steadysignal
Apr 29, 05:44 PM
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.
why?
why?
jonnysods
Apr 15, 04:39 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) Mobile/8H7)
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
Suckaz. Closed system works best.
reubs
Apr 6, 11:17 AM
http://img709.imageshack.us/img709/3282/photoapr06114008am.jpg (http://img709.imageshack.us/i/photoapr06114008am.jpg/)
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
Re-upped on my sunburst mix
Mmm. Publix.
macteo
Apr 29, 03:55 PM
Yeah, I preferred the iOS scrollbars, and the slider buttons.
Why Apple did it?
Why Apple did it?
vincenz
Apr 5, 06:26 PM
Only Apple... :apple:
Eric5h5
Mar 25, 03:56 AM
And when we will get to OS XI?
Never. OS X is a brand, it's not really an OS version number. If/when Apple eventually ditches OS X or changes it significantly enough, it will have a new name and identity. (Or maybe it will become iOS X. ;) )
--Eric
Never. OS X is a brand, it's not really an OS version number. If/when Apple eventually ditches OS X or changes it significantly enough, it will have a new name and identity. (Or maybe it will become iOS X. ;) )
--Eric
ericschmerick
Sep 28, 12:25 PM
Aperture runs fine on my MBP 15" 2.0ghz. I have 2GB of ram, and I've definitely noticed that it'll use almost all of it. After 1 hr or so of working with images, I've seen it using 1.5GB+ of ram. So I suspect if you're running it with 1GB, you're missing out on some level of performance.
I agree, the rotate/straighten tool sucks hard. I've found that it's really hard to move the mouse precisely enough, and the click buttons on each side go up/down by 1 degree! Too much for each step.
I think the thing I love more than anything is not having an intermediate format. Working directly with RAW, and just leaving everything in that format until I'm ready to output, is terrific. I'm not a huge photoshopper, so once an image is sharpened, straightened, and levels adjusted, I'm usually done. So I'm not outputting a TIFF and bouncing into PS much. That might make a big difference in how you think about the value of aperture. I can't even imagine managing a whole separate collection of TIFFs, like I used to, now that I'm working directly with RAW.
The actual RAW "conversion" (if it can still be called that) and adjustment process, for me, is about the same speed than C1 or PS was. I have iView Pro as well with well over 10,000 images in databases, and it's terrific, but I'm not using it any more.
EE
http://www.essersinchina.com/
I agree, the rotate/straighten tool sucks hard. I've found that it's really hard to move the mouse precisely enough, and the click buttons on each side go up/down by 1 degree! Too much for each step.
I think the thing I love more than anything is not having an intermediate format. Working directly with RAW, and just leaving everything in that format until I'm ready to output, is terrific. I'm not a huge photoshopper, so once an image is sharpened, straightened, and levels adjusted, I'm usually done. So I'm not outputting a TIFF and bouncing into PS much. That might make a big difference in how you think about the value of aperture. I can't even imagine managing a whole separate collection of TIFFs, like I used to, now that I'm working directly with RAW.
The actual RAW "conversion" (if it can still be called that) and adjustment process, for me, is about the same speed than C1 or PS was. I have iView Pro as well with well over 10,000 images in databases, and it's terrific, but I'm not using it any more.
EE
http://www.essersinchina.com/
Muscleflex
Apr 7, 03:07 AM
The McRib is BACK!!!!!!!!! YUM YUM!!!
evilgEEk
Jan 15, 12:36 AM
Wow. Are they 14 years old?
Seriously, I remember doing something like this back in junior high school with one of those giant remote control watches.
But that was when I was 14 years old; this is just ridiculous, and not funny in the least. Way to show some professionalism. I truly hope they suffer for this.
I really am baffled that "adults" would find this funny.
Idiots.
Seriously, I remember doing something like this back in junior high school with one of those giant remote control watches.
But that was when I was 14 years old; this is just ridiculous, and not funny in the least. Way to show some professionalism. I truly hope they suffer for this.
I really am baffled that "adults" would find this funny.
Idiots.
AndroidfoLife
Apr 15, 08:46 PM
and FAIL.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
iphone needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
ipad needed nor had any competition to debut as a smash hit.
apple do stuff well and make good products because that's what the heck they frickin do!
they dont need anything to prod them on but their own imagination. companies that innovate by imitation because they got caught with their pants down arent about better products for end users. that's why their stuff sucked in the first place.
Yes and Palm smartphones and Blackberries never existed before the iPhone.
iSee
Jan 14, 01:03 PM
These are my predictions:
Macbook Nano:
12" Multitouch Screen
32gb Solid-state hard disk
3G mobile connectivity for wireless internet access
8 hour battery
Simply a tablet (eg. Macbook cut in half); Apple Style
Mac OS X leopard Multi-touch Edition
That's just what I was thinking (except no 3G--that would require getting a mobile operator involved. *maybe* as an option).
I think it will be based on the iPhone/Touch version of OS X, so no optical drive, period. Software is installed through iTunes (yeah, you are expected to have another Mac). However, media will synch wirelessly, AppleTV-style.
I'm also thinking the screen might be a little smaller. It's going to be light enough to hold and hand to someone else with one hand, even for pretty small people. Also, it *will* be called MacBook Air (sorry--I'm predicting, not saying what I *want* to see).
Macbook Nano:
12" Multitouch Screen
32gb Solid-state hard disk
3G mobile connectivity for wireless internet access
8 hour battery
Simply a tablet (eg. Macbook cut in half); Apple Style
Mac OS X leopard Multi-touch Edition
That's just what I was thinking (except no 3G--that would require getting a mobile operator involved. *maybe* as an option).
I think it will be based on the iPhone/Touch version of OS X, so no optical drive, period. Software is installed through iTunes (yeah, you are expected to have another Mac). However, media will synch wirelessly, AppleTV-style.
I'm also thinking the screen might be a little smaller. It's going to be light enough to hold and hand to someone else with one hand, even for pretty small people. Also, it *will* be called MacBook Air (sorry--I'm predicting, not saying what I *want* to see).
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.
MythicFrost
Apr 30, 03:29 AM
Ah no! I liked the scrolling!
dsnort
Aug 3, 12:29 PM
I think that's the idea. The implication I got was that they were going to give Microsoft a generous stretch of rope and let them hang themselves.
And so, my friends, we see why funny comic strips don't get published widely; instead, we have to live with pablum like "Family Circus" because if it gets any funnier than that, 90% of the population doesn't even come close to getting it.
You're right, I missed that!!!:eek:
(Gads, I have GOT to quit drinking while I cruise the forum!!:D )
And so, my friends, we see why funny comic strips don't get published widely; instead, we have to live with pablum like "Family Circus" because if it gets any funnier than that, 90% of the population doesn't even come close to getting it.
You're right, I missed that!!!:eek:
(Gads, I have GOT to quit drinking while I cruise the forum!!:D )
killuminati
Sep 7, 11:19 PM
Phat Pat, I never really thought of it that way but it really makes sense. Everyone in the audience has heard curses before and its really become a part of modern music in most genres. When you think about it, it really shouldn't offend anybody there because everyones mature, there arent little kids there.
Idno now that I think about it again it still seems kinda weird.
Idno now that I think about it again it still seems kinda weird.
getheledout
Apr 6, 01:37 PM
Just got it!
http://www.atpm.com/15.10/images/spacenavigator-front-above.jpg
I use one of those at work. It's an absolute necessity with CAD work, but it tends to 'walk' around my desk.
http://www.atpm.com/15.10/images/spacenavigator-front-above.jpg
I use one of those at work. It's an absolute necessity with CAD work, but it tends to 'walk' around my desk.
Rodimus Prime
Aug 3, 07:09 PM
I agree with you that series hybrids gain efficiency by running the internal combustion engine at a narrow RPM range representing the engine's most efficient speed. It's been done for over a hundred years that way in generators and a series hybrid drivetrain is set up exactly the same way as a generator.
One thing to remember about eletric cars is remember most people will be charging them at night during the off peak hours. There is a lot of spare capacity during that time so we can push a lot more plug in hybrids on to the grid than you think.
Personally I believe hybrids are what will be our bridge between our current mode of personal transportation to what ever our next one will be. They are not the final solution but what will connect the 2 things.
One thing to remember about eletric cars is remember most people will be charging them at night during the off peak hours. There is a lot of spare capacity during that time so we can push a lot more plug in hybrids on to the grid than you think.
Personally I believe hybrids are what will be our bridge between our current mode of personal transportation to what ever our next one will be. They are not the final solution but what will connect the 2 things.
mike5411
Apr 5, 03:08 PM
they should allow users to like or dislike iAds to help cater the iAds that are sent to the user :cool:
Hephaestus
Mar 17, 07:35 PM
I get it a lot too but I just say "nah, this phone sucks it's the worst phone in the world" and they usually shut up.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
That was exactly my point. I don't see why people care so much about what phone someone else has. It's only the Android folks that engage in this, I have yet to see an iPhone owner behave so pathetically.
They shut up because they have an insecurity about their phone and the iPhone 4 is the better phone. Shooting down a better phone makes their phone seem even worse. It's like a double headshot.
I hate to say it again but haters gon hate! It happens with ANYTHING. If you buy a BMW, Audi owners will waltz in saying "SEE MY CAR HAS THIS STANDARD IT'S WAY BETTER THAN BMW!!!!". If you buy a Rolex you get Omega and TAG Heuer owners going "MY WATCH IS SO MUCH BETTER THAN ROLEX BECAUSE IT'S CHEAPER AND IT HAS MORE THINGS IN IT!!!".
It's a thing you have to live with if you buy the most popular, top-of-the-line luxury things. If you can afford it, why not buy it?
the whole thing makes my brain hurt because it's so stupid and I don't care if the guy next to me had an Evo or an iPhone 4. :rolleyes:
That was exactly my point. I don't see why people care so much about what phone someone else has. It's only the Android folks that engage in this, I have yet to see an iPhone owner behave so pathetically.
CaoCao
Apr 17, 03:05 PM
It's so refreshing to see that with their 1 in 4 illiteracy rate and 1 in 5 high school dropout rate, California really has their priorities in order when it comes to education. Well done I say.
There are tons of Hispanic immigrants in California, many are hard working, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are educated
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
I'm talking about my experiences on history class in California.
There are tons of Hispanic immigrants in California, many are hard working, but that doesn't necessarily mean they are educated
I have no idea what experience you are speaking from, but it isn't universal. :confused:
I assure you that in the junior high, high school, and college classes I took, Hinckley was mentioned, JFK may or may not have been described as a Catholic, and Jodi Foster wasn't even popular yet.
I'm talking about my experiences on history class in California.
gregorsamsa
Jan 12, 08:55 PM
Actually, I find your post to be spot off. I find your portrayal of Mac owners to be shallow, self-serving, stereotyping and weak. I did notice you used the term 'some' in an attempt to mitigate your attack.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
The "some" in my post wasn't meant to mitigate anything. I meant every word I said in exactly the way I said it. That you then choose to attach your own paranoid interpretation to it is entirely down to you.
There's actually no Apple bashing in my post whatsoever but, as is all too typical with a few people, feathers are all too easily ruffled & then we get the tired, old accusations of trollism coming out. That you should talk about "living up to all my expectations" is kind of rich in the circumstances.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
The "some" in my post wasn't meant to mitigate anything. I meant every word I said in exactly the way I said it. That you then choose to attach your own paranoid interpretation to it is entirely down to you.
There's actually no Apple bashing in my post whatsoever but, as is all too typical with a few people, feathers are all too easily ruffled & then we get the tired, old accusations of trollism coming out. That you should talk about "living up to all my expectations" is kind of rich in the circumstances.
kuwisdelu
Apr 12, 06:07 PM
All the Windows 7 I use are campus installs, so since they're not configurable, I haven't really looked around the settings. Does Windows have virtual desktops yet?
Rocketman
Oct 3, 03:54 PM
the VAST majority of users and customers neither know nor care. And to be perfectly honest, the speed difference in 99% of the things people use their computers for are unnoticeable.
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 06:18 PM
EDIT: Finally, just a comment, PhoneyDeveloper pointed out that you had a parallel thread on the Apple Discussion forums. JMHO, but that's poor netiquette and is a waste of both your time and ours. At least link the two conversations, so folks don't end up repeating what someone else said on the other forum. Even just to say "someone over at the Apple Discussion Fourms (link) suggested ..."
B
Let me tell you something balamw, and I want you to remember it because it's obvious that you don't get my point either, even if I have said it over 10 times in this thread.
If you don't want to participate on my threads, stay out of it. Nobody is forcing you to read or post comment, alright ? If I want to open 10 threads on the subject in 10 different forums, well.. **** it.. that is how I like it. I'm not wasting anybodies time if they don't want to. Just ignore it and go to another one. I hope this is clear from now on.
About your links.. don't post them again.. I open one and read two paragraphs, I know where thats going. I could post 3 pages explaining you why and how Pro Developers should help Newbies but I not going to do that.
Next thing, quiz question: Just go ahead and ask, you can do as you like here; you'll sometimes get my answers just as sometimes I gets yours.
Again, thanks to all for commenting and helping.
My sources.. well, my main sources is the Apple documentation (all of it), then theres books and all the same stuff than most developers learn from. And.. no I haven't read all of the books, nor watch every video but I will.
I may not understand it all now balamw but give me a year or two and will see who needs some catching up to do.
well, back to work :)
B
Let me tell you something balamw, and I want you to remember it because it's obvious that you don't get my point either, even if I have said it over 10 times in this thread.
If you don't want to participate on my threads, stay out of it. Nobody is forcing you to read or post comment, alright ? If I want to open 10 threads on the subject in 10 different forums, well.. **** it.. that is how I like it. I'm not wasting anybodies time if they don't want to. Just ignore it and go to another one. I hope this is clear from now on.
About your links.. don't post them again.. I open one and read two paragraphs, I know where thats going. I could post 3 pages explaining you why and how Pro Developers should help Newbies but I not going to do that.
Next thing, quiz question: Just go ahead and ask, you can do as you like here; you'll sometimes get my answers just as sometimes I gets yours.
Again, thanks to all for commenting and helping.
My sources.. well, my main sources is the Apple documentation (all of it), then theres books and all the same stuff than most developers learn from. And.. no I haven't read all of the books, nor watch every video but I will.
I may not understand it all now balamw but give me a year or two and will see who needs some catching up to do.
well, back to work :)