dethmaShine
Apr 20, 05:15 AM
Windows are purely OS for "work enviroment". OSX is for casual stuff.
Cant imagine using freakin Miranda/ICQ/Trillian/Digsby piece of crap with MS Movie Maker and so on.
Same as i cant imagine using Outlook/Excel on Mac OS.
Windows is like Semi, gigantic ugly looking utility vehicle. Mac OS is like convertible ferrari - nice pus.sy magnet for everyday casual use.
:rolleyes:
Cant imagine using freakin Miranda/ICQ/Trillian/Digsby piece of crap with MS Movie Maker and so on.
Same as i cant imagine using Outlook/Excel on Mac OS.
Windows is like Semi, gigantic ugly looking utility vehicle. Mac OS is like convertible ferrari - nice pus.sy magnet for everyday casual use.
:rolleyes:
Anthony T
Apr 16, 09:49 AM
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-1fcq6stwput2wkx8w2c3wdw3sf.jpg
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
Now that looks better. Where did you get these from? I'm assuming they are fake.
http://img.skitch.com/20100416-x24u8rjfyc781wmh9ms3us6y4e.jpg
Now that looks better. Where did you get these from? I'm assuming they are fake.
nosen
Sep 25, 04:24 PM
It still is pretty poor with compatibility when it comes to RAW. For example, it still can't read white balance from the meta data on RAW files off Canon cameras. Great!
Um, really? I use a Canon camera and Aperture seems to preserve the camera WB setting fine...
Aperture's development also is going slow. Apple pulling out the software?
They've updated it twice, and I'm pretty sure its only been out a year. Not too shabby....
Perhaps all the developers are spending too much time on Leopard and Logic 8 at the moment.
Perhaps you don't have all the facts?
Um, really? I use a Canon camera and Aperture seems to preserve the camera WB setting fine...
Aperture's development also is going slow. Apple pulling out the software?
They've updated it twice, and I'm pretty sure its only been out a year. Not too shabby....
Perhaps all the developers are spending too much time on Leopard and Logic 8 at the moment.
Perhaps you don't have all the facts?
marddin
Nov 10, 11:17 AM
I have black ops for the 360 and im pretty happy with it.
i have a question regarding matchmaking.
i have been trying to play team deathmatch with my buddies and join as a party but the second i click team deathmatch to start the search it mutes everybody and nobody in the party can hear each other. then 9 times out of 10 it kicks every out of the party and its just one person in a game or sometimes you get separated into different games.
is this happeneing with anyone else because it really is making me angry.
thanks.
martin
i have a question regarding matchmaking.
i have been trying to play team deathmatch with my buddies and join as a party but the second i click team deathmatch to start the search it mutes everybody and nobody in the party can hear each other. then 9 times out of 10 it kicks every out of the party and its just one person in a game or sometimes you get separated into different games.
is this happeneing with anyone else because it really is making me angry.
thanks.
martin
more...
Pyrix
Jan 9, 05:17 PM
All I get is
'Due to exceptional demand, your request could not be completed at this time.
Please try again at a later time.'
'Due to exceptional demand, your request could not be completed at this time.
Please try again at a later time.'
sejanus
Aug 15, 03:53 AM
I just bought a 30" from apple online and i doubt it's "really new" but i have no way of telling.
The box looked a little dusty but i didn't really care, it looks great.
I was looking at buying a 30" anyway - it was march when they updated those right? I don't think they got updated at wwdc did they?
The box looked a little dusty but i didn't really care, it looks great.
I was looking at buying a 30" anyway - it was march when they updated those right? I don't think they got updated at wwdc did they?
more...
dgree03
May 3, 04:00 PM
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
Are you seriously defending charging for tethering!? What do you mean MORE bandwidth?
I am paying for a 25 dollar 2gb plan for my phone. 2gb, is 2gb, is 2gb. If I tether it DOES NOT MATTER MY BANDWIDTH, once i use up 2gb i pay overages. It is that simple... I dont have to tether to use 2gb.
Your cable example is weak. On cable you are paying for the content on that line. On your data plan there is no content to pay for.. it is just straight internet.
A better cable example would be a cable company charging you monthly to extend your cable to each seperate room.
Dalton63841
Apr 28, 05:27 AM
It would be useful if they you reached a certain amount of upvotes you can get into the marketplace too. That'll help with actual contributing users that don't post much. The current system provokes people to just post quick short responses to raise their post count.
I agree that there should be something to come from the votes...However I can't agree that the current system provokes short quick responses. No matter how many posts you have you can't view Marketplace until you have been here 6 months. I rarely post here, but I have gone way over the minimum number of posts, and I still have another month to wait.
I agree that there should be something to come from the votes...However I can't agree that the current system provokes short quick responses. No matter how many posts you have you can't view Marketplace until you have been here 6 months. I rarely post here, but I have gone way over the minimum number of posts, and I still have another month to wait.
more...
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:53 PM
When was the last time a European or Japanese plane were hijacked before 9/11? That's an ambiguous statistic. Nobody was hijacking planes before and nobody's hijacked planes since.
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
Nobody hijacks Israeli planes either, and they're subject to much more terrorist attention than we are.
I'm not sure of your point. But the Israelis use a different screening model, plus they need to look after only a handful of airports domestically. At airports internationally they screen passengers themselves after the local authorities have screened the passengers.... so everybody gets screened twice, and in two different ways.
In fact, TSA has twice failed to stop a bomber on a plane since 9/11. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped by passengers.
TSA's measures aren't working, but a measure of common sense can easily mitigate the damage of someone smuggling a boxcutter or knife on to a plane.
And how may people have the TSA found? And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
1980s - Aer Ligus Dublin - London; Air France Frankfurt - Paris; Rio Airways Killen, Texas - Dallas, Texas; TWA Athens - Beirut; Egypt Air Athens - Cairo; Malev Hungarian Airlines Prague - ?? ;
1990s - Lufthansa Frankfort - Cairo; FedEx flight Memphis - ??; Air Malta Malta - Turkey; All Nippon (domestic flight);
I've only listed those flights that departed from a European (and one Japanese) airport.... not European airlines that departed from non-European airports. After 9/11 there were still a number of hijackings, but the closest they come to European departure points are Nicosia, and Tirana. Though there was one from a Mexican Airport and one from a Caribbean airport. The Mexican hijacking was by a man threatening a bomb, but I don't think they actually found one.
Nobody hijacks Israeli planes either, and they're subject to much more terrorist attention than we are.
I'm not sure of your point. But the Israelis use a different screening model, plus they need to look after only a handful of airports domestically. At airports internationally they screen passengers themselves after the local authorities have screened the passengers.... so everybody gets screened twice, and in two different ways.
In fact, TSA has twice failed to stop a bomber on a plane since 9/11. Both the shoe bomber and the underwear bomber were stopped by passengers.
TSA's measures aren't working, but a measure of common sense can easily mitigate the damage of someone smuggling a boxcutter or knife on to a plane.
And how may people have the TSA found? And how many people have not even bothered to try, because they were afraid of getting caught?
Phutchi
Sep 30, 03:20 PM
All pocket doors. Very interesting.
Slide to Unlock....
Slide to Unlock....
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....
Vidder
Dec 8, 04:09 PM
Treyarch seemed to make a decision to nerf the whole snipe/camp thing, making sniping more difficult, and camping a risky & questionable proposition. Running & gunning is the way Black Ops seems to go, if you want to camp, stack killstreaks, modern warfare is the way to go. The amount of times I have seen someone going XX kills & 0 deaths I can count on one hand, while in MW2 I had done it quite a few times.
I think Black Ops has become a nice alternative, and not just a continuation of modern warfare. It gives players choices.
The multiple games give you choices...but this game alone gives you no choice but to run and gun. If i wanted to Run and Gun and waste my life i'd go join the taliban and pray to Allah.
This game gives you very little choice and in that makes the game terrible.
And you said it yourself. Treyarch ruined the game for all the snipers. Great job!
Treyarch = morons and dip*****. Bring back Infinity War. Black Ops Blows.
I think Black Ops has become a nice alternative, and not just a continuation of modern warfare. It gives players choices.
The multiple games give you choices...but this game alone gives you no choice but to run and gun. If i wanted to Run and Gun and waste my life i'd go join the taliban and pray to Allah.
This game gives you very little choice and in that makes the game terrible.
And you said it yourself. Treyarch ruined the game for all the snipers. Great job!
Treyarch = morons and dip*****. Bring back Infinity War. Black Ops Blows.
more...
Stridder44
Aug 7, 05:41 PM
So is contrast ratio just mean it can be brighter (700:1 compaired to 400:1)?
aristobrat
Oct 6, 10:39 AM
Are you telling me that Verizon got 4 times worse over the last year too?? This is the first I've heard of that.
I don't think there's any arguing that Verizon has the most stable 3G network, but the biggest question is, if they do get the iPhone, can Verizon's 3G network maintain the same quality with a quick influx of a few million iPhone users?
I don't think there's any arguing that Verizon has the most stable 3G network, but the biggest question is, if they do get the iPhone, can Verizon's 3G network maintain the same quality with a quick influx of a few million iPhone users?
more...
Dr Kevorkian94
Sep 28, 06:00 PM
he can control everything from his ipad and his iphone, he will be so happy with the house we cant have. but in all seriousness that is awesome but i wonder if it will be technological, and everything will run on ios. lol
Marx55
Oct 17, 11:52 AM
HYBRYD. The answer is a hybrid burner that can handle both standards, plus DVDs and CDs. That EASY!!!
more...
tjhilder
May 2, 04:03 PM
Hopefully it'll fix the bug I get when I want to have a song on repeat, seems to ignore the first song played and then it works on the second :(
Thomas Veil
Apr 22, 04:00 PM
I wonder if Thomas Veil will sign this one (with his real name)?You better believe it. Already been to an anti-SB5 rally, too.
usher
Apr 15, 08:33 PM
i just wondering why apple never consider about something unusual...:apple::o
SynPiekarza
Mar 28, 02:28 PM
I do not think this is a bad move. I mean, Apple seems to believe (and so do I) that App Store will eventually be the best way to distribute apps for developers and to buy/get them for consumers. All they need to do now is get it up to speed. So they force developers to submit their apps to the App Store.
About "App Store only apps on Mac OS X", hmm.. I don't think Apple will make the same mistake twice. They once fell back because of lack of software for their system. They will be forced to have App Store rules flexible enough so that users can easily find all sufficient apps there. If they can't install them, they will switch platforms. If they do, Apple loses.
Either way, the user kind of wins so I wouldn't worry too much about it ;)
About "App Store only apps on Mac OS X", hmm.. I don't think Apple will make the same mistake twice. They once fell back because of lack of software for their system. They will be forced to have App Store rules flexible enough so that users can easily find all sufficient apps there. If they can't install them, they will switch platforms. If they do, Apple loses.
Either way, the user kind of wins so I wouldn't worry too much about it ;)
MagnusVonMagnum
May 2, 04:02 PM
Actually 10 comes after 9.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
You obviously missed the irony of it all (and yes, OSX is around 10 years old now). Windows was never called "1, 2, 3" etc. so there's more irony for OSX which did takes 10 years to get where it is now (i.e that's how long they've been working on OSX; OS9 has NOTHING to do with the length of time they've spent on the current OS, which has little or nothing to do with OS9 technologically other than the similarity in GUI interface (save the overlap in Carbon libraries). OSX is based on NeXTStep, itself based on Unix. It's not based on Mac Classic OS 1-9. But then my ;) should have clued you in. But then Windows haters rarely get such humor, IMO.
BlindMellon
Apr 25, 08:34 PM
I don't get the fascination with a marginal bigger screen, if I need a bigger screen I get my iPad.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
They had the perfect opportunity to change the screen size last year. They introducing a higher resolution screen and a new design. They could have designed the phone for a larger screen and talked about how the screen was both larger and sharper. Instead, they kept the same screen size and talked about the 326 PPI retina resolution.
So now you think that they are adding a larger screen with fewer PPI to last years' form-factor which was designed for a 3.5" screen? C'mon... get real.
Why would Apple create a new design with the same screen size if they were planning on using that same design a year later with a larger screen? It doesn't make any sense. If they had plans to use a larger screen, they would have done it with the iPhone 4. If they do it in the future, it will have a different design.
this is true and one of my main gripes: they had the opportunity to enlarge the screen back when they redesigned the whole damn phone. they drew a line in the sand with the 3.5" screen and i doubt they'll change it any time soon. plus, the longer they wait, the more foolish they'll look when they finally do get around to it.
thejadedmonkey
Mar 28, 02:14 PM
Seriously Apple, how soon until the app store is the only way to install apps on your mac?
OdduWon
Oct 10, 05:47 PM
Mwsf.
No comments:
Post a Comment