KnightWRX
Apr 29, 04:59 PM
Sensible defaults. Usability before looks. The iOS scrollbars might look better but they remove usability. Same with the slider, it's not as intuitive.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
Apple should not break intuitiveness and usability just to change some esthetics, especially if this is just change for the same of change.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
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.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well 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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well 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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
JKK photography
Apr 8, 05:09 PM
You can say that about any consumer product.
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
Speaking in general terms, MS has added more to windows, improved performance and reduced the bloat with win7.
Apple has gone the opposite direction, adding bloat and no major feature since 10.5
So 10.6 is bloated?
I would say that Windows 7 has very few new features, compared to Windows Vista. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
I would say that Snow Leopard has very few new features, compared to Leopard. It was a performance/stability upgrade.
Now, one of last-gen OS' actually needed a big boost in the performance/stability department. One didn't.
I simply don't agree with you. Snow Leopard was a few GBs smaller than Leopard, and was faster... and yet you say it is bloated?
justperry
Apr 15, 01:48 PM
I hope this is true... I really would like to have a more rugged case design on the iPhone (planning on getting the next version). I had the 3G iPhone and the back plate always felt flimsy / fragile.
For the antenna - could the antenna placement be put near the apple logo on the back (maybe that is plastic) or -- might there be enough antenna surface to receive through the front?
I also wonder if they could tie an antenna to the bezel on the front of the phone, or integrate it into the aluminum enclosure on the back. Not knowing metallurgy, I am not sure if there is a way to turn aluminum to a receptive material or could the case be of an aluminum alloy to allow reception?
No way Dude.
All of the phones that I see open to see the internals had metal shields in the front to get less radiation from the antenna.
It is still not proven whether or not U can get cancer from radio waves.
But,I do know certain places where radio waves will kill U.
Don't even come close to a very high power antenna from a radio station,a T.L. will even light up if you hold it nearby.
Making an antenna of the aluminium casing is impossible,don't U think Apple and others would have done that long time ago:eek:
For the antenna - could the antenna placement be put near the apple logo on the back (maybe that is plastic) or -- might there be enough antenna surface to receive through the front?
I also wonder if they could tie an antenna to the bezel on the front of the phone, or integrate it into the aluminum enclosure on the back. Not knowing metallurgy, I am not sure if there is a way to turn aluminum to a receptive material or could the case be of an aluminum alloy to allow reception?
No way Dude.
All of the phones that I see open to see the internals had metal shields in the front to get less radiation from the antenna.
It is still not proven whether or not U can get cancer from radio waves.
But,I do know certain places where radio waves will kill U.
Don't even come close to a very high power antenna from a radio station,a T.L. will even light up if you hold it nearby.
Making an antenna of the aluminium casing is impossible,don't U think Apple and others would have done that long time ago:eek:
more...
PlaceofDis
Jan 13, 03:04 PM
That childish prank is close to the kind of thing that Woz pulled in college, so I can appreciate the humor on one level. The problem is that this was done at a trade show and is completely unacceptable behavior for any group passing themselves off as professional journalists or industry bloggers who wish to be taken seriously.
If I were CES management, I'd ban them for life. Can't imagine Apple will let them anywhere near Moscone.
agreed. they should totally be banned for this. its not acceptable behavior.
I agree it was immature.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
the thing is, at a trade show, this shouldn't be an issue, as since gizmondo wants to act like a child, people have to spend more time and energy to make sure it doesn't happen again? its everyone paying for some stupid prank that was meaningless in the first place, which is way gizmondo fails.
If I were CES management, I'd ban them for life. Can't imagine Apple will let them anywhere near Moscone.
agreed. they should totally be banned for this. its not acceptable behavior.
I agree it was immature.
Still, it probably will lead vendors to 'secure' their sets in the future, and the fact that it was so obnoxious and obvious means it's very unlikely this sort of vulnerability will present itself next year.
the thing is, at a trade show, this shouldn't be an issue, as since gizmondo wants to act like a child, people have to spend more time and energy to make sure it doesn't happen again? its everyone paying for some stupid prank that was meaningless in the first place, which is way gizmondo fails.
Consultant
May 3, 04:24 PM
So much for the freedom of being open :rolleyes:
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
Exactly. They are not smart enough to realize it's 'open' to the carriers, not the end users.
Oh, and that Google is tracking them in almost real time.
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
Exactly. They are not smart enough to realize it's 'open' to the carriers, not the end users.
Oh, and that Google is tracking them in almost real time.
more...
arn
Oct 2, 04:52 PM
Maybe they should just work with Rockbox and make a third party firmware that opens up the iPod to a new open DRM and forget Fairplay compatibility...
But what's the point of that? So a few geeks can hack their iPod to play whatever?
Opening Fairplay to other companies opens the iPod to other services. The biggest risk to Apple is the opening of Fairplay to other MP3 manufacturers.
Besides... the more I think about it, the more I don't see why iTunes wouldn't play the compatible Fairplay songs. Apple can't make any major changes to the existing DRM in files to break compatible Fairplay files.... since they would have then have to reencode all of those files sitting on people's hard drives.
arn
But what's the point of that? So a few geeks can hack their iPod to play whatever?
Opening Fairplay to other companies opens the iPod to other services. The biggest risk to Apple is the opening of Fairplay to other MP3 manufacturers.
Besides... the more I think about it, the more I don't see why iTunes wouldn't play the compatible Fairplay songs. Apple can't make any major changes to the existing DRM in files to break compatible Fairplay files.... since they would have then have to reencode all of those files sitting on people's hard drives.
arn
skunk
Apr 21, 11:11 AM
I give it three phooeys.
more...
Pressure
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Aye, international numbers would be good to see.
Good news for Apple :)
Good news for Apple :)
Eidorian
Nov 23, 11:55 PM
Oh nicee. The online Apple Store just went down right when I was refreshing. :DThat's a good sign. I want my sleep! *sob*
more...
rdowns
Apr 21, 11:01 AM
I don't see this ending well. See ratings for front page articles.
leekohler
Apr 27, 01:53 PM
I really never meant to come across as having any sort of problem with or thinking anything less of transgendered people.... But I can understand how Mord would get that impression given some of the previous posts in the thread...
I think it's all cool now. :)
I think it's all cool now. :)
more...
Mac Fly (film)
Oct 19, 11:42 AM
Split twice so that's 1600 shares now. $125K - you got him beat ;)
So you only payed $1600 for them, and now they're worth $125,000. You legend!! Good luck..
So you only payed $1600 for them, and now they're worth $125,000. You legend!! Good luck..
Abstract
Sep 7, 09:27 PM
^^It doesn't suck at all.
Kanye West is one of the most amazing things to happen to hip-hop in the past several years.
Anyone get his new album yet? I haven't ... I need to pick up a copy.
Yeah I've got a copy. Actually, I downloaded it, but I was under the impression that the album itself wasn't out yet.
Or maybe it is in the US, but not in Oz. :rolleyes:
Kanye West is one of the most amazing things to happen to hip-hop in the past several years.
Anyone get his new album yet? I haven't ... I need to pick up a copy.
Yeah I've got a copy. Actually, I downloaded it, but I was under the impression that the album itself wasn't out yet.
Or maybe it is in the US, but not in Oz. :rolleyes:
more...
cult hero
Mar 25, 12:27 PM
They will either merge iOS and OS X into something new or they will simply drop OS X altogether in favor of iOS. Since iOS is much more successful than OS X ever was and since it is getting more and more features and we are currently being trained - or better: conditioned - to even obtain our development tools through the AppStore, an "open" platform like OS X will very soon become obsolete for Apple.
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
R.Perez
Mar 16, 04:02 AM
The entire industry is one big Apple "fanboi", bud. What Apple does, everyone else moves to copy or get it on. My "bubble" is the entire tech industry where it concerns the average user.
What's "silly" is the Apple fansite bubble. Apple fansites on the ass-end of the net with their loveable little geek contingent perpetually out of touch with the actual market.
Step into 2011. It's all about Apple and where they're taking the industry.
It's already been proven that outside of a couple of examples, that just isn't true. You would of noticed that, but every single post that countered your fanboish assumptions, you brushed off with more rhetoric that sounded like it came from a marketing exec at Apple. What I am telling you is this, you have blinders on that completely alter your thinking on this issue. You are incapable of seeing the tech industry without apple painted glasses on.
What's "silly" is the Apple fansite bubble. Apple fansites on the ass-end of the net with their loveable little geek contingent perpetually out of touch with the actual market.
Step into 2011. It's all about Apple and where they're taking the industry.
It's already been proven that outside of a couple of examples, that just isn't true. You would of noticed that, but every single post that countered your fanboish assumptions, you brushed off with more rhetoric that sounded like it came from a marketing exec at Apple. What I am telling you is this, you have blinders on that completely alter your thinking on this issue. You are incapable of seeing the tech industry without apple painted glasses on.
more...
twoodcc
Apr 3, 07:59 PM
Yeah I have my gpu's are up right now, and I have one bigadv rig going, but i lost a unit last night -about 18% was done. Hopefully this one works.
I got the air fixed, so it's not 85 degrees anymore. I might get to setup my new system here soon.
Yeah hopefully we have a good week as a team this week. We'll see.
Now I'd love to see you get a 12 core system!
I got the air fixed, so it's not 85 degrees anymore. I might get to setup my new system here soon.
Yeah hopefully we have a good week as a team this week. We'll see.
Now I'd love to see you get a 12 core system!
PhoneyDeveloper
Apr 26, 10:39 PM
You should have used Philip Endecott's code.
rdowns
Oct 6, 11:05 AM
We can hear you now. :D
NAG
Jan 12, 03:08 PM
Equating destruction of physical property to turning off tv sets is a stretch. Such hyperbole just makes more of the drama that they want. Why do you think they did this? They're attention whores.
MacNut
Jan 12, 02:11 AM
You could make the argument that all of Silicon Valley is smug.
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!
ten-oak-druid
May 2, 12:13 PM
Oooh. You're a software developer. That makes you an expert.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
Exactly.
If the people claiming this is a non issue are serious then they should all email Steve and tell him to stop addressing it.
I think the problem here is that many on this board cannot distinguish between trolls blindly trying to stir stuff up on an Apple forum and non-trolls discussing a legitimate issue. People need to learn how to separate the two and ignore the trolls if they try to pile onto an unfavorable discussion of Apple on a particular issue.
Except - as someone who is surround by IT professionals - many of which create systems that are governed by strict compliance issues - ALL of them have stated that 2MB is ridiculous for a cache of the intended purpose. And that QA could have missed this - but the fact that they did is really bad.
Look - defend Apple all you want. Don't really care. At the end of the day - a switch that is supposed to turn something off should turn something off. I know it. You know it. And Apple knows it - which is why they are (for WHATEVER reason) making the switch work correctly. End of story.
P.S. - Since Apple does great marketing and pr spin (my profession) - while I don't buy all the conspiracy theories at all - but neither do I "trust" Apple's altruism nor their rhetoric just because "they say so."
Exactly.
If the people claiming this is a non issue are serious then they should all email Steve and tell him to stop addressing it.
I think the problem here is that many on this board cannot distinguish between trolls blindly trying to stir stuff up on an Apple forum and non-trolls discussing a legitimate issue. People need to learn how to separate the two and ignore the trolls if they try to pile onto an unfavorable discussion of Apple on a particular issue.
MikeDTyke
Jan 9, 04:00 PM
I'm really tee'd off now.
Have avoided all websites except this forum thread for the last 3 hours and haven't gone near my email neither, then some b'stard comes in and drops a fat giveaway URL without even obfuscating it and telling us its a spoiler.
I even managed to look at google finance to check the aapl share price without seeing any giveaway news articles.
I'm not going to look at any specs and hope there's another small surprise or two in the keynote.
Git's each and everyone who's posted the leak or commented on it thinking well someone else has already let the cat out of the bag.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
Have avoided all websites except this forum thread for the last 3 hours and haven't gone near my email neither, then some b'stard comes in and drops a fat giveaway URL without even obfuscating it and telling us its a spoiler.
I even managed to look at google finance to check the aapl share price without seeing any giveaway news articles.
I'm not going to look at any specs and hope there's another small surprise or two in the keynote.
Git's each and everyone who's posted the leak or commented on it thinking well someone else has already let the cat out of the bag.
:mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad: :mad:
