperture is actually doing. And also not really knowing how to use Aperture to it's full potential.
Everybody wants everything to be instant but that will never happen.
I for one find the workflow of cataloguing, correcting and exporting in Aperture far faster and superior then any comparable app.
DeSnousa
May 16, 07:30 AM
Thought I would post here instead of starting a new thread. How do I get bonus points, all I am reading is -advmethods and setting up a passkey. Would it be worth it on a i7 720qm at 1.66ghz? Would it complete a wu in 4 days?
This passkey sounds like a big deal should I be using it on all me machines?
With the console client for windows, is there a way I can close the window with out it stopping folding, kind of pointless having the window constantly open. Surely it can fold in the background?
Thanks guys :)
This passkey sounds like a big deal should I be using it on all me machines?
With the console client for windows, is there a way I can close the window with out it stopping folding, kind of pointless having the window constantly open. Surely it can fold in the background?
Thanks guys :)
christian_k
Dec 14, 05:23 AM
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Many GSM-operators in Europe are building LTE networks and will start commercial LTE-service in 2011. But you will need UMTS (and even GSM) as a fallback for a long time. This means sooner or later an iPhone with LTE, HSDPA,UMTS and probably even GSM will be needed.
But I don't think we will see that in 2011. Maybe in 2012 or 2013.
Christian
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Many GSM-operators in Europe are building LTE networks and will start commercial LTE-service in 2011. But you will need UMTS (and even GSM) as a fallback for a long time. This means sooner or later an iPhone with LTE, HSDPA,UMTS and probably even GSM will be needed.
But I don't think we will see that in 2011. Maybe in 2012 or 2013.
Christian
MrMac'n'Cheese
Apr 18, 07:30 PM
I find it highly unnecessary for the TSA to pat down kids, especially, kids younger than 8-9 yrs old.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
No comments:
Post a Comment