bpaluzzi
May 4, 09:14 AM
I'll buy one when it does something useful - like run an unhindered version of OSX
You're a few years late with that one. Even the Apple haters have given up on that useless meme. Didn't you get the memo at the latest club meeting?
You're a few years late with that one. Even the Apple haters have given up on that useless meme. Didn't you get the memo at the latest club meeting?
JAT
Apr 17, 10:28 PM
Agreed.
Plus Android devices seem loaded with uninstallable Google services.
But I don't trust Google's motives. When Android stands on its own then it might be something great.
If they are uninstallable, how'd they get loaded in there?
Plus Android devices seem loaded with uninstallable Google services.
But I don't trust Google's motives. When Android stands on its own then it might be something great.
If they are uninstallable, how'd they get loaded in there?
AdeFowler
Jan 9, 06:14 AM
New MacBook Pros including the ultra portable
Movie Rentals
Apple TV update
iPod HiFi (seriously)
Movie Rentals
Apple TV update
iPod HiFi (seriously)
Glideslope
May 2, 02:20 PM
I should hope that this update will allay any of the concerns and fears that some panic-stricken people have had lately.
Old news. Already moved to the White iPhone's Thickness. :apple:
Old news. Already moved to the White iPhone's Thickness. :apple:
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:30 AM
if there are new product announcements as everyone believes to be the case, the store will have to be updated as well as the iTunes store.
does anyone remember how long the apple store's down prior to new products being listed?
If I remember correctly about an hour before showtime. Hey cool I made a pun.
does anyone remember how long the apple store's down prior to new products being listed?
If I remember correctly about an hour before showtime. Hey cool I made a pun.
paradox00
May 3, 04:14 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.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
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.
I'd agree with you that there may be consideration with unlimited data plans as you might be using your phone outside the scope of what they initially envisioned when they offered you unlimited data, but those are largely a thing of the past now.
With regards to tiered pricing, what you're suggesting is that you're not entitled to the data you paid for should you choose to use some of it for tethering. If you paid for 2 GB a month, you can damn well get 2 GB a month. 2 GB a month was the consideration they offered you. It's none of your concern if the carrier sold it to you with the assumption that you'd only use 500 MB a month. They can't charge you more because your tethering makes you more likely to approach the 2 GB cap they offered you. You aren't legally obligated to pay twice for that same 2 GB of consideration if you want to use a tethering app.
Any concerns carriers have with bandwidth use can be addressed through their data plans, which they have full control of. They are not within their rights to start dictating what apps can or can't access data on your phone. Even if tethering apps generate a lot of data use, charging specifically for tethering is just a stopgap for a larger problem with their data plan pricing structure. Tethering apps are just one type of many high bandwidth apps. Are they going to start charging for all of them? Do you think that's reasonable?
Today your wireless ISP charges extra for tethering, tomorrow it will charge extra to access Netflix, and perhaps later on, your local ISP will want in on the action and start charge per device connected to your router. This segmented path of internet service is not a path I want to go down. The moment data becomes more than just data, and becomes data by application or use, is the day that consumers lose.
LightSpeed1
Apr 25, 01:38 PM
Is it just me or did Apple keep a tighter lid on this stuff in the past?
Clive At Five
Oct 19, 01:41 PM
Have you heard anyone say that they are anxiously anticipating Vista? Microsoft will try to generate some synthetic excitement over Vista, but in reality, hardly anyone will really care.
I couldn't disagree with you more.
I've been a Apple-user since infancy, practically, (so don't take me to be a MS fanboy), but I also appreciate PCs. I have a iMac G4 for home and a PC laptop which I used on campus and have continued to use out of college. I recently downloaded and installed Vista RC1, and regardless of its still-beta form, it is surprizingly stable (for basic uses), plus has a gorgeous user-interface (nevermind it's an obvious aqua rip-off). In fact, I'm almost to the point where I want to set Vista as my default OS.
The point of saying all this is that Vista IS going to be a solid OS* and IS going to be a "threat" to OSX. If anything, I think that hardly anyone cares about OSX. To a lot of people, OSX is something they saw once that looked cool but didn't seem like a relevant option given how they used computers (of course they don't know that they're usually wrong). Now there will be a version of Windows that looks and feels like that other cool thing... which is exactly what they want. Average users aren't analytic about their computer purchases like we are. We know Macs are better because we've studied the options... but MS knows most people won't study. And to those people, Windows Vista is going to be a very alluring option... and will keep them from using those brain cells.
These people and everyone else who has made the decision to use a PC (myself included) are greatly anticipating Vista's release (or in my case, Vista SP1), and it will be a welcomed addition to the PC-user's home.
-Clive
*DISCLAIMER - Vista won't likely be very solid until SP1. Vista is/will be a prime example of bloatware (7.5GB installed) due to its backward compatability and poor overall design. Fortunately for PC users, even the premium hardware demands will be met easily enough by today's CPUs. My laptop (2 years old) cannot run Aero Effects or any other special features of Vista, but still runs very smoothly with the features disabled. And, yes, I've had some blue-screens but that's because I was tampering with drivers and settings... something the average user won't be doing. And again, lastly, I repeat that I use a PC to suppliment my Desktop Mac. My PC Laptop was purchased at a time before Intel Macs were available... nor had any prospect of being able to dual-boot to Windows. It was a near-mandatory OS decision due to specific software needed for college classes... and, yes... LAN party gaming (which IS a college requirement, BTW).
I couldn't disagree with you more.
I've been a Apple-user since infancy, practically, (so don't take me to be a MS fanboy), but I also appreciate PCs. I have a iMac G4 for home and a PC laptop which I used on campus and have continued to use out of college. I recently downloaded and installed Vista RC1, and regardless of its still-beta form, it is surprizingly stable (for basic uses), plus has a gorgeous user-interface (nevermind it's an obvious aqua rip-off). In fact, I'm almost to the point where I want to set Vista as my default OS.
The point of saying all this is that Vista IS going to be a solid OS* and IS going to be a "threat" to OSX. If anything, I think that hardly anyone cares about OSX. To a lot of people, OSX is something they saw once that looked cool but didn't seem like a relevant option given how they used computers (of course they don't know that they're usually wrong). Now there will be a version of Windows that looks and feels like that other cool thing... which is exactly what they want. Average users aren't analytic about their computer purchases like we are. We know Macs are better because we've studied the options... but MS knows most people won't study. And to those people, Windows Vista is going to be a very alluring option... and will keep them from using those brain cells.
These people and everyone else who has made the decision to use a PC (myself included) are greatly anticipating Vista's release (or in my case, Vista SP1), and it will be a welcomed addition to the PC-user's home.
-Clive
*DISCLAIMER - Vista won't likely be very solid until SP1. Vista is/will be a prime example of bloatware (7.5GB installed) due to its backward compatability and poor overall design. Fortunately for PC users, even the premium hardware demands will be met easily enough by today's CPUs. My laptop (2 years old) cannot run Aero Effects or any other special features of Vista, but still runs very smoothly with the features disabled. And, yes, I've had some blue-screens but that's because I was tampering with drivers and settings... something the average user won't be doing. And again, lastly, I repeat that I use a PC to suppliment my Desktop Mac. My PC Laptop was purchased at a time before Intel Macs were available... nor had any prospect of being able to dual-boot to Windows. It was a near-mandatory OS decision due to specific software needed for college classes... and, yes... LAN party gaming (which IS a college requirement, BTW).
sethypoo
Oct 4, 01:19 AM
I really want Apple to announce the iPhone and preview Leopard more. I recently bought a MacBook Pro, and am interested in some new software.
I hope the iPhone comes out with Verizon, as I feel their service is SO much better than Cingular's. And their customer service has been stellar so far in my experience.
I hope the iPhone comes out with Verizon, as I feel their service is SO much better than Cingular's. And their customer service has been stellar so far in my experience.
bikertwin
Sep 25, 11:12 AM
Why are people rating this news as negative? It seems like a decent update to a good program, and it's free for existing Aperture users. What were you expecting?
Yeah, it leaves me scratching my head. Huh? How could any of these features--which people have been screaming for--be bad news?
Or is that the MacBookPro weenies whining that there was no update? Losers.
Yeah, it leaves me scratching my head. Huh? How could any of these features--which people have been screaming for--be bad news?
Or is that the MacBookPro weenies whining that there was no update? Losers.
Cutwolf
Mar 17, 11:51 AM
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/akg0186/b98a24ee.png
Nope, because I left LSU with my character intact.
u mad?
Nope, because I left LSU with my character intact.
u mad?
maflynn
Apr 22, 11:58 AM
How do you feel about being tracked and information stored without your knowledge? Oh wait, it's ok, Uncle Stevie knows what's best.
From what I've read, the police have known about this little feature for sometime and use it. So in a worst case scenario, Big Brother was watching.
From what I've read, the police have known about this little feature for sometime and use it. So in a worst case scenario, Big Brother was watching.
SevenInchScrew
Apr 24, 01:12 AM
Well, this thread sure is going places. Derailed by the usual suspect, for their usual reasoning. Oh well, it was good for something. My ignore list is quite large now. All we need now is for everyone to...
Danneel Harris/Jensen Ackles
Meet Danneel Harris.
Daneel Harris
Danneel Harris - Hollywood
Danneel Harris
the family Harris+jewelers
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
It is against forum rules to simply reply "+1": what on earth is the difference between that and clicking a button to say "+1"?
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
The difference is, clicking the vote button doesn't add a useless post to the thread and doesn't increase the voter's post count (since many have used +1 posts in the past to artificially boost their post counts for avatars, etc.)
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.
vincebio
Jan 9, 01:44 PM
[QUOTE=getalifemacfans;4722504]
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
it dont have mms
you cant send messages to more then one at a time.
it is not possible to download contacts from sim
its more difficult to call,set up contacts and so on compare to sony/nokia
i have all of these on my iphone, albeit not out of the box....but if your serious about your iphone, you should be jailbreaking it anyway, the amount of apps that will make your phone YOURS is relentless and modding is the way to go.
not sure why you think its more difficult to call, set up contacts etc, strange comment....
Unorthodox
Oct 28, 04:04 PM
"It's mine and you can't have it, with you I will not share it, cause if I share it with you, you'll have it to!"
Thats Apple's theme song.
Thats Apple's theme song.
ChrisA
Mar 28, 03:22 PM
Apple does not offer all of its own apps in the app store. Is Final Cut Studio in the app store?
This requirement will have two effects
(1) make the award irrelevant because everyone will know that the best apps were not even in the race and
(2) Shows that Apple is greedy by asking others to do what they don't.
This requirement will have two effects
(1) make the award irrelevant because everyone will know that the best apps were not even in the race and
(2) Shows that Apple is greedy by asking others to do what they don't.
maxdet
Aug 12, 04:06 PM
The official reason for the price drop was to meet dell prices or get close to them. To what extent could Apple have dropped their display prices to come back a little later with a new model with new features (built-in iSight, better specs or any new crazy thing like an integrated coffee machine) that would justify more expencive models.
I know it sounds crazy but it came to my mind and seemed quite possible after all.
your opinion?
I know it sounds crazy but it came to my mind and seemed quite possible after all.
your opinion?
airforce1
May 2, 11:19 AM
Well that's just wrong... they aren't completely removing location tracking in anything. Just fixing "bugs" that stored to much information in a file on your phone.
FAIL
your correct, based on Steve Jobbs response to this which was pure BS we can never trust that the files do NOT get sent out, so with this and their sweat shops in china i think enough activists, governments around the world and companies will shut apple down, so its not just Congress coming to ask Apple why it was still there after a year ago when they where sued for using it to COLLECT POLITICAL VIEWS:
Lets see why :
Wikileeks, Wall street, Oil Giants, allot of these people used macs and iphones, I think Congress is doing the right thing indicting Apple for violations of privacy on US and foreign citizens becuase if they do nothing other nations will pull the plug forever, Israel already is planning a blockade on the devices
FAIL
your correct, based on Steve Jobbs response to this which was pure BS we can never trust that the files do NOT get sent out, so with this and their sweat shops in china i think enough activists, governments around the world and companies will shut apple down, so its not just Congress coming to ask Apple why it was still there after a year ago when they where sued for using it to COLLECT POLITICAL VIEWS:
Lets see why :
Wikileeks, Wall street, Oil Giants, allot of these people used macs and iphones, I think Congress is doing the right thing indicting Apple for violations of privacy on US and foreign citizens becuase if they do nothing other nations will pull the plug forever, Israel already is planning a blockade on the devices
eric55lv
Jan 15, 04:54 PM
. Although i was dissapointed with one thing...NO "ONE MORE THING".....:eek:
I know they always do that
I know they always do that
rroach3753
Sep 28, 12:00 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
petrucci666
May 3, 03:39 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Love using tetherme cracked on iphone 4 to use personal hotspot with my unlimited data. :)
Yeah, until you get a text saying that you have been upgraded to the capped tethering plan without agreeing to it.
I have unltd data, a jailbroken phone and Tetherme and believe me, I'm ready to fire this puppy up any second to use with my iPad but I'm holding back from doing so because I don't want to be forced into the capped tethering plan which is more expensive and less efficient than what I have now. Carriers suck, period.
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Love using tetherme cracked on iphone 4 to use personal hotspot with my unlimited data. :)
Yeah, until you get a text saying that you have been upgraded to the capped tethering plan without agreeing to it.
I have unltd data, a jailbroken phone and Tetherme and believe me, I'm ready to fire this puppy up any second to use with my iPad but I'm holding back from doing so because I don't want to be forced into the capped tethering plan which is more expensive and less efficient than what I have now. Carriers suck, period.
MacsRgr8
Mar 24, 05:47 PM
Wow.... X years already!!
Well done Steve by saving Computer by evolving NeXTSTEP via Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server 1.x into Mac OS X!!
Some memories:
- Steve showing the OS strategy roadmap: Mac OS 8 / 9 vs. Mac OS X
- "Rhapsody" evolving into Mac OS X DP1
- Mac OS X DP3 incl. Aqua interface
- Mac OS X Public Beta "Kodiak"
- Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"... I got the original CD (yes.. CD..) in Paris, France.
- Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" and Office v. X
- Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" and Photoshop 7
- Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" largely regarded as the first real 100% usable version of OS X (not in the least because of app development)
- Mac OS X 10.4.1 "Tiger" Intel Developer Preview
- Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" Universal stuff
- Mac OS X 10.6.6 "Snow Leopard" and Mac App Store
- Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" and optional Server Install
I <3 and Mac OS X
Well done Steve by saving Computer by evolving NeXTSTEP via Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server 1.x into Mac OS X!!
Some memories:
- Steve showing the OS strategy roadmap: Mac OS 8 / 9 vs. Mac OS X
- "Rhapsody" evolving into Mac OS X DP1
- Mac OS X DP3 incl. Aqua interface
- Mac OS X Public Beta "Kodiak"
- Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"... I got the original CD (yes.. CD..) in Paris, France.
- Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" and Office v. X
- Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" and Photoshop 7
- Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" largely regarded as the first real 100% usable version of OS X (not in the least because of app development)
- Mac OS X 10.4.1 "Tiger" Intel Developer Preview
- Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" Universal stuff
- Mac OS X 10.6.6 "Snow Leopard" and Mac App Store
- Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" and optional Server Install
I <3 and Mac OS X
No comments:
Post a Comment