Markleshark
Sep 12, 07:58 AM
Not only is iTMS down... I just tried to get into my local Apple Store... and it was locked. Just has 'It's Showtime' in the window. Strange.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 10:29 PM
I think this would be a better way to do it. Perhaps it could be called the "Thank you" or "Helpful" button.
I agree. And there should be some kind of count of "thanks" for each member. And it can give us different "levels" based on our thankfulness. Kind of like how we achieve different statices based on our post count.
I agree. And there should be some kind of count of "thanks" for each member. And it can give us different "levels" based on our thankfulness. Kind of like how we achieve different statices based on our post count.
Kenya
Oct 3, 01:34 PM
They might get laughed at but apple will be the ones laughing when their the first to debut santa rosa with 800mhz fsb and nand flash. Hopefully this is whats going to happen
This is my prediction as well. We'll see!
This is my prediction as well. We'll see!
caliguy
Nov 23, 08:08 PM
I hear Apple retail stores open as early as 7am!!
As early as 6am, actually.
As early as 6am, actually.
pondosinatra
Jul 21, 09:44 AM
"Apple - our products suck just as much as everyone else's" :rolleyes:
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:54 PM
I liked it how it was before.... :(
+1
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
+1
It was confusing but they could have sorted that out.
croasmun
Oct 2, 03:11 PM
Since when is Apple not a litigious company?
latergator116
Sep 7, 10:45 PM
It's a bit deeper then that though, he says
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
Also, you have to understand where some of these people are coming from. Maybe not Kanye personally, but I could understand why kids growing up in the American ghetto might feel a bit of animosity towards the police they way they are treated and all (not all police are crooked, of course.)
******* the police that's how we treat 'em
we buy our way out of jail, but we can't buy freedom
He's not just saying F the police just because they're the police.
Also, you have to understand where some of these people are coming from. Maybe not Kanye personally, but I could understand why kids growing up in the American ghetto might feel a bit of animosity towards the police they way they are treated and all (not all police are crooked, of course.)
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 02:08 PM
Still, that's pretty annoying... I'd only uncovered one of those two out of my own stupidity...
Yeah. Well, at least now I don't feel scared to refresh the page looking for the updated link. Is there anyone that can be contacted to take that off?
Yeah. Well, at least now I don't feel scared to refresh the page looking for the updated link. Is there anyone that can be contacted to take that off?
Truffy
Mar 25, 10:46 AM
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
Excuse my ignorance, but does an OS that runs lil' apps on a poxy hand-held computer scale up to run full-blown applications (think FCS) on a multi-core, heavy-hardware computer?
Excuse my ignorance, but does an OS that runs lil' apps on a poxy hand-held computer scale up to run full-blown applications (think FCS) on a multi-core, heavy-hardware computer?
mdntcallr
Sep 25, 11:13 AM
yeah i dont get the negative votes.
the update is good news. people should separate the issues. i voted positive. even tough i would have loved to order a new macbook pro today.
the update is good news. people should separate the issues. i voted positive. even tough i would have loved to order a new macbook pro today.
wnurse
Aug 10, 05:54 PM
Please tell me where I said that I thought that Apple monitors were better than Dell monitors in anything other than asthetics? I have not made any claim anywhere!
All I said was that tech specs in some places were listed different so something about the panel seems to be different. Yes I bought an Apple monitor, yes I'm an Apple fanboy because I like the look of their electronics, but no I never stated that Apple's monitors were functionally better. On the contrary my statements are to the effect that Dell montiors show functionally better specs, so logically aren't they (not Apple) using the better panel.
Also, what say you to blonde redhead's post about Apple and Dell using different suppliers? Is that correct, or more disinformation.
Get off your soap box, have a cup of tea (or whatever will calm your attitude) and let's have a civil discussion.
Sorry took so late to get back to you..
1. I'm not even sure you were the one that said Dell monitors suck (notice i said "i get annonyed when people.. not I get annonyed when stoid". Anyway, as to different suppliers?.. I was not the one that made that observation/comment. I suppose whoever made that comment can verify for you if that is correct.
All I said was that tech specs in some places were listed different so something about the panel seems to be different. Yes I bought an Apple monitor, yes I'm an Apple fanboy because I like the look of their electronics, but no I never stated that Apple's monitors were functionally better. On the contrary my statements are to the effect that Dell montiors show functionally better specs, so logically aren't they (not Apple) using the better panel.
Also, what say you to blonde redhead's post about Apple and Dell using different suppliers? Is that correct, or more disinformation.
Get off your soap box, have a cup of tea (or whatever will calm your attitude) and let's have a civil discussion.
Sorry took so late to get back to you..
1. I'm not even sure you were the one that said Dell monitors suck (notice i said "i get annonyed when people.. not I get annonyed when stoid". Anyway, as to different suppliers?.. I was not the one that made that observation/comment. I suppose whoever made that comment can verify for you if that is correct.
Anonymous Freak
Oct 11, 12:12 PM
I'm not sure where you got those criteria... but those aren't the criteria for which story make the first page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
Readers aren't asked to blindly believe page 1 rumors... Whether Page 1 or Page 2, rumors are presented in their context.... with historical context of the sites involved. Engadget generally has pretty low standards regarding rumors - in that they will post whatever they want on their site if they find it remotely interesting -- that being said, I've not seen them post Apple Rumor items using their own sources with any degree of certainty before. As a result, they get this front page spot. If "joerumorblogIveneverheardof.com" posts a rumor from "reliable" sources, it won't even get a mention on Page 2.
arn
From the very top of "Page 2":
Page 2: Uncertain news and links
I always took that as an implication that page 1 rumors were from more reliable sources, and should be considered more likely to be true. I didn't say that they were guaranteed to be true, just that they are more reliable.
You also (used to, at least, I can't see any current stories that do,) have disclaimers on Page 2 stories stating that the sources were unreliable, so that's why they were on Page 2. Again, implying that page 1 rumors were more reliable.
Ever since Macslash went downhill, and the significantly more frequent postings of Mac "news" on page 1, I had taken page 1 to be a "news and reliable rumors" page, while Page 2 was a good old fashioned "random rumors of questionable accuracy" page.
marddin
Nov 11, 08:36 AM
anyone read my post at the top of the page.
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
50th birthday card
irthday greeting card.jpg
50th Birthday Card in
Beach Greeting Cards - Age
irthday greetings cards
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
imuk
Aug 16, 09:14 AM
I received a 2A62XXX Display last week with a May production date. No idea whether it is an old or a new one. However, I did notice a few dead pixels last night after watching a movies. (The movie credits came with a black background. Great for dead pixel discovery!)
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
By just looking at it, I noticed at least 4 dead pixels, some appeared stronger than others. They are all on the left half of the screen. Is this considered an acceptable or normal number of dead pixels? I am tempted to return it while I can. Any suggestions?
ECUpirate44
May 2, 09:42 AM
y u no like bugfixes?
Do we even know if this update is also for the Verizon iPhone or just the AT&T? And no, bug fixes cover up my jailbreak.
Do we even know if this update is also for the Verizon iPhone or just the AT&T? And no, bug fixes cover up my jailbreak.
rdowns
Apr 21, 11:01 AM
I don't see this ending well. See ratings for front page articles.
Schizoid
Mar 24, 06:53 PM
Happy Birthday NeXTSTEP!!! ;)
All of this begs the question... what's next for OS X?
I'm guessing they'll never move away from UNIX as the core OS... too late in the game now, but what are the alternatives?
I'm hoping they'll keep plugging at technologies like Open CL, GCD etc. to make Macs even faster...
All of this begs the question... what's next for OS X?
I'm guessing they'll never move away from UNIX as the core OS... too late in the game now, but what are the alternatives?
I'm hoping they'll keep plugging at technologies like Open CL, GCD etc. to make Macs even faster...
copykris
Apr 7, 04:57 AM
Vintage poster - it will look great in my media room!
love it
love it
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:23 PM
Mate if you think thats bad, I'n holding out for a Mac mini and there has been no rumors for it! Would love to see a intel i5 :D
yeah i hear ya. an i5 mac mini would be very nice. but again, i doubt it will happen this year, if ever
yeah i hear ya. an i5 mac mini would be very nice. but again, i doubt it will happen this year, if ever
charlituna
Apr 8, 02:18 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
Probably something semi lame like a free smart cover if you buy an ipad.
Or nothing at all and they are just doing a 'front page' featuring all the various tablets you can get. they have gotten bad PR for doing that and not having any in stock which could be why they are holding non pre-orders.
I also heard that there is no ad and they aren't selling 'walk ins' because they might have to redistribute them to other stores to fill pre-orders. Because they are starting to get some bad press and complaints about the wait. Which is also why they have been told not to take anymore pre-orders for the time being.
what I wonder is, if your unit comes up doing the promotion since you put money down is it considered already sold. Or was it basically a deposit and you are actually 'buying' it that day and can take advantage of what deal there might be
Probably something semi lame like a free smart cover if you buy an ipad.
Or nothing at all and they are just doing a 'front page' featuring all the various tablets you can get. they have gotten bad PR for doing that and not having any in stock which could be why they are holding non pre-orders.
I also heard that there is no ad and they aren't selling 'walk ins' because they might have to redistribute them to other stores to fill pre-orders. Because they are starting to get some bad press and complaints about the wait. Which is also why they have been told not to take anymore pre-orders for the time being.
what I wonder is, if your unit comes up doing the promotion since you put money down is it considered already sold. Or was it basically a deposit and you are actually 'buying' it that day and can take advantage of what deal there might be
Rt&Dzine
Apr 22, 09:49 AM
+1 I'm all for it!
teach our kids why rome fell etc.
Christianity?
teach our kids why rome fell etc.
Christianity?
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
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.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
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.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
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.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
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.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
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.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
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.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
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.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
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.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
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.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
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.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
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.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
GadgetGav
May 2, 02:26 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
How do you know it's "intentional" and not a "bug"..??
How do you know it's "intentional" and not a "bug"..??