Rodimus Prime
Apr 11, 12:52 PM
only if W8 had a 32bit flavor. Otherwise, no. Apple prefers one flavor. At any rate, Apples motivation is to sell hardware so the push to update is always there. MS only cares about software.
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
umm my computer from 2004 could run Windows 8 (slowly but it could) because it does have a 64 bit processor in it. I also believe W8 is going to be 64 bit only. W7 was the last 32 bit OS.
citizenzen
May 5, 05:10 PM
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
BLUELION
Apr 6, 01:17 PM
Well, take the superbowl ads. Many, and I mean mean are lame but you know what people flock to them every hear like flies on scat just to watch. Why? Because there is a hype around the superbowl event and we have been conditioned over time to tune in.
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
There is no event going with the app except that apple's iAd company developed many of them. Its just a collection of ads to being public awareness in what is being developed in advertisements. You don't have do download all the apps to see the content, just the one and you can review, browse all you want. Kind of like Macrumors and the articles. You don't have to read these things, but you do and you rate it as postive and negative or you leave your comments like you did before.
Its just a marketing exposure thing dude, get over it.
haha this is as lame as a tv station bringing out a half hour of the most "unique" and "fascinating" ads, wow.
also, maybe if they were some good, funny ads it would be ok, but no. The ads shown in the pic are just "EAT MCRIB" and "MAYBELLINE"...
linux2mac
Mar 24, 09:31 PM
downhill since tiger.
lol
lol
arn
Oct 2, 04:39 PM
The problem is that I don't see how it can be iTunes compatible without Apple's involvement. (See above post on Real Harmony). iTunes will only query ITMS for validating a DRMed file, not DoubleTwist or Amazon. Without iTunes things get a lot less compelling.
B
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.
arn
B
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.
arn
MacinDoc
Sep 12, 12:57 AM
Disney is the 2nd largest media company in the world. I surely hope you don't think we're just getting Mickey Mouse and Daffy Duck movies. Here's just the movie companies that Disney owns:
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Pixar
I think that's quite a good start.
-Matt
I realize that, but there are more major studios that are not on that list owned by Disney than there are on the list. But maybe it will work out like the TV downloads have, as some have suggested, starting with just a few and adding more. The problem is, Apple does not currently dominate that market; there are other players right now that are equally strong with their video download services. It seems that the market seems to favor having a dominant player, like Windows for OS and iTMS for music downloads. This could leave the door open for Microsoft to dominate this market if Apple doesn't ramp up its selection quickly.
Walt Disney Pictures
Touchstone Pictures
Hollywood Pictures
Miramax Films
Buena Vista Home Entertainment
Pixar
I think that's quite a good start.
-Matt
I realize that, but there are more major studios that are not on that list owned by Disney than there are on the list. But maybe it will work out like the TV downloads have, as some have suggested, starting with just a few and adding more. The problem is, Apple does not currently dominate that market; there are other players right now that are equally strong with their video download services. It seems that the market seems to favor having a dominant player, like Windows for OS and iTMS for music downloads. This could leave the door open for Microsoft to dominate this market if Apple doesn't ramp up its selection quickly.
skunk
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
If the score is X, you can change the score to X-1 and X+1. If you change it to X-1 then press up, it'll display as X+1 which removes your down vote and adds your upvote.In other words, there is no allowance for apathy. I can't be arsed with a system that doesn't allow for apathy. **** that.
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
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.
Tyler76
Oct 2, 03:21 AM
this is one of the worst titles for a story I have read. It also sounds like whoever wrote the story has no knowledge of anything that's been happening in architecture for about a century.
Clean, modern design? Must be influenced by the iPhone! :rolleyes:
They are referring to iPhone, the main topic.
Clean, modern design? Must be influenced by the iPhone! :rolleyes:
They are referring to iPhone, the main topic.
KnoxHarrington
Mar 25, 01:33 PM
*rolls eyes*
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
I really *like* the fact that the OS X and iOS groups seem to be talking to each other and sharing ideas with each other, rather than being in squabbling little camps that snipe at each other like you see at Microsoft.
I'm gonna say this again: not happening. Lion may very well be the end of OS X in the sense that they give it a new version number and use new naming conventions but iOS and OS X are not merging in the sense that OS X will be locked down like iOS.
General purpose computers versus what are still treated consumer electronics (phones, tablets, etc.) have different needs and their OSes are different. Are there rumors about Windows 7 being superseded by Windows Mobile? How about doing away with Ubuntu in favor of Android?
There are a lot of components that the two OSes share. They will continue to share components and will continue to, more or less shape one another. It doesn't make any sense to lock down a computer. Developers are what make a platform. Locking down a computer like the iPhone and making it hostile to developers will KILL Apple.
Take your tinfoil hats off people. If you think we're heading toward a day when I can only install Apple approved AppStore apps on my laptop, you're just being paranoid. It doesn't help Apple AT ALL to do that.
I really *like* the fact that the OS X and iOS groups seem to be talking to each other and sharing ideas with each other, rather than being in squabbling little camps that snipe at each other like you see at Microsoft.
WillEH
Mar 24, 03:09 PM
10 years of making history! :)
Met
May 4, 12:16 AM
As Android has gained in popularity, however, things have begun to tighten up, with Google recently exerting control (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/31/google-tightening-control-over-android-as-fragmentation-increases/) in an attempt to reduce fragmentation in what has long been billed as an open system available for tweaking and customization by any and all who wish to deploy hardware utilizing the platform.
I wish people would stop making a big deal about this rule that has existed from the beginning of Android. It has ALWAYS been there; it's not something new! Google implemented this for OEM's that want EARLY access to the code and OEM's that want access to Google's closed sources apps, such as the Market and other Google apps for Android.
I wish people would stop making a big deal about this rule that has existed from the beginning of Android. It has ALWAYS been there; it's not something new! Google implemented this for OEM's that want EARLY access to the code and OEM's that want access to Google's closed sources apps, such as the Market and other Google apps for Android.
ghostlyorb
Apr 30, 07:57 AM
I'm glad they're listening to what people want though!
golferjh3
Aug 2, 05:08 PM
Remember when DELL was a big company, they will simply fade away with a whimper just like DELL did !!! :cool:
I don't remember Dell going anywhere.
I don't remember Dell going anywhere.
fivepoint
May 4, 03:38 PM
Sorry, during which year of medical school do doctors receive gun safety training? How many hours of coursework on home safety do they complete? The typical MD is no more qualified to discuss these matters than any bozo on the street with more than an ounce of common sense. If they really want to help their patients child-proof their homes effectively, providing a helpful checklist would far more effective than interrogating parents.
I tend to agree with you regarding a physician's readiness to provide gun safety lessons, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. Do you think that the government should be OUTLAWING physicians from asking their patients questions? It doesn't matter what the question is... is that the role of government?
I tend to agree with you regarding a physician's readiness to provide gun safety lessons, but I think you're missing the bigger picture. Do you think that the government should be OUTLAWING physicians from asking their patients questions? It doesn't matter what the question is... is that the role of government?
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 07:06 AM
For the anti-virus, yes, for office no you get the complete version, as well as MS live.
Depending on where you buy, you actually can get more "full" versions of applications then you do with a mac. I'm not knocking apple or iLife, they're great apps, but you cannot say that a new PC is unusable until you download a lot of apps and such. Dell, HP, etc all come with office and/or other apps. Yeah there's crapware installed and I won't dispute that, but you also get full version apps
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features
I don't think so. Really office for free?
Depending on where you buy, you actually can get more "full" versions of applications then you do with a mac. I'm not knocking apple or iLife, they're great apps, but you cannot say that a new PC is unusable until you download a lot of apps and such. Dell, HP, etc all come with office and/or other apps. Yeah there's crapware installed and I won't dispute that, but you also get full version apps
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-US/windows7/products/features
I don't think so. Really office for free?
bobber205
Apr 18, 12:33 PM
An extraordinary position: members of the "essential workforce" are also usually voting citizens. Don't you think that a balanced knowledge of history is valuable in making political judgements?
Not when history often makes your side look very foolish. ;)
Not when history often makes your side look very foolish. ;)
coder12
Apr 25, 03:11 PM
iPhone nano mock-up?
Image (http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg)
Nope, that's the new iPod touch ;)
Image (http://zclee.com/random/iphonenano.jpg)
Nope, that's the new iPod touch ;)
AidenShaw
Apr 29, 11:36 PM
I see. It's a sequence of versions but they decided to start at a a certain level of windows development or possibly a grouping of versions by category. i always wondered about that.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
The internal kernel version ID for Vista is Major.Minor = "6.0".
The next major release after "6.0" would be "7" - hence "Windows 7".
However, Windows 7 is a compatible superset of Windows 6.0 kernel APIs, so Windows 7 uses the kernel version ID of "Windows 6.1". This is so that any software checking the major version sees Vista and 7 as the same version.
Koronis
Apr 8, 12:45 PM
What a surprise, Tech Crunch got a story completely wrong
phuong
Apr 10, 08:23 PM
this case reminds me of the "apple walk of shame" last year, or the "p-p-p-powerbook case" back in 2004 (in the sense that you tell the story on the internet and other people give you suggestions, or share sympathy, or blah blah blah).
at first i was gonna reply to this thread, but i decided not to. but now it's so big it even made its way to Digg. so i'm 99% sure you won't get your box back.
not saying you're not careful (or negligent, whatever), but making such a big case out of it, and hoping there is no way the thieves would hear a thing about it... come on. even if there is a chance the thieves don't visit this site, their friends might do (or their friends' friends... and so on). fact is, it doesn't even have to be this site. it's all over google now. just type in "steal xbox" and the link to this topic will pop out right there. heck, who knows if tomorrow it'll be on CNN.
you can't expect to pull off things like the p-p-p-powerbook prank while spilling information all over the place. sometimes it's good to spread the story. but definitely not this time. i suggest this topic being erased (or hidden) until the case is solved.
just my 0.02.
at first i was gonna reply to this thread, but i decided not to. but now it's so big it even made its way to Digg. so i'm 99% sure you won't get your box back.
not saying you're not careful (or negligent, whatever), but making such a big case out of it, and hoping there is no way the thieves would hear a thing about it... come on. even if there is a chance the thieves don't visit this site, their friends might do (or their friends' friends... and so on). fact is, it doesn't even have to be this site. it's all over google now. just type in "steal xbox" and the link to this topic will pop out right there. heck, who knows if tomorrow it'll be on CNN.
you can't expect to pull off things like the p-p-p-powerbook prank while spilling information all over the place. sometimes it's good to spread the story. but definitely not this time. i suggest this topic being erased (or hidden) until the case is solved.
just my 0.02.
Eidorian
Apr 29, 01:59 PM
I don't understand why people are panicking about the iPad thing. The iPad has some nice features people enjoyed so they are bringing it to the desktop. Its not like you have to USE those features but if it makes computing more enjoyable why not use it?
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).Spotlight is what brought me to OS X and it is now what killed it for me.
I am already loathing Unity on Ubuntu.
It'll be nice for those of us who do real work on our computers all day long to have some of these conveniences. For some reason though whenever Apple simplifies something people start crying "Apple doesn't care about the pro users anymore!" (Even though in reality of the person were truly a "pro user" they would welcome anything that helps them get their job done more efficiently).Spotlight is what brought me to OS X and it is now what killed it for me.
I am already loathing Unity on Ubuntu.
Rodimus Prime
Aug 7, 11:57 PM
Arguably true - but that illustrates a big weakness of the hybrid design...they are always going to take a weight penalty over a pure diesel or pure electric car.
Until we come up with a way to make batteries a lot lighter, more efficient and more green, they are going to force engineers to make big compromises.
but at the same time they carry the advantages of both which normally counter acts the extra weight. For example at low speeds electric is great and better than combustion engine. On the flip side combustion engines are better for maintain speed over long distance.
Basicly with the hybrid design you can get 40+ mpg in either city or hwy.
Until we come up with a way to make batteries a lot lighter, more efficient and more green, they are going to force engineers to make big compromises.
but at the same time they carry the advantages of both which normally counter acts the extra weight. For example at low speeds electric is great and better than combustion engine. On the flip side combustion engines are better for maintain speed over long distance.
Basicly with the hybrid design you can get 40+ mpg in either city or hwy.
larrylaffer
Apr 8, 01:07 PM
"Rating: -45"
haha
haha
No comments:
Post a Comment