Al Coholic
Apr 5, 03:31 PM
The version that doesn't nag for ratings is $1.00.
true777
Oct 4, 04:22 AM
This is the Mac mini of houses at best.
iJohnHenry
Apr 15, 08:24 PM
"How do you start a gay computer?"
Well, with my iMac, the button in back, left.
Well, with my iMac, the button in back, left.
pivo6
Apr 22, 12:57 PM
That's why you need meta-moderation. Weighs the balance of votes in favour of those who rate sensibly, stops people from just burying personalities they dislike.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
So we need moderators for this? I thought the complaint was that there aren't enough of them. Plus I would find it difficult yo determine a legitimate -1, to one that was added for malicious reasons.
more...
Gibsonsoup
Apr 12, 06:05 AM
You've got double http://
Thank you, Fixed :D
Thank you, Fixed :D
puuukeey
Jan 9, 01:26 PM
someone posted the whole thing on youtube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JDfRvcjBQlM
more...
maclaptop
Apr 15, 10:25 PM
It's not only new territory, it's outside their core competency. Like Cisco selling cameras or Google selling phones.
Its this closed minded view that separates risk taking leaders from regular employees.
To prove this, all one has to do is look at Apple's success in portions of the tech sector that they previously had not occupied.
Never say never :)
Its this closed minded view that separates risk taking leaders from regular employees.
To prove this, all one has to do is look at Apple's success in portions of the tech sector that they previously had not occupied.
Never say never :)
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....
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 07:24 PM
Read my post. I didn't say he was right about them being the same kernal. I simply said he was right about the naming conventions.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Windows 95/98 don't share a code base with Windows NT. You are aware that the NT line is a complete rewrite, 32 bit from the ground-up and a completely different kernel/system architecture ?
It's like saying OS X and classic are the same code base...
The Win32 sub-system (which is only 1 sub-system in NT) might share some code, that's about it.
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1 ;) Your blog post even says it doesn't make sense, so I don't see how "MS gave you info" when your "source" says it doesn't make any sense.
Again, only way it actually makes sense is from a marketing perspective and as being the 7th release in the Windows NT line-up.
The version in question isn't simply the gui version number, but the code base version as a whole.
Windows 95/98 don't share a code base with Windows NT. You are aware that the NT line is a complete rewrite, 32 bit from the ground-up and a completely different kernel/system architecture ?
It's like saying OS X and classic are the same code base...
The Win32 sub-system (which is only 1 sub-system in NT) might share some code, that's about it.
The only way it makes sense is by using the actual version numbers that MS gave us, which are quite easily found. ;) Not only in Windows but in several sources through the net. I'll believe the info MS gives us vs someone from macrumors.
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1 ;) Your blog post even says it doesn't make sense, so I don't see how "MS gave you info" when your "source" says it doesn't make any sense.
Again, only way it actually makes sense is from a marketing perspective and as being the 7th release in the Windows NT line-up.
charlituna
Dec 19, 01:26 PM
On your first point: It is also the company that came out with the iphone 4 and its antenna problems.
yes the tragic design flaw that only existed in the US in the areas where ATT service blows.
Same design flaw recently confirmed on the HTC even
As for these rumors, I don't believe said site on anything. Their record is so spotty it is a joke. Also if Apple was going to release a CDMA phone why haven't they for countries like China where I is the dominate cell phone tech. Instead they went with the second place carrier who supports GSM. Even all the talk that they are hiring CDMA knowledged engineers which 'proves' they are working on a Verizon phone falls apart when you consider the unlocked, no exclusives iPad. So that staff could be working on the product.
I won't go so far as to say that a CDMA iPhone would never happen, or an LTE Verizon iPhone. I just do buy that it is coming this soon. For a number of reasons. And no one has shown me proof reasonable enough to think otherwise
more...
love quotes tagalog version.
quotes about love tagalog
more...
Quotes About Love Tagalog For
love quotes tagalog part 2.
more...
Quotes About Love Tagalog
love quotes tagalog version.
more...
love quotes tagalog version
love quotes tagalog version.
love quotes tagalog version.
yes the tragic design flaw that only existed in the US in the areas where ATT service blows.
Same design flaw recently confirmed on the HTC even
As for these rumors, I don't believe said site on anything. Their record is so spotty it is a joke. Also if Apple was going to release a CDMA phone why haven't they for countries like China where I is the dominate cell phone tech. Instead they went with the second place carrier who supports GSM. Even all the talk that they are hiring CDMA knowledged engineers which 'proves' they are working on a Verizon phone falls apart when you consider the unlocked, no exclusives iPad. So that staff could be working on the product.
I won't go so far as to say that a CDMA iPhone would never happen, or an LTE Verizon iPhone. I just do buy that it is coming this soon. For a number of reasons. And no one has shown me proof reasonable enough to think otherwise
more...
DoFoT9
Aug 11, 07:27 PM
i'm tellin ya, there's something about starting with the number 4.
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
but it got too hot, and i had to turn it down to 3.98 ghz. not quite 4. hopefully it'll stay at that though
i prefer the number 9 to be honest :p 9ghz! phoar!
what temps are they running at? had you considered water cooling?
adversus
Apr 8, 01:02 PM
It's still pretty ******.
If I walk into a Best Buy and to buy a product that's for sale, knowing full well they have it in stock but they just want to "hold it" for something, I'd be pissed.
If I walk into a Best Buy and to buy a product that's for sale, knowing full well they have it in stock but they just want to "hold it" for something, I'd be pissed.
more...
SevenInchScrew
Nov 15, 03:05 AM
Maybe you're really bad, or playing on a bad TV (too small or low res?)
Nope, on both counts. I'm quite a good player, and my TV is a very nice Samsung 1080p LCD. But hey, if you didn't struggle with it, congrats champ. I got bored after the 34th time I walked across the magic line that made the enemies pop out and shoot at me. They can only do that so much before it becomes comical.
But, it never did stop, all the way to the end. Like I said before, that is stuff that games did 10-15 years ago. The fact that they still use that as part of their main "Design" directive in this game is shameful, if I'm being honest. The entire game was an endless sequence of following the yellow waypoint indicator, getting yelled at by your team to do things, and getting shot at by enemies jumping out from behind things. I have to say, by the end, I was literally in tears laughing. I couldn't believe it could get any worse, and yet, it always did.
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
The Russians launch a full scale attack on the US, on about 3 days notice... and attack FROM THE EAST!! :rolleyes:
Haven't played Fallout 3.
If you live in the DC area, you should. If you thought seeing the mess they made of it in MW2 was weird, you should see it after full nuclear meltdown. Pretty awesome.
Just as long as it doesn't make me go, " Oh come on! That is just plain ridiculous", I don't mind some illogical events because it is a game. MW2 didn't do that so I give the storyline a B+. Black Ops is a C.
You also jump a 400ft gorge on a snow mobile. Need I say more? ;)
Nope, on both counts. I'm quite a good player, and my TV is a very nice Samsung 1080p LCD. But hey, if you didn't struggle with it, congrats champ. I got bored after the 34th time I walked across the magic line that made the enemies pop out and shoot at me. They can only do that so much before it becomes comical.
But, it never did stop, all the way to the end. Like I said before, that is stuff that games did 10-15 years ago. The fact that they still use that as part of their main "Design" directive in this game is shameful, if I'm being honest. The entire game was an endless sequence of following the yellow waypoint indicator, getting yelled at by your team to do things, and getting shot at by enemies jumping out from behind things. I have to say, by the end, I was literally in tears laughing. I couldn't believe it could get any worse, and yet, it always did.
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
The Russians launch a full scale attack on the US, on about 3 days notice... and attack FROM THE EAST!! :rolleyes:
Haven't played Fallout 3.
If you live in the DC area, you should. If you thought seeing the mess they made of it in MW2 was weird, you should see it after full nuclear meltdown. Pretty awesome.
Just as long as it doesn't make me go, " Oh come on! That is just plain ridiculous", I don't mind some illogical events because it is a game. MW2 didn't do that so I give the storyline a B+. Black Ops is a C.
You also jump a 400ft gorge on a snow mobile. Need I say more? ;)
leekohler
Apr 23, 08:43 AM
homosexuality≠bisexuality
So what?
So what?
more...
tdhurst
Jan 12, 09:08 PM
Thats a loaded demand since you already agreed with my later statement that they need to learn how to vet online sources like they do print sources. I can list off any number of magazines or whatnot that would do such things if given the chance, though. It isn't like gizmodo invented pranking, guys.
If given a chance? What does that mean?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
If given a chance? What does that mean?
You think if Wired had done this they wouldn't have been banned?
atakordie
Sep 7, 09:15 PM
Yeah, the audience he was performing to was not what I would consider his primary listenership. Plus, it isn't music and it sucks. (I know... just an opinion.) And thanks for the PG-13ness.
more...
thegman1234
Jan 2, 08:30 PM
...And thinking that Verizon won't be prepared is just foolish. For starters, they have the luxury that AT&T didn't have...too look at another network and how the iPhone has performed on that network. It would be like watching a guy walk off a cliff and slam into the rocks below...then just walking off after him expecting a different result. Not to mention the fact that Verizon has handled bigger data hogs in the form of laptop users for longer than AT&T anyway.
Call it what you want, I just don't think Verizon will expect how many people will actually switch on or close to release day.
Call it what you want, I just don't think Verizon will expect how many people will actually switch on or close to release day.
ironsienna
Apr 30, 08:44 AM
The Graphics design artist in me just had an aneurysm.
And what is exactly your point? The specific app is not intended to be a part of the OS interface. It is using a more immersed, recreational interface, which makes it fun to use. (Have a look on the review here to see what I mean: http://www.inews24hs.com/2011/03/15/led-machines-�-led-flashlight-for-iphone-4-review/ ) Users enjoy the animations and sound effects. They are using it for the whole experience, not just for the usability of it.
On the other hand, OS interfaces are belonging to a different category. And although there is a trend to make the native OS apps more immersive (take as an example the new iCal. It uses an interface that tries to emulate a real object, a real leather Calendar), users could have given the option to switch between a more abstract UI style. The main reason of using native OS apps (such as ical, mail, etc) is more task centred rather than experience oriented. The ideal would be not using any interface at all and just have a personal assistant do all the hard work for us accepting voice commands. Hopefully we are not far away from something like that though�
It is interesting to notice that there are two different trends for the interface design criteria of the OS apps. Two different schools. One is the school of immersive interface, such as iCal, garageBand for iPad, iMovie for the iPhone with all the eye candy on the movie selection menu. The other is the minimalistic approach: the new Mail interface, the iPhoto, e.t.c. It is as there are two different interface design teams working in parallel, doing their experiments on UI usability, each following a different direction.
A bit out of topic though!! Lets get back to the slider conversation!!
And what is exactly your point? The specific app is not intended to be a part of the OS interface. It is using a more immersed, recreational interface, which makes it fun to use. (Have a look on the review here to see what I mean: http://www.inews24hs.com/2011/03/15/led-machines-�-led-flashlight-for-iphone-4-review/ ) Users enjoy the animations and sound effects. They are using it for the whole experience, not just for the usability of it.
On the other hand, OS interfaces are belonging to a different category. And although there is a trend to make the native OS apps more immersive (take as an example the new iCal. It uses an interface that tries to emulate a real object, a real leather Calendar), users could have given the option to switch between a more abstract UI style. The main reason of using native OS apps (such as ical, mail, etc) is more task centred rather than experience oriented. The ideal would be not using any interface at all and just have a personal assistant do all the hard work for us accepting voice commands. Hopefully we are not far away from something like that though�
It is interesting to notice that there are two different trends for the interface design criteria of the OS apps. Two different schools. One is the school of immersive interface, such as iCal, garageBand for iPad, iMovie for the iPhone with all the eye candy on the movie selection menu. The other is the minimalistic approach: the new Mail interface, the iPhoto, e.t.c. It is as there are two different interface design teams working in parallel, doing their experiments on UI usability, each following a different direction.
A bit out of topic though!! Lets get back to the slider conversation!!
nsjoker
Aug 7, 03:17 PM
Sweet. $500 for the 20" with the edu discount??
$649 w/ edu my friend
$649 w/ edu my friend
baryon
Apr 5, 04:46 PM
I don't know why you people don't like this. Apple announced iAds like a year ago, and I still haven't seen a single one. I'm simply curious about seeing at least one iAd to see what all the fuss is about. This App allows you to see an iAd so you can know what it is, as no one has actually really implemented them yet. This is probably the only place that has iAds in.
nim23
Apr 16, 09:51 AM
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-1fcq6stwput2wkx8w2c3wdw3sf.jpg
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
That definitely looks fake!
Completely different materials used, extremely controversial shape and very un-apple like features...
Plus there is no substance to it, maybe just a cover for the current iPhone?
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
That definitely looks fake!
Completely different materials used, extremely controversial shape and very un-apple like features...
Plus there is no substance to it, maybe just a cover for the current iPhone?
Jethrotoe
Apr 28, 06:07 AM
I must say, I have never seen a more patient group of mentors in my life.
Hats off to ya. You are all great. I've learned volumes reading your posts.
And thank you.
Hats off to ya. You are all great. I've learned volumes reading your posts.
And thank you.
ten-oak-druid
Apr 8, 05:36 PM
Once I went to Best Buy to get a toslink cable with a mini plug end for my macbook. The employee in the department asked if I needed help. I responded that I need a toslink cable with a miniplug end rather than the regular. The employee in charge of the cable section had never heard of such a thing. I described it but the employee had this look that suggested I was confused. LOL
Local retail would be worth a little extra cost if employees were actually trained to be knowledgable in the products. That would require paying decent wages to knowledgable staff. Sadly the retail outlets like to charge more and pay minimum wage to people who are expected to know the location of items on shelves and that's it. Most of the employees in Best Buy that I've encountered could have been replaced with grocery store clerks and the service would be the same. I'm not insulting the workers. Just pointing out the expectations of the clerks in these places. And of course if you want employees to be interested in the product line more, they should be paid more.
Local retail would be worth a little extra cost if employees were actually trained to be knowledgable in the products. That would require paying decent wages to knowledgable staff. Sadly the retail outlets like to charge more and pay minimum wage to people who are expected to know the location of items on shelves and that's it. Most of the employees in Best Buy that I've encountered could have been replaced with grocery store clerks and the service would be the same. I'm not insulting the workers. Just pointing out the expectations of the clerks in these places. And of course if you want employees to be interested in the product line more, they should be paid more.
rkahl
Mar 17, 12:24 PM
He could probably earn more if he worked else where. :)
"Uh yeah, if you want to work 40 HOURS A WEEK!"
"Uh yeah, if you want to work 40 HOURS A WEEK!"
No comments:
Post a Comment