parenthesis
Oct 10, 07:12 PM
I think Apple should keep the name "True Video iPod," just as a salute to all the rumor mongering.
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
jamieg
Sep 12, 04:50 AM
I think you'll find movie distrubution rights outside of USA have the same problems as TV SHOW downloads outside of USA. In other words we wont get any lol, in much the same way as we cant download from the new Amazon movie download servers in the UK. I dont know who actually runs the european side of Apple but they want sacking lol, over a year and no new content outside of USA lol. I'll still follow the feeds though lol cos I'm sad like that :)
What I mean is that TV channel companies buy exclusive rights to show shows, you will find (in the UK anyway) shows like lost don't go on sale on DVD till after they have been shown on TV. Highstreet shops can't buy the rights to sell DVD movies exclusively. However, I am sure there are plenty of legal issues Apple will have to work around.
Jamie
What I mean is that TV channel companies buy exclusive rights to show shows, you will find (in the UK anyway) shows like lost don't go on sale on DVD till after they have been shown on TV. Highstreet shops can't buy the rights to sell DVD movies exclusively. However, I am sure there are plenty of legal issues Apple will have to work around.
Jamie
balamw
Apr 26, 08:53 PM
is that last code enough info balamw?
Still too much left out. "After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)" should tell you you are leaving potentially important stuff out.
You can point out an error and give solution or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one is telling you to quit. They're telling you to go back and make sure you understand objects. (Clearly you don't). This is something you will have to understand for yourself.
As it stands you are confusing yourself.
I don't think I've been involved in any of your threads. What resources are you using to learn Objective-C?
B
Still too much left out. "After that I implement a Cancel method pointing to sender (button)" should tell you you are leaving potentially important stuff out.
You can point out an error and give solution or you can tell that person to quit what he's doing because he has no idea. It's a lot easier to say, go read Apples documentation than to point out an error and explain it yourself.
No one is telling you to quit. They're telling you to go back and make sure you understand objects. (Clearly you don't). This is something you will have to understand for yourself.
As it stands you are confusing yourself.
I don't think I've been involved in any of your threads. What resources are you using to learn Objective-C?
B
twoodcc
Dec 26, 01:14 PM
well of course i'd love for this to be true, but i doubt it
iStudent
Nov 24, 08:18 PM
Online stores are still having problems. Try reviewing your orders.
store.apple.com is still near crawl levels. It appears you can shop now (the whole system has been sluggish for the past few hours), but at least the products and the deals pages are working. As FC said, the order review still does not work. My errors range from no errors to connection to database problems. Gotta love Thanksgiving!
store.apple.com is still near crawl levels. It appears you can shop now (the whole system has been sluggish for the past few hours), but at least the products and the deals pages are working. As FC said, the order review still does not work. My errors range from no errors to connection to database problems. Gotta love Thanksgiving!
rdowns
Apr 17, 12:12 PM
Awesome, to make enough time for this lets just forget everything after the Great Depression because it's not like that junk matters as much as gays being persecuted. Seriously, the Holocaust and the Rape of Nanjing are totally trivial events compared to the Stonewall riots. We should totally drop coverage of the bombing of Pearl Harbor to make room for a lecture on how NAMBLA doesn't represent gays. To top it off we should ditch the civil rights movement in favor of the White Night riots!
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
Where do you get this stuff? :rolleyes:
:rolleyes: there is no time available to teach this, if we teach this something else gets whacked. As is we get to the 1930s by the tests which go to the 1980s...
Where do you get this stuff? :rolleyes:
mandis
Aug 7, 07:29 PM
Woooohoooo! Now the 20" ACDs go for around �410.00 (with edu discount)!! ;)
I'm buying two in September!! :D
I'm buying two in September!! :D
djrod
Apr 30, 01:34 AM
I've seen worse, and done worse, but still feel you're totally right. :o
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
Anyway, to attempt an on-topic post:
This is actually really interesting to me.
Sliders make some sense (they are more tactile for single-choice selections), but they still suck:
First, it requires too much care to try to slide it around.
Second, sliders "value" selections in an order-sensitive way since it is easier to jerk it all the way to one side then to stop it in the middle.
Third, a slider implies intermediate values are passed through.
Sliders suck, not just because we are more familiar with buttons, but because they make everything more complicated despite feeling a bit more tactile.
You didn't have to slide the thing, you know? It behaved like ol' buttons, to select an option just click it, and the animation instead of been a pressing button was a slider..
bikertwin
Sep 25, 03:47 PM
Yes, a very good point. And it makes me wonder if Adobe will ever charge for it. In fact, now they have rebranded it Adobe "Photoshop" Darkroom, it leads me to believe it will be included as part of Photoshop and not as a seperate product. This might also be why they haven't released it yet, since the next version of Photoshop isn't finished. This strategy would undercut Apple since most photography professionals undoubtedly already own Photoshop and will upgrade.
No, Adobe is claiming Lightroom will be released in late early a good 3 months before PS CS3.
I think with this rebranding, they're positioning Lightroom between PS Elements and PS CS, hence PS Lightroom.
No, Adobe is claiming Lightroom will be released in late early a good 3 months before PS CS3.
I think with this rebranding, they're positioning Lightroom between PS Elements and PS CS, hence PS Lightroom.
124151155
Apr 16, 11:17 PM
I'm aware that these are fake, but I think this is what the next iPhones are going to look like - following the design of the iPad...
Hopefully there will be a 128GB model, I'd definitely be getting one of them =D
Hopefully there will be a 128GB model, I'd definitely be getting one of them =D
tkermit
Apr 5, 03:34 PM
Apple loves its customers so much, they let you view ads for free!
This could actually be made useful if Apple let you accumulate iTunes credit for voluntarily looking at some of the ads
This could actually be made useful if Apple let you accumulate iTunes credit for voluntarily looking at some of the ads
PPC970FX
Aug 2, 02:24 AM
1) Oslo the capital of norway is the city where the ipod/people ratio is highest in the WORLD.
2) They are stuffed with cash.
3) They are the most advansed tech people in the world, "everybody" has a computer and DSL. And many even know how to use them :P
4) They have been trendsetters on the intnernett for the past 3-6 years.
That is why Norway Sweden and Denmark has iTS
2) They are stuffed with cash.
3) They are the most advansed tech people in the world, "everybody" has a computer and DSL. And many even know how to use them :P
4) They have been trendsetters on the intnernett for the past 3-6 years.
That is why Norway Sweden and Denmark has iTS
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
AhmedFaisal
Apr 13, 11:15 AM
Great, a shoot out on a plane loaded with innocent bystanders. :rolleyes:
I'd take that 1 in a billion risk (especially since they have non piercing projectiles) over being heckled and manhandled by TSA any day. And that way I have at least a chance to stay alive if a hijacker makes through security, which they will eventually do even with current "security standards". International travel security was sufficient before 9/11. All they needed to do was raise US domestic security to that level and add sky marshals to ALL not just some flights. Problem solved. Again, 9/11 were domestic flights, NOT international. There was a security problem with DOMESTIC travel in the US, NOT international. You can roll your eyes until they pop out, doesn't change the fact that you are being fooled by the fearmongering of governments ever since 9/11 so they can piece by piece whittle away your rights to privacy and not having to risk your health for stuff like business travel.
I'd take that 1 in a billion risk (especially since they have non piercing projectiles) over being heckled and manhandled by TSA any day. And that way I have at least a chance to stay alive if a hijacker makes through security, which they will eventually do even with current "security standards". International travel security was sufficient before 9/11. All they needed to do was raise US domestic security to that level and add sky marshals to ALL not just some flights. Problem solved. Again, 9/11 were domestic flights, NOT international. There was a security problem with DOMESTIC travel in the US, NOT international. You can roll your eyes until they pop out, doesn't change the fact that you are being fooled by the fearmongering of governments ever since 9/11 so they can piece by piece whittle away your rights to privacy and not having to risk your health for stuff like business travel.
runlsd
Apr 8, 09:02 PM
http://g4.img-dpreview.com/F898767C19DD482B9B9DC83ACBD8249C.jpg
DeSnousa
Apr 13, 04:44 PM
Oh yeah thanks to your help in getting the SMP client and giving the GPU client a go, I am now in the top 20 producers. Not bad considering when a few years back I had only an iBook and I was producing 48 points a day and did that for over a year!
I don't know how long I will be able to sustain that rate though might have to drop back.
I don't know how long I will be able to sustain that rate though might have to drop back.
Hephaestus
Mar 18, 08:18 PM
I agree with you on this- the comments were definitely rude.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
But I still don't think you get my point (and this includes the guy who posted below my previous post). That it doesn't mean that the other person is jealous of you. Its this attitude that irks me. And its this very attitude that so many "fanboys" share. Why in the world would someone be JEALOUS of you because you have a $200-$300 phone or even a $1500 computer?!? And because you think others envy you for it, you end up placing extraordinary value on everyday material things. I mean, seriously, is this what you use to define your status in society, what kind of phone you carry? Are you really that shallow and materialistic? I honestly feel pity for you.
To the other poster. You were jealous of (or "hated") those who had iphones until you got one for yourself. Now you believe that everyone around you is jealous of you.
I understand, you buy something trendy, and it makes you feel good. Thats great, I'm not arguing with that, because you should enjoy everything you have. But its this faux sense of superiority that comes with it, that makes you believe that others are envious of you because you bought this gadget. Its not like you've won the Nobel prize or even drive a Bugatti Veyron, that would make someone want what you have. No, you bought a phone. A phone that lots of people already have. A phone that my housekeeper's 11 year old son has. And any Joe Schmoe can walk into any Apple store/Walmart/Best Buy and pick one up. And when the new model comes out, you'll buy that as well, because you're chronically unsatisfied with what you have, and somehow, you feel that owning this will raise you up above the rest of society. It is people with attitudes like this (the attitude of the fanboy) that Apple capitalizes on.
Take this as a life lesson -- set your goals higher. Don't be envious of the guy with the cooler phone.
Oh my, you really missed the point with this one. Maybe you are right and I'm exaggerating, but if someone flat out starts being rude to someone because they see them with something, then I'm struggling to think of a reason. By no means am I placing extraordinary value on it, what have I been repeating through every page of this thread? Its just a damn phone. Keep your life lessons to yourself and try not to be so condescending.
Also, reality is that there are a lot of people out there that get jealous of material things. Some people get jealous when they see others drive a nicer car, some get jealous when they see someone with nicer shoes then them. I perfectly understand the shallowness of the human condition. I'm simply pointing out an observation based on my own personal experience within the last few days.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:42 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
and did you?
and did you?
iOrlando
Apr 15, 12:46 PM
looks like alot of a/lum/nigh.
miamialley
Apr 8, 01:55 PM
I realize this is a rumor site, but posting conflicting rumors in the same day is getting obnoxious. Is there ANY fact checking at all?
Bistroengine
Apr 5, 03:16 PM
[Nevermind. Took a bit of searching, but I eventually found it. Curiously, for me, it did not show up when I searched for Apple]
Am I the only one not finding this on the App Store?
Am I the only one not finding this on the App Store?
Ommid
Apr 25, 12:29 PM
Still edge to edge glass like the ip4 = more cracked & shattered screens.
The 3G(s) were better designed with that metal ring to take the pain of a fall
instead of hitting the glass on edge
Not an issue for most users.
The 3G(s) were better designed with that metal ring to take the pain of a fall
instead of hitting the glass on edge
Not an issue for most users.
Arkanok
Jul 21, 11:29 AM
Starting to get annoyed by Apple...who cares if other brands have a similar issue. The issue is with the iPhone4, which is their product, and should be taking responsibility for. This is such a childish thing to do. I really thought Apple would be better than this.
:(
Annoyed by Apple? I'm sure Apple is annoyed by all the people who are saying that Apple doesn't know how to make phones, especially when the problem they're getting flak from is also reproduced on other phones just as easilly, but no other companies are getting **** on by the public and media for also having this issue? Why is it ONLY Apple that gets dumped on?
:(
Annoyed by Apple? I'm sure Apple is annoyed by all the people who are saying that Apple doesn't know how to make phones, especially when the problem they're getting flak from is also reproduced on other phones just as easilly, but no other companies are getting **** on by the public and media for also having this issue? Why is it ONLY Apple that gets dumped on?
glocke12
May 4, 06:03 PM
Is asking if the gun is locked up and out of the kids reach really crossing the line?
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
I don't see how people condone other people asking intrusive questions.
Now provide information on gun safety as part of a package of being information that helps people become responsible parents, but to be perfectly honest, what I own or do not own (as long as it is legal) is no ones business but my own and my families.
I don't get why people would get so worked up over that. Is it weird for a pediatrician to ask if the gun is locked up? Sure, but I don't think it crosses any boundaries.
I don't see how people condone other people asking intrusive questions.
Now provide information on gun safety as part of a package of being information that helps people become responsible parents, but to be perfectly honest, what I own or do not own (as long as it is legal) is no ones business but my own and my families.
No comments:
Post a Comment