DylanLikesPorn
Jul 21, 08:40 PM
go Apple. fight fire with fire.
JAT
May 4, 02:02 PM
What, you don't carry a projector in your back pocket? :D
I've considered it, just to be a show off. Kinda like Eidorian's post above, I'm known as the guy with gadgets and knowledge by friends/family. Whipping out a 40" screen from my pocket wouldn't hurt. ;)
I've considered it, just to be a show off. Kinda like Eidorian's post above, I'm known as the guy with gadgets and knowledge by friends/family. Whipping out a 40" screen from my pocket wouldn't hurt. ;)
gregnv
May 3, 04:45 PM
Android 2.3 (and I think 2.2) support wi/fi tethering in the OS, no app needed. If you have an android phone with 2.2 or 2.3 (I do because ATT service sucked where I live), just select SETTINGS then WIRELESS & Networks, then "Tethering & portable hotspot" to set the phone up as a wi/fi hub with data access.
I haven't used the iphone in a while (since moving to T-MO), so I don't know if IOS supports something similar.
(using a Nexus One)
I haven't used the iphone in a while (since moving to T-MO), so I don't know if IOS supports something similar.
(using a Nexus One)
eyelobes
Mar 17, 08:28 AM
Good for you man!!!
That punk ass stoner gets what he gets. I have a brother and a broth-in-law that are both stoner drop outs and half-ass everything they do. Everyone needs a push to set them straight, be it jail or getting fired for failing to pay attention to detail.
As a 2 time war vet, if the scouts on my team failed to pay attention to detail i would be dead right now. As we always used to say "get your head out of your 4th point of contact before you get someone killed"
That punk ass stoner gets what he gets. I have a brother and a broth-in-law that are both stoner drop outs and half-ass everything they do. Everyone needs a push to set them straight, be it jail or getting fired for failing to pay attention to detail.
As a 2 time war vet, if the scouts on my team failed to pay attention to detail i would be dead right now. As we always used to say "get your head out of your 4th point of contact before you get someone killed"
Markleshark
Sep 12, 08:49 AM
Um, Disney owns a ton of companies that don't make cartoons.
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
Sounds Good
Apr 21, 09:23 PM
When is Windows 8 due out?
twoodcc
Apr 3, 11:51 PM
Glad you are back home and getting going again! Yes it seems we should get our numbers up again :)
Thanks! I don't have things exactly like i want, but i will soon. It just may take a week or so
Thanks! I don't have things exactly like i want, but i will soon. It just may take a week or so
toddybody
Apr 25, 12:13 PM
IMHO, it looks gorgeous. I'd love to have one...
chrmjenkins
Dec 13, 12:33 PM
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.
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.
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:56 PM
What if there's a lesbian in the women's bathroom?
What if??
Because if they used the men's washroom they would be swamped by men trying to 'make' her a real woman.
Better she stays in the woman's loo. Far safer.
What if??
Because if they used the men's washroom they would be swamped by men trying to 'make' her a real woman.
Better she stays in the woman's loo. Far safer.
mrsir2009
Mar 9, 09:51 PM
You do realise that's a Touch screen on that Asus all-in-one right ? You also realise HP's all in one has had a touch screen for a while. Yet the day Apple ships a touch screen iMac, you can bet a lot of people here will think they were the first to do it.
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
Yeah, not to mention Sony's use of chicklet keyboa... err.. wait, Apple took that idea from them and not the other way around. ;)
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
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.
of the Zagros Mountains,
foot high Zagros mountains
map of zagros mountains.
A map of ancient Mesopotamia
The Zagros Mountains from east
The Zagros Mountains
is a mountain range in
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.
Wizard of Woz
Jan 15, 08:32 PM
Ahahaha. While some of you have some true criticisms, (and correct IMO) of the keynote, some of you are acting like spoilt little children.
Personally I enjoyed the keynote, except for the $20 iPod touch upgrade, which is a bit of a slap in the face.
The MBA is a complimentary machine to me. I have a C2D 20' iMac on my desk, but need something ultra-portable and light to carry at school. Something that could fit in a tiny little satchel - even a MB is too big - therefore the MBA is perfect for me. It's a machine to take notes, write reports etc on. I'd simply transfer work off using my 2GB Flash drive.
I would like to see an app that could use the touch gestures to draw diagrams - that would be great for Science, Maths etc.
Personally I enjoyed the keynote, except for the $20 iPod touch upgrade, which is a bit of a slap in the face.
The MBA is a complimentary machine to me. I have a C2D 20' iMac on my desk, but need something ultra-portable and light to carry at school. Something that could fit in a tiny little satchel - even a MB is too big - therefore the MBA is perfect for me. It's a machine to take notes, write reports etc on. I'd simply transfer work off using my 2GB Flash drive.
I would like to see an app that could use the touch gestures to draw diagrams - that would be great for Science, Maths etc.
hscottm
Nov 24, 08:24 AM
Just wanted to make a point/post about the Black Friday e-mail that was sent.
All of the "accessories" have the old and new prices listed (with a line striking out the old price). The ipod and mac prices are actually the original, non-sale prices. The "save $xx" are reflected in the prices listed. Its not until you put one in the cart that you see an $898 price.
My point is the "Save $101" in red for the imacs/macbooks is followed by a "starting at $999" price that is in fact the "pre-discount" price. You would think they would be advertising the sale price!
I am not a mac model price expert (like some of you on here), but when I saw "starting at $999" for the MBs and imacs, it just didnt register as a good deal.
They could have printed the prices in a much more clear way.
All of the "accessories" have the old and new prices listed (with a line striking out the old price). The ipod and mac prices are actually the original, non-sale prices. The "save $xx" are reflected in the prices listed. Its not until you put one in the cart that you see an $898 price.
My point is the "Save $101" in red for the imacs/macbooks is followed by a "starting at $999" price that is in fact the "pre-discount" price. You would think they would be advertising the sale price!
I am not a mac model price expert (like some of you on here), but when I saw "starting at $999" for the MBs and imacs, it just didnt register as a good deal.
They could have printed the prices in a much more clear way.
skoker
Jan 9, 04:51 PM
Awesome Running smooth. We're the first in line so its smooth. Keynote coverage and ***removed**** release.
THANK YOU!
You must be either excited or ignorant, spoiler ;)
THANK YOU!
You must be either excited or ignorant, spoiler ;)
Blue Velvet
Apr 27, 01:47 PM
Too much stupidity, too much pride in dumb ignorance and crass contrarianism... and not nearly enough time. Transpeople are clearly trouble; grabbing a quiet burger and wanting to take a pee, all alone like that. Obviously a provocation deserving public ridicule and a beating. Look at the way she cruelly swung her jaw at that poor girl's fist... and then faked a seizure. Despicable.
Dagless
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
Hahaha.
Nope.
Nope.
MrSEC
Apr 15, 10:10 PM
Google, Microsoft and Bush are Devils!
So original.....
So original.....
Mac'nCheese
Apr 15, 02:49 PM
People who have made history have just been people and gay or straight have never come into it. What does it matter? A stand alone class in college on "gay studies" I would have no problem with. The requirement in public schools to teach gay history is bit absurd.
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
That answer is very similar to the posts in the thread about the video apple just did in support of the IT GETS BETTER campaign. Nobody is pitting the gay community against slavery. Nobody is saying lets stop teaching about women's rights and start instead with gay rights. They are just adding it. Why do people always have to make this weird connection?
Those who are gay and feel as if they've been wronged, I feel for them and effort to make it right, but the level of suffering by gay is nothing compared to what black people or women have endured over the centuries. It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
That answer is very similar to the posts in the thread about the video apple just did in support of the IT GETS BETTER campaign. Nobody is pitting the gay community against slavery. Nobody is saying lets stop teaching about women's rights and start instead with gay rights. They are just adding it. Why do people always have to make this weird connection?
Karnivore
Apr 26, 08:34 AM
3.7" ain't going to cut it, sorry
adder7712
Apr 6, 05:32 PM
Who likes looking at ads?
I practically have an equivalent of AdBlock on all browsers that I use regularly...
I practically have an equivalent of AdBlock on all browsers that I use regularly...
dernhelm
Oct 4, 07:45 AM
The Mini is pretty powerful. Sorry to discount your argument, but I think that it's more than enough for people out there that aren't power users/computer nerds. Heck, my dad runs engineering software all day long on his Pentium 3 733mhz, 256MB RAM computer and doesn't feel the need to upgrade.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
I agree - this mid-range headless computer everyone is talking about isn't likely to happen. Apple has clearly discounted this segment as "not very interesting". I'm just guessing here, but it seems like their market research might be a little better than ours on this matter. Even if we did have several friends not buying a Mac because the mini is too small and the Mac Pro too expensive, I'm guessing Apple isn't in that market because they don't feel the niche carries enough value to produce and maintain yet another product line.
However, and I've said this before, I think Apple should build another headless machine aimed at a particular market segment: gamers. They've already shown they can build super-cool looking hardware. They've already produced systems with crazy stuff like liquid cooling. And if anyone can give Dell/Alienware and HP/Voodoo a run for their money, it's Apple.
It being in a small case is even better for the common user. Maybe to us, a small case seems like a bad computer, but the specs are similar to MacBook specs, which seems like enough for almost all users out there.
I agree - this mid-range headless computer everyone is talking about isn't likely to happen. Apple has clearly discounted this segment as "not very interesting". I'm just guessing here, but it seems like their market research might be a little better than ours on this matter. Even if we did have several friends not buying a Mac because the mini is too small and the Mac Pro too expensive, I'm guessing Apple isn't in that market because they don't feel the niche carries enough value to produce and maintain yet another product line.
However, and I've said this before, I think Apple should build another headless machine aimed at a particular market segment: gamers. They've already shown they can build super-cool looking hardware. They've already produced systems with crazy stuff like liquid cooling. And if anyone can give Dell/Alienware and HP/Voodoo a run for their money, it's Apple.
JRoDDz
Mar 17, 08:53 AM
Bull. I had a girlfriend in high school get fired from OfficeMax for being $100 off where she had been working for almost a year. Unfortunately some guy came in that day, paid for two computers and a printer with $100 bills (total was something like $2500, as this was the late 90's). She counted it twice, but apparently one was missed. Corporate policy stated that she could only be off by less than $5 at the end of her shift.
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
It's ok. The original poster isn't worried about his fellow man. He's just happy that he got a discounted iPad. This is the reason this country is going down the crapper. Nobody cares about anyone else. Stick it to the man. yeah so what if this kid got fired. It's all about me me me. :(
She didn't pocket the money and her manager knew that she didn't, but she still lost her job. Company policy.
Would I like to get an iPad for half price? Absolutely, but ONLY if it was because the company was selling it for half price. I pay what I am supposed to pay.
It's ok. The original poster isn't worried about his fellow man. He's just happy that he got a discounted iPad. This is the reason this country is going down the crapper. Nobody cares about anyone else. Stick it to the man. yeah so what if this kid got fired. It's all about me me me. :(
superfula
Apr 29, 05:09 PM
You're mixing up your kernels. NT 4.0 doesn't share a kernel with 95/98, NT 3.51 doesn't share a kernel with Windows 3.x...
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
No, smitty was correct. MS uses version numbers that identify it's code. It's how software devs can write code that decides whether the app should be allowed to install.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
Windows 7 is Windows 7 because it's the 7th release of Windows NT.
1- Windows NT 3.1
2- Windows NT 3.5
3- Windows NT 4.0
4- Windows 2000
5- Windows XP
6- Windows Vista
7- Windows 7
That's the only way it makes sense.
No, smitty was correct. MS uses version numbers that identify it's code. It's how software devs can write code that decides whether the app should be allowed to install.
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x. 2000 and XP are both 5.x, Vista and Windows 7 are 6.x. So it's clear 7 is nothing more than marketing.
From the horses mouth: http://windowsteamblog.com/windows/archive/b/windowsvista/archive/2008/10/14/why-7.aspx
No comments:
Post a Comment