samcraig
May 2, 12:28 PM
Well I find it funny that people are actually defending something Apple admitted to being a bug. Intentional or not - Location Services was supposed to be user selectable.
That's no conspiracy theory. It's a simple concept that doesn't need Apple to educate anyone on. Even toddlers grasp the concept of on and off.
I also, personally, don't like being talked down to by Jobs/Apple whenever they have a press conference. The whole angle of "oh.. it's our fault for not educating the consumer" is PR crap and deflection.
"It Just Works".... unless it's the location services switch. Whoops ;)
That's no conspiracy theory. It's a simple concept that doesn't need Apple to educate anyone on. Even toddlers grasp the concept of on and off.
I also, personally, don't like being talked down to by Jobs/Apple whenever they have a press conference. The whole angle of "oh.. it's our fault for not educating the consumer" is PR crap and deflection.
"It Just Works".... unless it's the location services switch. Whoops ;)
Melrose
Mar 7, 07:38 AM
Yes, it's Apples highly erratic priorities that are puzzling.
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
You really think that many people are that stupid and brainwashed? :eek:
Their extreme hypocrisy and superiority complex that causes them to go into denial in so many cases.
They stonewall and refuse to operate in a candid & open way with customers. Instead they practice silently hiding as many of their issues as possible.
Apples one true area of brilliance is their masterful art of marketing. In the finest example of typical American deceptive advertising, Apple describes their products as "magical & revolutionary".
You really think that many people are that stupid and brainwashed? :eek:
balamw
Oct 2, 04:46 PM
perhaps true... but depends on how it works. if it's just tied to an email address, if they can encode that same email address into the files, it would probably work. Alternatively, it could also mean that someone could come out with a non-iTunes media player that doesn't validate against a server.
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...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
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...
(Note, like the Airport Express, the iTV may be an easier nut to crack than iPod+iTunes).
B
iW00t
Jan 12, 04:47 AM
I think people's first reaction to see a phone with speakers floating in air.. would be 'wow.. WTF!' instead of 'ew'
I prefer that technology to be made larger and turned into... anti crash aircraft, aircraft that flies on anti gravity and by definition will never crash.
A bunch of floating speakers, who cares! Noise pollution man!
I prefer that technology to be made larger and turned into... anti crash aircraft, aircraft that flies on anti gravity and by definition will never crash.
A bunch of floating speakers, who cares! Noise pollution man!
more...
janstett
Oct 18, 12:21 PM
[merged posts]
bassfingers
Apr 22, 01:47 PM
Good job 5P.
Unions are a shield for incompetent and/or lazy people and a political weapon for the leaders of the unions.
They undermine the free market and are ruining state budgets
It keeps public schools from rewarding good teachers and FIRING bad teachers.
If you want teachers to make more money, vote to have more money put into public schooling. Don't empower a political organization who makes a living strong-arming states into financial instability.
Unions are a shield for incompetent and/or lazy people and a political weapon for the leaders of the unions.
They undermine the free market and are ruining state budgets
It keeps public schools from rewarding good teachers and FIRING bad teachers.
If you want teachers to make more money, vote to have more money put into public schooling. Don't empower a political organization who makes a living strong-arming states into financial instability.
more...
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:00 AM
Zealund?? :confused:
:D
Damn! I thought I was quick enough.
I originally had "Noo Zulund" but edited it back, missed the second u, changed it again - not quick enough.
Mind you, your quote of me wasn't quite quick enough, it's spelt correctly there.
:D
Damn! I thought I was quick enough.
I originally had "Noo Zulund" but edited it back, missed the second u, changed it again - not quick enough.
Mind you, your quote of me wasn't quite quick enough, it's spelt correctly there.
iStudent
Nov 24, 04:07 AM
Pink iPod Nano for my girlfriend...
iSkin case for my 60GB iPod I've been too lazy to get...
.Mac subscription for my new iMac after enjoying the 60-day trial...
Promo Savings: -$63.90
No complaints here. :D
iSkin case for my 60GB iPod I've been too lazy to get...
.Mac subscription for my new iMac after enjoying the 60-day trial...
Promo Savings: -$63.90
No complaints here. :D
more...
Performa
Sep 25, 12:51 PM
Because they didn't announce MacBook Pro's with Core 2 Duo! Why else?
I guess if they announced in the news that a cure had been found for cancer, these people would say, "So! Where is my new MacBook Pro?"
You "One-Way, ______er ________ers."
I guess if they announced in the news that a cure had been found for cancer, these people would say, "So! Where is my new MacBook Pro?"
You "One-Way, ______er ________ers."
Lord Blackadder
Jul 28, 12:54 PM
Series-Hybrids have no need for transmissions at all, the wheels are driven by electric motors only.
This is a new type, therefore high price until economies of scale kick in.
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
This is a new type, therefore high price until economies of scale kick in.
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
more...
peeInMyPantz
Sep 12, 08:18 AM
damn..
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
JayMysterio
Dec 8, 06:24 PM
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.
Have you decided what type of game you want to play? Cause if you don't want to run & gun, go play some hardcore. I promise you, you and 7 others will sit & camp for 20 or 30 minutes and you should be in heaven. As far as the taliban thing, it's a free country knock yourself out.
There are four frikkin' gametypes, each with match types of their own. If you can't find a game you like, it's because you don't want to. Play hardcore, play pure without the killstreaks, play only with players who've prestiged. But really, there's only one way to play the game? There's a word called creativity, give it a try. You may change up your game style. Not everyone runs & guns, some camp, some die. Just grasp the idea you can't sit up in a clock tower all day and NOT expect to get shot back at.
The game gives you every choice in the world, the question is if it's the right choice. Some maps will allow you to camp and slow the game down, other maps won't have it. The game is far more fluid than others, because of it's unpredictability. Sometimes that works for you and it's great, other times it won't. It's a trade off. Will you have all day to camp as you seem to want to? Probably not, once a 'spawn flip' occurs and you find someone behind your camp site. Personally I like the non static spawn points, while the spawning often works against me, I don't hear to much about spawn camping. I personally like the rarer spawn camping.
No, I said Treyarch 'nerfed' sniping. Now if you want to snipe, it actually takes something called 'skill'. You want a one hit kill, it better be dead on in the forehead or back of skull. No more auto assist towards an expanded hit box. There are one hit kills, as you've probably done a headshot or two, but now they are truly difficult. Not the old Rainbow Six shots with the Barrett that grazed your boot and were instant deaths. Now when I play it's often that a sniper tries a few times. Near misses are just that now, near misses, not the instant kills because a bullet was in the same township of your guy.
As I said, Black Ops is an alternative, a choice. If you don't care for it, I'm pretty sure you can take it out of your xbox, and go play something else. I believe they make a new Cabela's hunting game where camping is an important part, very little running & gunning I assume. Otherwise more than enough people are playing MW1 & 2, and they will welcome you. There are also more than enough enjoying Black Ops, don't join them, ...they haven't missed you.
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.
Have you decided what type of game you want to play? Cause if you don't want to run & gun, go play some hardcore. I promise you, you and 7 others will sit & camp for 20 or 30 minutes and you should be in heaven. As far as the taliban thing, it's a free country knock yourself out.
There are four frikkin' gametypes, each with match types of their own. If you can't find a game you like, it's because you don't want to. Play hardcore, play pure without the killstreaks, play only with players who've prestiged. But really, there's only one way to play the game? There's a word called creativity, give it a try. You may change up your game style. Not everyone runs & guns, some camp, some die. Just grasp the idea you can't sit up in a clock tower all day and NOT expect to get shot back at.
The game gives you every choice in the world, the question is if it's the right choice. Some maps will allow you to camp and slow the game down, other maps won't have it. The game is far more fluid than others, because of it's unpredictability. Sometimes that works for you and it's great, other times it won't. It's a trade off. Will you have all day to camp as you seem to want to? Probably not, once a 'spawn flip' occurs and you find someone behind your camp site. Personally I like the non static spawn points, while the spawning often works against me, I don't hear to much about spawn camping. I personally like the rarer spawn camping.
No, I said Treyarch 'nerfed' sniping. Now if you want to snipe, it actually takes something called 'skill'. You want a one hit kill, it better be dead on in the forehead or back of skull. No more auto assist towards an expanded hit box. There are one hit kills, as you've probably done a headshot or two, but now they are truly difficult. Not the old Rainbow Six shots with the Barrett that grazed your boot and were instant deaths. Now when I play it's often that a sniper tries a few times. Near misses are just that now, near misses, not the instant kills because a bullet was in the same township of your guy.
As I said, Black Ops is an alternative, a choice. If you don't care for it, I'm pretty sure you can take it out of your xbox, and go play something else. I believe they make a new Cabela's hunting game where camping is an important part, very little running & gunning I assume. Otherwise more than enough people are playing MW1 & 2, and they will welcome you. There are also more than enough enjoying Black Ops, don't join them, ...they haven't missed you.
more...
Melrose
Mar 6, 01:25 PM
Apple doesn't invent. Apple refines.
...
I think this is the key point for this argument. Apple, true, did not introduce the first touch screen phone. However, they blew the lid off the touchscreen phone market when introducing the iPhone.
They didn't make the first portable music player with the iPod - but they refined what was there, gave it a good interface and changed the way the world transports and listens to music.
They didn't invent tablet computing - but still they made the iPad and spread a once-dead market segment wide open.
It's not that they invent, though they certainly are innovative, so much as they refine concepts that are already there. And as far as people saying, "everybody copies Apple!" there is more truth to that than you might think - building a tablet computer isn't necessarily copying Apple so much as jumping on the bandwagon once Apple invigorates the market. In that sense, they copy Apple. They ignore a market before because they cannot tap it successfully; Apple does, so then they jump in with drastically similar features.
Apple has single-handedly plowed many technological roads; the roads were already there, but Apple more or less opened them up.
...
I think this is the key point for this argument. Apple, true, did not introduce the first touch screen phone. However, they blew the lid off the touchscreen phone market when introducing the iPhone.
They didn't make the first portable music player with the iPod - but they refined what was there, gave it a good interface and changed the way the world transports and listens to music.
They didn't invent tablet computing - but still they made the iPad and spread a once-dead market segment wide open.
It's not that they invent, though they certainly are innovative, so much as they refine concepts that are already there. And as far as people saying, "everybody copies Apple!" there is more truth to that than you might think - building a tablet computer isn't necessarily copying Apple so much as jumping on the bandwagon once Apple invigorates the market. In that sense, they copy Apple. They ignore a market before because they cannot tap it successfully; Apple does, so then they jump in with drastically similar features.
Apple has single-handedly plowed many technological roads; the roads were already there, but Apple more or less opened them up.
tristangage
Apr 22, 03:41 AM
Essentially just like Facebook's "Like" feature, then? People seem to like it on Facebook; would it be useful here?
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
But then people on Facebook just complain about how there's no Dislike button. I think it'd be interesting to see how the current state works, rather than tweak it from speculation on how things might turn out.
more...
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
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 actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
traditional wedding dresses
more...
Fall Colors: Wedding Gowns
Non-Traditional Bridal Outfits
non traditional wedding
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
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.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
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.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
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.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
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.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Small White Car
Oct 6, 10:18 AM
Hey. Good for them.
An even BETTER commercial would focus on the fact that AT&T service is slow and drops out even where there IS coverage.
Maybe that'll be their next ad.
An even BETTER commercial would focus on the fact that AT&T service is slow and drops out even where there IS coverage.
Maybe that'll be their next ad.
more...
maclaptop
Apr 15, 07:47 PM
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/04/15/171049-android_music_cloud_syncing.jpg
Image from Droid Life (http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/07/google-music-syncing-to-the-cloud-working-on-android-2-3-3-roms/)
All Things Digital reports (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110415/google-music-label-talks-going-backwards/)
Considering the source "All Things Digital", Apple's personal mouthpiece, it's no wonder it has a Pro-Apple bias.
Of course Google's going to have growing pains. It's new territory for them. They'll get it sorted out.
Image from Droid Life (http://www.droid-life.com/2011/03/07/google-music-syncing-to-the-cloud-working-on-android-2-3-3-roms/)
All Things Digital reports (http://mediamemo.allthingsd.com/20110415/google-music-label-talks-going-backwards/)
Considering the source "All Things Digital", Apple's personal mouthpiece, it's no wonder it has a Pro-Apple bias.
Of course Google's going to have growing pains. It's new territory for them. They'll get it sorted out.
callme
May 2, 09:57 AM
I find it hilarious that Steve Jobs claimed Apple was not tracking users, but now all of a sudden we find Location tracking being completely removed from this version of iOS, that is honestly something that annoyes me..
I find it hilarious that you don't understand what is being done here!
I find it hilarious that you don't understand what is being done here!
DrumApple
Apr 25, 02:23 PM
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
Yeah, making developers have to re-develop all of their apps would be a knife to the heart. When Apple decided on the screen size, it was pretty much set in stone. This would be a terrible move and anger many developers, especially independents who don't have the time, resources, or budget to re-develop. I could have blown my life savings developing one app, and now to find out that it isn't compatible with the newest iphone anymore? /die
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
Yeah, making developers have to re-develop all of their apps would be a knife to the heart. When Apple decided on the screen size, it was pretty much set in stone. This would be a terrible move and anger many developers, especially independents who don't have the time, resources, or budget to re-develop. I could have blown my life savings developing one app, and now to find out that it isn't compatible with the newest iphone anymore? /die
someguy
Sep 12, 07:23 AM
Good catch, although it could mean nothing.
If the iTunes Music Store is going to be called the iTunes Store (iTMS > iTS?) then shouldn't the name iTunes change as well to coincide with the change in available media? :o
If the iTunes Music Store is going to be called the iTunes Store (iTMS > iTS?) then shouldn't the name iTunes change as well to coincide with the change in available media? :o
Hans Brix
Apr 26, 10:17 AM
I'm hoping this rumor is true. I've always felt the iPhone screen could use more space.
dsnort
Aug 3, 10:20 AM
I dare you to try and argue against those points.
:eek: Dare!!??? As in double dog dare!!?? As in triple dog dare with a cherry on top!!?? ( Don't get your bowels in an uproar, I'm only teasing!!:D )
:eek: Dare!!??? As in double dog dare!!?? As in triple dog dare with a cherry on top!!?? ( Don't get your bowels in an uproar, I'm only teasing!!:D )
gravytrain84
Mar 17, 11:38 AM
Congrats
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/akg0186/6686a935.png
http://i96.photobucket.com/albums/l178/akg0186/6686a935.png
NAG
Mar 24, 03:26 PM
I remember using the prerelease versions without an Apple menu (and a decorative Apple in the center).
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
Oh, and does anyone remember Docklings?
No comments:
Post a Comment