elppa
Jan 27, 06:42 PM
Well, I'll grade myself:
[1] Lot's of puff about how well Apple is doing. Good news gospel on the iPhone. Pie Charts and bar charts, some early mention of sales figures.
Well we got this 1/1
[2] Leopard talk � Apple haven't had an expo since the Leopard launch. Expect some interesting apps (3rd parties, almost certainly some mention of Office '08, possibly Bento) and talk of the capabilities and technologies in the new OS. We may get an update (10.5.2) and in it some surprises (whether it be QT 8, Java 6) or some iPhone technologies (error correction when typing) intergrated). Also look out for news on a how users will be exposed to the resolution independent UI. This may be particually impotant if number 5 on the list is being launch. Apple also said they'd be ready by '08.
Apple talked about Leopard - 2/2
Mention of Office '08 - 3/3
Other 3rd Party Apps - 3/4
Talk through technologies and capabilities of Leopard - 3/5
10.5.2 Update - 3/6
QT 8 - 3/7
Java 6 - 3/8
iPhone technologies in Leopard - 3/9
Res independence - 3/10
[3] Beetles on iTunes (at last!). This will lead into the the Music section of the keynote.
Not a whisper - 3/11
[3] iTunes Movie Rentals and iTunes 8 (UPDATE: Looks more likely to be a 7.6 release now.). Talk of the interplay between hardware-software, leading to the introduction of the:
Movie Rentals - 4/12
New iTunes - 5/13
[2] new TV + Apple Remote (in metal and using a similar clickwheel to the nano (you heard it here first)). Not sure were TV is headed, so I will not make too many predictions on this.
New Tv - 6/14
Same old white, plastic remote - 7/15
[5] MacBook Nano (possibly left to the end). It may have a pixel density considerably higher than current machines.
A bit more on this from here:
Quote:
[1] The drive will be a bus powered FW800 Super Drive. And you will pay for it, it won't be included in the box because:
[i] Some may have existing external burners they would rather use.
[ii] It would make the box bigger. Bigger, heavier boxes means more expensive shipping.
[iii] Apple will get to make even more money on each sale from people buying the matching optical drive.
[2] The ultra portable will retail for < $1600 (�1400/�1800) and be called the MacBook Nano.
[3] The MBP will get a facelift and a new keyboard to match the MacBook/new Apple Keyboard
And back to this one:
They gave it a better name, no nano - 7/16
Same pixel density as regular MacBooks - 7/18
No Firewire, let only FW 800 on the Air - 7/19
Drive not included - 8/20
US price - 8/21
UK price - 9/22
EU price - 10/23
New MacBook Pro - 10/24
That seems like enough. I have a sneaky suspicsion we may see a new app, because Apple likes writing Apps and they haven't done a new Applications in a long time (apart from Numbers). Apps are important to Apple because they drive the adoption of hardware.
New App - 10/25
Here's what we may not see:
[1] iPhone SDK, I think this may get a special event at another time.
[2] Any pro products (Mac Pro, Cinema displays) (UPDATE: Well we've already had the Mac Pro, so this is technically a correct prediction � even before the expo even begins!).
No iPhone SDK - 11/26
No pro products - 12/261
So all in all a fairly decent 46% success. As is normally the case I tend to hope for too much new. Some of my predictions I completely stand behind and I think we will see them another day. This year I believe we will see:
- Res Independence UI being exposed to user via System Preferences.
- Java 6 on OS X.
- New Apple remote
- New keyboard on MacBook Pro
- A new application from Apple.
[1] Lot's of puff about how well Apple is doing. Good news gospel on the iPhone. Pie Charts and bar charts, some early mention of sales figures.
Well we got this 1/1
[2] Leopard talk � Apple haven't had an expo since the Leopard launch. Expect some interesting apps (3rd parties, almost certainly some mention of Office '08, possibly Bento) and talk of the capabilities and technologies in the new OS. We may get an update (10.5.2) and in it some surprises (whether it be QT 8, Java 6) or some iPhone technologies (error correction when typing) intergrated). Also look out for news on a how users will be exposed to the resolution independent UI. This may be particually impotant if number 5 on the list is being launch. Apple also said they'd be ready by '08.
Apple talked about Leopard - 2/2
Mention of Office '08 - 3/3
Other 3rd Party Apps - 3/4
Talk through technologies and capabilities of Leopard - 3/5
10.5.2 Update - 3/6
QT 8 - 3/7
Java 6 - 3/8
iPhone technologies in Leopard - 3/9
Res independence - 3/10
[3] Beetles on iTunes (at last!). This will lead into the the Music section of the keynote.
Not a whisper - 3/11
[3] iTunes Movie Rentals and iTunes 8 (UPDATE: Looks more likely to be a 7.6 release now.). Talk of the interplay between hardware-software, leading to the introduction of the:
Movie Rentals - 4/12
New iTunes - 5/13
[2] new TV + Apple Remote (in metal and using a similar clickwheel to the nano (you heard it here first)). Not sure were TV is headed, so I will not make too many predictions on this.
New Tv - 6/14
Same old white, plastic remote - 7/15
[5] MacBook Nano (possibly left to the end). It may have a pixel density considerably higher than current machines.
A bit more on this from here:
Quote:
[1] The drive will be a bus powered FW800 Super Drive. And you will pay for it, it won't be included in the box because:
[i] Some may have existing external burners they would rather use.
[ii] It would make the box bigger. Bigger, heavier boxes means more expensive shipping.
[iii] Apple will get to make even more money on each sale from people buying the matching optical drive.
[2] The ultra portable will retail for < $1600 (�1400/�1800) and be called the MacBook Nano.
[3] The MBP will get a facelift and a new keyboard to match the MacBook/new Apple Keyboard
And back to this one:
They gave it a better name, no nano - 7/16
Same pixel density as regular MacBooks - 7/18
No Firewire, let only FW 800 on the Air - 7/19
Drive not included - 8/20
US price - 8/21
UK price - 9/22
EU price - 10/23
New MacBook Pro - 10/24
That seems like enough. I have a sneaky suspicsion we may see a new app, because Apple likes writing Apps and they haven't done a new Applications in a long time (apart from Numbers). Apps are important to Apple because they drive the adoption of hardware.
New App - 10/25
Here's what we may not see:
[1] iPhone SDK, I think this may get a special event at another time.
[2] Any pro products (Mac Pro, Cinema displays) (UPDATE: Well we've already had the Mac Pro, so this is technically a correct prediction � even before the expo even begins!).
No iPhone SDK - 11/26
No pro products - 12/261
So all in all a fairly decent 46% success. As is normally the case I tend to hope for too much new. Some of my predictions I completely stand behind and I think we will see them another day. This year I believe we will see:
- Res Independence UI being exposed to user via System Preferences.
- Java 6 on OS X.
- New Apple remote
- New keyboard on MacBook Pro
- A new application from Apple.
liketom
Sep 12, 07:43 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
to what version ???
to what version ???
LethalWolfe
Nov 11, 02:54 PM
anyone read my post at the top of the page.
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
Cool Desktop Wallpapers
Free Cool Desktop Wallpapers
Cool Computer Backgrounds For
cool desktop wallpaper Picture
wallpaper background
Misc Windows 7 : Wallpapers
cool desktop backgrounds
cool desktop wallpapers
Cool Desktop Wallpaper
cool background of a twisting
free computer wallpapers,
cool wallpapers backgrounds
cool computer wallpaper
cool computer wallpaper.
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
Donz0r
Jan 9, 03:05 PM
Man, I can't even check my own email.
Good thing I was squinting when I went to the page, I saw a vague picture of Steve Jobs, apple logo in background. With...well, I couldn't make it out, thank God, but even if I did I wouldn't post it here :o
Good thing I was squinting when I went to the page, I saw a vague picture of Steve Jobs, apple logo in background. With...well, I couldn't make it out, thank God, but even if I did I wouldn't post it here :o
UTclassof89
Jul 21, 11:49 AM
This is key. If the iPhone 4 isn't dropping calls any more often than the 3GS, then there is no real issue at all.....
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
But Apple admitted that it DOES drop more calls than 3GS.
They spun it as "less than 1 per 100", but assuming all 3,000,000 iPhone 4 users make about 5 calls per day, that's over ONE MILLION dropped calls per week MORE than iPhone 3GS.
It's a problem.
It's been reproduced by CNET, Consumer Reports, NYT, and many others.
The debate here is not whether there's a problem, but why Apple is obfuscating, rather than fixing it, pretending that bridging the gap of their electrically exposed antenna is equivalent to attenuating an antenna by completely covering it with one's meaty hand.
(seems like moving this gap to the bottom edge of the phone where it's far less likely to be touched, would be an easy fix).
Squozen
Jan 6, 05:33 AM
Many thanks for this. I'll make sure to be extra busy at work to avoid finding out anything about it, and come home to a (hopefully) nicely-streaming keynote.
ThaDoggg
Apr 13, 01:33 PM
There's a use for Apple (they can sell you both the adapter and the DVI cable, at 40$ each) ;)
:D Exactly. I think not alot of people know that you can bypass the adapter altogether. Not only would it be cheaper but it would take away from the bulk.
:D Exactly. I think not alot of people know that you can bypass the adapter altogether. Not only would it be cheaper but it would take away from the bulk.
dieselpower44
Jul 21, 10:09 AM
The iPhone 4 works marvelously well. It is the most reliable iPhone I have ever owned, and the previous versions set a high standard to match. I am perfectly able to duplicate the issue (in my office, where the signal is poor) but as far as I can tell it has only resulted in one dropped call (while the 3GS dropped more due to holding a less reliable poor signal).
So if Apple truly had released a horrible product I could agree with you. Instead I'm simply left suspecting that you don't own the thing and are simply content to tell other people how the device works anyway.
Completely incorrect, I have always been an Apple customer. I just recently bought an i7 iMac and own a Macbook pro, an iPod touch and an iPhone 3G. I waited in line for the iPhone 4, and I absolutely love the thing to bits. It's the fastest, most awesome phone I've ever owned. But what annoys me is that you have to agree that this is the most serious problem relating to signal attenuation ever been seen. I mean yes, it has been blown out of proportion by the media but when you get down and actually test it out in different signal strength areas, you definitely notice it pretty severely.
But what annoys me the most, is Apple's "couldn't give a s***, let's point out other people's similar mistakes." Apple has never been like this before. Jobs may have saved the company but he's also going to ruin it with this attitude. Wozniak would have recalled the phones.
So if Apple truly had released a horrible product I could agree with you. Instead I'm simply left suspecting that you don't own the thing and are simply content to tell other people how the device works anyway.
Completely incorrect, I have always been an Apple customer. I just recently bought an i7 iMac and own a Macbook pro, an iPod touch and an iPhone 3G. I waited in line for the iPhone 4, and I absolutely love the thing to bits. It's the fastest, most awesome phone I've ever owned. But what annoys me is that you have to agree that this is the most serious problem relating to signal attenuation ever been seen. I mean yes, it has been blown out of proportion by the media but when you get down and actually test it out in different signal strength areas, you definitely notice it pretty severely.
But what annoys me the most, is Apple's "couldn't give a s***, let's point out other people's similar mistakes." Apple has never been like this before. Jobs may have saved the company but he's also going to ruin it with this attitude. Wozniak would have recalled the phones.
GoodWatch
Jul 22, 04:25 PM
Apple is doing what they need to do to defend themselves against the smear job put out by the haters in the media and tech sites aligned against them.
You would fight back to if it were your....well you probably wouldnt.
The 'haters'? Are you serious? So anyone that DARES to show a sign of critisism towards Apple is labelled a hater now? "If you are not for us you are against us". Some people have a personal reality distortion field I tell you. It's only a phone man, it's not like the Sun is collapsing on itself.
You would fight back to if it were your....well you probably wouldnt.
The 'haters'? Are you serious? So anyone that DARES to show a sign of critisism towards Apple is labelled a hater now? "If you are not for us you are against us". Some people have a personal reality distortion field I tell you. It's only a phone man, it's not like the Sun is collapsing on itself.
Piggie
Apr 25, 12:39 PM
One day I guess they will finally get rid of the horrid great chunks of bezel above and below the screen.
Always looks horrid with MASSIVE blank areas.
Always looks horrid with MASSIVE blank areas.
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.
yellow
Apr 11, 10:43 AM
Finally bit the bullet and abandoned my BlackBerry Tour in favor of an iPhone 4. See you in hell, BlackBerry!
matrix07
Apr 16, 12:43 PM
No, when Apple revealed the iPhone most people were thinking something along the line of "Apple seriously need to reconsider leaving out 3G and the ability to install software if they want to make it in the smart phone business", a phone that doesn't let you install new software is by definiton not a smart phone. The iPhone 3G was the real deal, ofcourse the first gen was successful, simply because it was Apple, but the 3G was when it turned into a good product and soared in popularity.
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
It still hurts you, isn't it? When it's Apple that re-invent the phone.
Goes on. Keep denying pal. Let us know how hurt you are. Pundits out there all accepted what iPhone did to the industry. Only bitter person like you can not accept that. :cool:
I find this whole "Apple invented the smartphone" argument amusing.
You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "touch screen keyboard? Yuck!!!", I guess. LOL
And iPhone is far from the first icon based phone and I personally believe the Sony Ericsson P800 and P900 was a big inspiration for iPhone.
It still hurts you, isn't it? When it's Apple that re-invent the phone.
Goes on. Keep denying pal. Let us know how hurt you are. Pundits out there all accepted what iPhone did to the industry. Only bitter person like you can not accept that. :cool:
I find this whole "Apple invented the smartphone" argument amusing.
You are one of those idiots crawling at Engadget who saw Macworld 2007 keynote and think only one thing.. "touch screen keyboard? Yuck!!!", I guess. LOL
mrploddy
Nov 24, 12:22 PM
Wheres the topic for the UK sale ????
I've had an email from Apple for a sale on Friday 1st December 2006 for the UK
Let the speculation begin, same discounts or different ? O_O
-mrploddy
I've had an email from Apple for a sale on Friday 1st December 2006 for the UK
Let the speculation begin, same discounts or different ? O_O
-mrploddy
BWhaler
Apr 12, 11:56 AM
Some people will never understand the power of Apple and the fundamental insight that makes Apple's products so powerful.
It's not a feature list. It's not a slick vaneer.
It's a deep understanding of design. How to make a product work naturally that empowers us to achieve what we want with the tool.
It's rarely more. It's rarely new pretty pictures.
Great art is knowing when to stop.
It's not a feature list. It's not a slick vaneer.
It's a deep understanding of design. How to make a product work naturally that empowers us to achieve what we want with the tool.
It's rarely more. It's rarely new pretty pictures.
Great art is knowing when to stop.
wrlsmarc
Jul 21, 12:09 PM
The attention paid to this by the press is way overblown and, in my opinion, borders on irresponsible reporting to sell clicks and pages. I have an iPhone 4 and 3GS. Have done side by side comparisons of signal quality and the ability to maintain calls in low signal areas. The iPhone 4 beats my 3GS every call.
Yes I can touch the lower left hand side of the phone and cause signal loss. However, it is also an area that is so small, I can easily avoid. I also use a bumper occasionally. With the bumper, I can't make the signal do much. I do prefer to have a naked iPhone and have no concerns carrying and using it that way.
I for one am very happy with the iPhone 4. It is fast, really fast. It does not drop calls where my 3GS did. The battery life is far superior to any smartphone I have owned. I download a variety of applications without fear. I play my music or Pandora when I work out. I use Facetime.....
Apple has a right to defend themselves. If you look at their choice of antenna design, they placed the antenna as far away from the head as possible. That makes me happy. I am also pleased with SAR values relative to other smartphones.
I guess this makes me a fanboy. But I join the majority that say this is a great phone.
Yes I can touch the lower left hand side of the phone and cause signal loss. However, it is also an area that is so small, I can easily avoid. I also use a bumper occasionally. With the bumper, I can't make the signal do much. I do prefer to have a naked iPhone and have no concerns carrying and using it that way.
I for one am very happy with the iPhone 4. It is fast, really fast. It does not drop calls where my 3GS did. The battery life is far superior to any smartphone I have owned. I download a variety of applications without fear. I play my music or Pandora when I work out. I use Facetime.....
Apple has a right to defend themselves. If you look at their choice of antenna design, they placed the antenna as far away from the head as possible. That makes me happy. I am also pleased with SAR values relative to other smartphones.
I guess this makes me a fanboy. But I join the majority that say this is a great phone.
Eidorian
Nov 16, 03:03 PM
And one more thing....
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:pSome Dvorak love.
cool computer wallpaper.
Cool Computer Backgrounds For
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:pSome Dvorak love.
jake4ever
Apr 5, 10:00 PM
4.2.6 required!? But I hate to update.. :(
br-
Nov 23, 10:04 PM
Any info on what the Canadian Apple Store discount prices will be?
Sykte
Apr 27, 07:29 PM
I have to say this thread has me captivated. First time ever..... code talk went from learning code to pooping in a pool within 3 pages.
p0intblank
Sep 12, 08:23 AM
damn..
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
The store will probably go down within an hour before Steve's keynote. I'm guessing the iTunes Music Store is down this early because this update takes a lot longer than the Web site.
since they haven't take down apple store for update, does that mean no new product? just new service? i'm waiting for a MB/MBP update
The store will probably go down within an hour before Steve's keynote. I'm guessing the iTunes Music Store is down this early because this update takes a lot longer than the Web site.
wpotere
Apr 13, 08:48 AM
I don't get how you see nothing wrong with it. In addition to it being completely pointless and ineffective, if you moved this situation from the security line of an airport to anywhere else, the TSA agent would be thrown in jail for touching a little girl like that and the mother probably would as well for allowing it to happen.
OMG!!! She patted down a little girl using the back of her hands! Send her to jail now for molesting that little girl! :rolleyes:
What if that little girl had a gun strapped to her leg because her mother or father wanted to go on a shooting spree and they were using her as a mule to get the weapon in?
The poster above is right, they won't win either way. Like I said, take a different form of transportation if you don't like the rules.
OMG!!! She patted down a little girl using the back of her hands! Send her to jail now for molesting that little girl! :rolleyes:
What if that little girl had a gun strapped to her leg because her mother or father wanted to go on a shooting spree and they were using her as a mule to get the weapon in?
The poster above is right, they won't win either way. Like I said, take a different form of transportation if you don't like the rules.
ct2k7
Apr 23, 06:29 PM
In which case nearly *all* your personal data is vulnerable. Cell tower tracking is not a special case, and relatively not especially more dangerous or compromising than anything else you've got stored on your computer.
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
Again, there's no egregious violation taking place here, and it's not especially worse than any other way to keep tabs on someone.
I'd rather have a stalker than a paedophile on me.
Let's reserve the lynching for when we actually find out what this tracking data is for specifically and how widespread the issue is with other companies (i.e., Google, MS, etc.)
Ok
If there is no actual cause for concern to the average person (which there really isn't), I fail to see that need to take a flip over it.
You really didn't say that... did you?
Anyway, that's all Il'll post about this for now. I really don't have a lot more to say. This topic is already way off-course, mostly my fault.
ok
patrick0brien
Aug 6, 02:49 PM
I would normally not consider purchasing a GM vehicle, but the Volt looks really good.
The U.S. can build cars just as good as the best of the rest of the world, but only when we want to - which is a shame, because we historically haven't wanted to.
The U.S. can build cars just as good as the best of the rest of the world, but only when we want to - which is a shame, because we historically haven't wanted to.
0 comments:
Post a Comment