Music_Producer
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
I doubt I'll get any sleep tonight :eek: (5.15 am PST right now) Can't wait *drool*
Mord
Apr 26, 09:04 AM
Whilst the company shouldn't say 'if you see any fights, jump in the middle of them', those employees should know full well that it isn't ok to watch and laugh as someone is getting the tish kicked out of them! Who was the man in the Blue shirt at the start of the video? he tried to break it up at first but seemed to then let it carry on.
I believe that was the manager, I don't know for sure. He walked a thin line IMO.
This guy was more than capable of defending himself...
As rdowns says, your attitude is simply offensive and is wearing incredibly thin. Have you even watched the video? The victim was not a man, did not have a male physique and was not capable of defending herself. You're just offensive for the sake of being offensive at this point.
I believe that was the manager, I don't know for sure. He walked a thin line IMO.
This guy was more than capable of defending himself...
As rdowns says, your attitude is simply offensive and is wearing incredibly thin. Have you even watched the video? The victim was not a man, did not have a male physique and was not capable of defending herself. You're just offensive for the sake of being offensive at this point.
mytakeontech
Apr 5, 06:23 PM
I wanted to test my ad-block on iPhone is working fine so I wanted to download the app but App Store says I need to have iOS 4.2.6 :confused:
Huntn
Mar 4, 05:29 PM
Yes, I absolutely really think so. The problem is that if (as I suspect) you only get your news from left-leaning organizations you're only getting half of the truth. Based on what I see, it's still the right that is more energized, it's still the right that is excited to vote in 2012, because deep down everyone realizes that these protesters are protesting for petty reasons. They don't care about the kids, the schools, the state, the budget, the economy... they just don't want THEIRS to be taken away.
JC, would you call it "petty" to be fighting for your livelihood? BTW, you've just described 95% of the human race.
JC, would you call it "petty" to be fighting for your livelihood? BTW, you've just described 95% of the human race.
more...
*LTD*
Mar 6, 02:18 PM
One problem I see with Apple though is once they have their successful recipe, they tend to stagnate on it. That's when the competition gets the jump, starts innovating themselves and pushes ahead.
No they don't. They just attempt to copy (often badly), then license universally and flood the market with a lot junk that includes a ton of different models at very low price points.
No they don't. They just attempt to copy (often badly), then license universally and flood the market with a lot junk that includes a ton of different models at very low price points.
Gibsonsoup
Apr 11, 06:25 PM
can't understand why it doesn't let me post the right pictures :confused:
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
They look exactly like the original Apple ones though
more...
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
KingCrimson
Apr 21, 09:33 PM
That would be idiotic by Microsoft.
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
Why? A totally new *nix-based with Metro UI. Are you digging it?
more...
Nukey
Sep 24, 09:09 AM
What a bunch of losers. That guy probably worked really hard on his presentation, and to have it screwed up by a bunch of wannabe-journalists trying to act "cool" for their "blog" is ridiculous. If I were in charge of any of these types of events I'd show these guys the door, permanently. People who think it was funny obviously haven't been on the presenter side of things before.
ksteele
Sep 25, 03:37 PM
Aperture 1.1.2 runs just fine on my 2 year old 17" Powerbook G4 (1.5Ghz / 1.5GB ram).
I have heard that the graphics hardware on this laptop helps a lot.
It is not as fast doing edits as my my former PhotoMechanic/Bridge/ACR/iView workflow but good enough and has the advantages of a faster workflow when all is said and done.
I've ported 5500 of my D2X raw images into the library. I use a second 23" Cinema Display.
I have heard that the graphics hardware on this laptop helps a lot.
It is not as fast doing edits as my my former PhotoMechanic/Bridge/ACR/iView workflow but good enough and has the advantages of a faster workflow when all is said and done.
I've ported 5500 of my D2X raw images into the library. I use a second 23" Cinema Display.
more...
JP89Hornet
Apr 5, 03:42 PM
BTW it's free...
haha, april fools, you're paying for the access to the app store and we're still making money off of it!
apple you funny!
haha, april fools, you're paying for the access to the app store and we're still making money off of it!
apple you funny!
Patrick J
Apr 15, 04:12 PM
Yes, for the volume up/down rocker switch. If yours doesn't, I think you may have a fake.
I call yours fake. They forgot to put in the switch.
This (black plastic)http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/iphone-unboxing/13-iphone-mute-volume_medium.jpg
is different than this (hole)http://media.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/30951.jpg
I call yours fake. They forgot to put in the switch.
This (black plastic)http://assets.gearlive.com/blogimages/gallery/iphone-unboxing/13-iphone-mute-volume_medium.jpg
is different than this (hole)http://media.boygeniusreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/30951.jpg
more...
Hazel
Apr 29, 04:08 PM
They still need to revert the faux leather on iCal. That's hideous.
mooncaine
Oct 7, 04:14 PM
"Jobs apparently warned that while Apple was not a litigious company ..." This must be a hoax. We can't seriously be expected to believe that Jobs would say such a thing. Apple is infamous for suing or threatening suits on the most trivial matters ....
more...
KingYaba
Aug 7, 03:08 PM
Yeah and refurb lcs are even cheaper 599 for the 20" 849 for the 23" and its like 1699 for the 30"
Even more so with EDU discount (as stated above me)
Even more so with EDU discount (as stated above me)
marco114
Oct 6, 12:26 PM
I have lived in 4 different rural markets and regularly travel between them. Currently, in NC, Verizon is everywhere since they bought out a couple providers like Rural Cellular and I forget the other one.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
When I left Verizon, they had full bar 3G coverage at my house. They had just upgraded about 3 months before I went with an iPhone. With AT&T, I need to drive almost 20 miles to even find 3G coverage.
With Verizon, I had a Palm Treo 700 and it was very rare to see even the analog signal at all.
If Apple would make the iPhone for Verizon, i'd switch back in a blink, even if I had to pay early termination, it's that bad. I typically lose between 20-40% of my calls. There is several dead zones too, that I can't even drive down without losing it.
more...
dizastor
Aug 7, 02:57 PM
outstanding. Time to pounce on a new Mac Pro and a Cinema display.
Scowlerjase
Jan 14, 07:15 PM
Gizmodo , as we say in the North of England , have well and truly p*ssed on their own chips.
rdowns
Apr 23, 01:15 PM
The rating system looks ugly and out of place and just adds clutter to the forums.
Much like the logo in your avatar. :p
Much like the logo in your avatar. :p
ritmomundo
Mar 18, 08:51 PM
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.
alright dude, sorry for the rant. but based on your response, you're really not getting my point, so I'm going to stop trying.
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.
alright dude, sorry for the rant. but based on your response, you're really not getting my point, so I'm going to stop trying.
Luph67
Mar 28, 02:46 PM
What did you think they would do, rummage through all the non-app store apps on the Mac platform? Lol, some people are ridiculous.
dernhelm
Oct 1, 05:58 AM
Slide to Unlock....
If they make the "star trek" whoosh sound when you open and close them, it might be cool...
If they make the "star trek" whoosh sound when you open and close them, it might be cool...
tvguru
Sep 12, 07:40 AM
Does this mean we won't be seeing iTunes 7.0? I mean if they were releasing a new iTunes wouldn't they make the changes on the new release?
They would have to update the store to handle it as well. I would assume that there will be a new iTunes out today also and that the movie portion of the store wouldn't be backwards compatible.
They would have to update the store to handle it as well. I would assume that there will be a new iTunes out today also and that the movie portion of the store wouldn't be backwards compatible.
Popeye206
May 3, 11:21 PM
and if you ask an owner they'd say "why the heck does it still checkerboard on Safari when we try to scroll, that's why we sold the iPad 1". :o :(
Literally the only reason for my upgrade was the checkerboard lag. Still does it. Maybe by iPad 4 it'll be fixed.
Wow... I rarely run across the checkerboard on mine and when I do it's gone in a second or two. Not obtrusive.
Literally the only reason for my upgrade was the checkerboard lag. Still does it. Maybe by iPad 4 it'll be fixed.
Wow... I rarely run across the checkerboard on mine and when I do it's gone in a second or two. Not obtrusive.
No comments:
Post a Comment