sarper
Apr 26, 12:37 AM
As a developer, this will be pain in the ass!
Retina Displays have exactly the double number of pixels with the same resolution, having a second resolution is a giant step to gain one of the crappiest features of Android. I really doubt Apple would do that.
What if this isn't a bigger screen but a smaller device with the same screen on it? Hmm..
Retina Displays have exactly the double number of pixels with the same resolution, having a second resolution is a giant step to gain one of the crappiest features of Android. I really doubt Apple would do that.
What if this isn't a bigger screen but a smaller device with the same screen on it? Hmm..
bense27
Aug 3, 06:40 PM
just the fact that its name is the "Argo" tells you that its not posing a threat to iPods.
Bevz
Apr 15, 08:37 PM
Probably a fake, but i like the design anyway...
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
maflynn
Apr 16, 07:48 AM
Good ideas never die, they just get pulled from OS releases.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/08/pulled-panther-feature-home-on-ipod/
B
Indeed, not bashing MS, but they completely over promised "longhorn" and under-delivered when Vista was released. I think they learned their lesson and provide features that can actually be added in the time frame.
With the latest two releases (SL & Lion) apple isn't really promising too many features so it would be very disappointing to get one pulled.
As for the list, it looks very encouraging and exciting. win8 is still a ways off, but I hope to get a beta when its available.
http://www.macrumors.com/2003/10/08/pulled-panther-feature-home-on-ipod/
B
Indeed, not bashing MS, but they completely over promised "longhorn" and under-delivered when Vista was released. I think they learned their lesson and provide features that can actually be added in the time frame.
With the latest two releases (SL & Lion) apple isn't really promising too many features so it would be very disappointing to get one pulled.
As for the list, it looks very encouraging and exciting. win8 is still a ways off, but I hope to get a beta when its available.
xUKHCx
May 6, 02:15 AM
With IE 8 if I vote it get kicked back to the main forum page, if I press back I get the first error message below, the forum isn't displayed. If I then reload the page nothing happens and after a while I go to close the tab and the second error message appears.
It sometimes affects other forum pages I go to but will usually clear up after a while. I just have to remember not to vote while I am on IE8.
284293
It sometimes affects other forum pages I go to but will usually clear up after a while. I just have to remember not to vote while I am on IE8.
284293
KnightWRX
Mar 10, 04:34 AM
Umm, a touch screen on a computer like that is really stupid because if your using it solidly for more than 1 hour your arms would fall off :rolleyes:
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
Funny how before Steve said that, you would have been one to repeatedly ask for a touch screen iMac. ;)
I just look to Steve to see the trends in posting on Macrumors. Whatever the guy says, it means it will become defacto opinion on this site.
wordoflife
Mar 24, 03:03 PM
I never really liked OS X until 10.5.
Spanna
Nov 25, 06:20 AM
Could someone please tell me what is thanksgiving, I have seen it being celebrated on many american television programs and I know it's got something to do with turkeys but they never seem to mention its origins. Also is it a national public holiday ?
robotartfashion
Dec 10, 06:09 PM
stop appreciating the Name of the game instead of the game itself...this game is awful. You're making excuses and justifying the stupid **** that the game has and dealing with it.
When you're playing a game and players start spawning directly behind you and shooting you in the back EVERY SINGLE MATCH, its time to realize that the game sucks.
When you're playing a WAR game and cannot be a successful sniper in it, its time to realize the game sucks.
The maps are too small and the Spawns suck causing multiplayer to blow. If you want to make excuses for all the nonsense and frustration in the game and play on...then have at it. But the game is not nearly as good as Modern Warfare 2.
Here's the thing Vidder, when you're debating something with someone and you're constantly shouting and belittling their opinions odds are YOU AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS!
To EACH THEIR OWN, personally, I was not a fan of Modern Warfare 2 but I like Black Ops. I also love Bad Company 2 which does allow sniping. For me, Black Ops and MW2 are both very arcadey shooters. I expect running and gunning and no realism. It's all down to twitch controls and covering mechanics with teammates.
I would say that you are more likely to get "sniper" kills on Hardcore mode as their is no kill cam and pretty much instantaneous deaths. Regardless, as in real life, if you are in a CQB situation (which most of these maps in Black Ops are) you are going to run the risk of getting stabbed/shot/bitch slapped in the back if you are concentrating on the other end of the street while staring down a scope. You do have the option to watch your back with: claymores, friends, or the sticky cam.
Please above all, calm down. Oh, and have a great day :)
When you're playing a game and players start spawning directly behind you and shooting you in the back EVERY SINGLE MATCH, its time to realize that the game sucks.
When you're playing a WAR game and cannot be a successful sniper in it, its time to realize the game sucks.
The maps are too small and the Spawns suck causing multiplayer to blow. If you want to make excuses for all the nonsense and frustration in the game and play on...then have at it. But the game is not nearly as good as Modern Warfare 2.
Here's the thing Vidder, when you're debating something with someone and you're constantly shouting and belittling their opinions odds are YOU AREN'T GOING TO CHANGE THEIR MINDS!
To EACH THEIR OWN, personally, I was not a fan of Modern Warfare 2 but I like Black Ops. I also love Bad Company 2 which does allow sniping. For me, Black Ops and MW2 are both very arcadey shooters. I expect running and gunning and no realism. It's all down to twitch controls and covering mechanics with teammates.
I would say that you are more likely to get "sniper" kills on Hardcore mode as their is no kill cam and pretty much instantaneous deaths. Regardless, as in real life, if you are in a CQB situation (which most of these maps in Black Ops are) you are going to run the risk of getting stabbed/shot/bitch slapped in the back if you are concentrating on the other end of the street while staring down a scope. You do have the option to watch your back with: claymores, friends, or the sticky cam.
Please above all, calm down. Oh, and have a great day :)
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 07:44 PM
So KDE4 is a bad 90s Linux Window Manager?
As far as the look goes ? Yes. As far as the architecture behind it goes ? No (gone is the fake transluscency hacks of Rasterman and Enlightenment and in are the compositing extensions). Context man, I see your break from MacRumors didn't teach you to stick to context. :rolleyes:
As far as the look goes ? Yes. As far as the architecture behind it goes ? No (gone is the fake transluscency hacks of Rasterman and Enlightenment and in are the compositing extensions). Context man, I see your break from MacRumors didn't teach you to stick to context. :rolleyes:
holmesf
Mar 24, 06:20 PM
I have been using Mac OS X since the first public beta. I still have screenshots around from the public beta, 10.0, 10.1, and 10.2.
I feel like this one best exemplifies the time during which Mac OS X originated: the Matrix was incredibly popular, as was Quake III. But most popular of all were PC and Mac users trolling each other about which operating system was best, the so called MHz myth, etc. I was 14 years old when I took this screenshot, and oh boy was I an Apple evangelist reaching absurd proportions.
Really I think most of us were still very worried that Apple would go under, and despite being "really cool", OS X had serious problems that wouldn't necessarily make you optimistic. It was slow. Window resizing was really painful, and 3D games tended to run much slower in OS X than in OS9. There was a dearth of software and even much of Apple's own software was not yet compatible.
On the other hand it was really stable, right from the start. Running OS 9, the expectation was that it wasn't "if" your computer froze, but rather "when" it froze. Without protected memory (applications could corrupt eachother) and without pre-emptive multitasking (applications could go into infinite loops refusing to give back control to the OS) the operating system was just really unstable, and frankly it was getting archaic compared to Windows. OS X and its unix underpinnings with a modern pre-emptive multitasking scheduler and protected memory not only brought stability, but also finally allowed Apple's dual processor systems to actually take advantage of the 2nd processor without requiring special application support.
Here's to you, Mac OS X!
http://futrellsoftware.com/pbeta.jpg
I feel like this one best exemplifies the time during which Mac OS X originated: the Matrix was incredibly popular, as was Quake III. But most popular of all were PC and Mac users trolling each other about which operating system was best, the so called MHz myth, etc. I was 14 years old when I took this screenshot, and oh boy was I an Apple evangelist reaching absurd proportions.
Really I think most of us were still very worried that Apple would go under, and despite being "really cool", OS X had serious problems that wouldn't necessarily make you optimistic. It was slow. Window resizing was really painful, and 3D games tended to run much slower in OS X than in OS9. There was a dearth of software and even much of Apple's own software was not yet compatible.
On the other hand it was really stable, right from the start. Running OS 9, the expectation was that it wasn't "if" your computer froze, but rather "when" it froze. Without protected memory (applications could corrupt eachother) and without pre-emptive multitasking (applications could go into infinite loops refusing to give back control to the OS) the operating system was just really unstable, and frankly it was getting archaic compared to Windows. OS X and its unix underpinnings with a modern pre-emptive multitasking scheduler and protected memory not only brought stability, but also finally allowed Apple's dual processor systems to actually take advantage of the 2nd processor without requiring special application support.
Here's to you, Mac OS X!
http://futrellsoftware.com/pbeta.jpg
steviem
Apr 13, 12:54 PM
I started my first full-time job recently so I'm not covered by my parents' insurances anymore which is why I got some own ones:
http://www.risikolebensversicherungvergleich.de/logos/asstel_full.jpg
Asstel: When you just got's ta get that booty...
http://www.risikolebensversicherungvergleich.de/logos/asstel_full.jpg
Asstel: When you just got's ta get that booty...
cbrain
Sep 24, 02:33 PM
I've just watched the video. Gizmodo really should be ashamed of themselves for that, it just isn't funny. It's disgusting.
Macula
Oct 28, 05:01 PM
Apple will need to open up osX to generic PC's but i can understand they'll want to wait until the Mac growth is stalling. Maybe at about 10% marketshare ?
Science fiction scenario: Five to seven years from today Apple and Hewlett Packard partner. HP gives up on Microsoft/Windows and ships machines with either Mac OS or Linux. Dell considers joining the club, as well.
Another five years later, Mac OS market share approaches that of Microsoft.
:cool: ;)
Science fiction scenario: Five to seven years from today Apple and Hewlett Packard partner. HP gives up on Microsoft/Windows and ships machines with either Mac OS or Linux. Dell considers joining the club, as well.
Another five years later, Mac OS market share approaches that of Microsoft.
:cool: ;)
Cagle
Apr 5, 03:22 PM
Am I the only one not finding this on the App Store?
no, but you're the only one looking...
no, but you're the only one looking...
PeterQVenkman
Apr 15, 09:58 PM
It's probably a grainy render from Next Limit's Maxwell render.
rtheb
Apr 30, 10:36 AM
Great news. Now if only they'd kept Rosetta, I'd upgrade happily. As it is... I'm going to have to stay stuck in Snow Leopard.
I totally agree.
I really don't need to purchase new software that is still functional because Apple deems it obsolete.
Keep Rosetta, it can't be very hard to implement.
I totally agree.
I really don't need to purchase new software that is still functional because Apple deems it obsolete.
Keep Rosetta, it can't be very hard to implement.
AlBDamned
Nov 15, 07:23 PM
my personal gripes/opinions:
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
Agree with all of this about the multiplayer. I sure as hell hope there's a significant patch in the works for all platforms, but even that will not bring this game up to where it should be given its history.
It's just a shame that a) MW3 is a long way away; and b) given all the stuff that's gone down at Infinity Ward, there's no guarantee that will be any good either (although it should look like a 2010 game, not something on the PS2). Treyarch jumped the shark completely with Black Ops multiplayer.
multiplayer:
* lots of things to collect and customize .. which is great
* apart of that: average at best:
* many guns essentially worthless: shot guns having a range of 5 meters, machine guns being no more powerfull than assault rifles but way less accurate, and game being too fast paced for sniping rifles...
*knife connecting from ridiculous angles and distances: if _I_ can hit somebody else with a knife when he is standing next to me then there is something wrong
*lots of game modes of which perhaps only 1/3 is actually fun on the actual maps..which for some modes are way too small
*ridiculous bad net code : connection problems, host migrations (working in 1/4 of al lcases), random disconnects, lag, voice echoes and problems, and sound issues
Agree with all of this about the multiplayer. I sure as hell hope there's a significant patch in the works for all platforms, but even that will not bring this game up to where it should be given its history.
It's just a shame that a) MW3 is a long way away; and b) given all the stuff that's gone down at Infinity Ward, there's no guarantee that will be any good either (although it should look like a 2010 game, not something on the PS2). Treyarch jumped the shark completely with Black Ops multiplayer.
SteveKnobs
Apr 21, 01:21 PM
I like this feature, however I definitely think there needs to be a counter for both positive and negative votes. If the counter says "0" we have no idea how many votes that post recieved as there could be an equal number of +/- votes- which wouldn't tell us much of anything, would it?
Edit: Or am I not understanding how the counters work?
Edit: Or am I not understanding how the counters work?
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 08:17 AM
How is he a 'no-talent ass clown'.
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
door4
Sep 12, 08:27 AM
Yerba Buena means Good Herb!!!
today SJ will release the new iPot!!!:p
Yes I believe Steve has had that product under research for years...
today SJ will release the new iPot!!!:p
Yes I believe Steve has had that product under research for years...
goosnarrggh
Nov 17, 10:02 AM
Maybe if your idea of "traditionally" ignores most of the last quarter-century or so...
AMD's 386 and 486 clones were always cheaper than Intel's, and they always at least matched the clock-for-clock performance of Intel's direct counterparts.
AMD's 386 and 486 clones were always cheaper than Intel's, and they always at least matched the clock-for-clock performance of Intel's direct counterparts.
lordonuthin
Apr 10, 11:47 AM
dang. yeah, not asking for much huh :cool:
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
I know... but I can always hope :p
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.
but don't be surprised if you don't get half of that, and it costs $6k.
this is one of the main things that bothers me about apple. i just don't understand why they wait so long to update the mac pros like this. at least announce something
I know... but I can always hope :p
It used to be worse when we had to wait for Motorola/IBM to produce enough chips, there were almost always delays in production because of yield issues or something else.