MacsRgr8
Jan 5, 05:54 PM
I love this time of year.
We had Christmas, and new year, and the usual hangovers and overweightness that accompanies these last couple of days ;)
Now life gets back to normal......
.....
..... but not for us Mac-geeks. The last couple of days leading up to the MacWorld SF Keynote speech is definitely my favorite time!
The expectation, the excitement, the rumors, and reading about all of us how we like to spend the actual "time of speech".
Over here in Europe the time of day is perfect: 6 pm CET. Either stay at work and follow the news there (websites, MRChat etc.) or rush home and do the same.
Use iChat to link all news & views with fellow nerds....
Me, personally, I just have to know right away. I can't wait until the QT link is up.... especially as it usually is overloaded and results in poor viewing the first couple of hours.
Best time of year. Every year (followed by the last days leading up to the WWDC ;) )
We had Christmas, and new year, and the usual hangovers and overweightness that accompanies these last couple of days ;)
Now life gets back to normal......
.....
..... but not for us Mac-geeks. The last couple of days leading up to the MacWorld SF Keynote speech is definitely my favorite time!
The expectation, the excitement, the rumors, and reading about all of us how we like to spend the actual "time of speech".
Over here in Europe the time of day is perfect: 6 pm CET. Either stay at work and follow the news there (websites, MRChat etc.) or rush home and do the same.
Use iChat to link all news & views with fellow nerds....
Me, personally, I just have to know right away. I can't wait until the QT link is up.... especially as it usually is overloaded and results in poor viewing the first couple of hours.
Best time of year. Every year (followed by the last days leading up to the WWDC ;) )
longsilver
Sep 12, 07:45 AM
The Stores seem to be listing MacBook delivery times as 5-7 working days. Is that normal or has it been increased? If it's an increase might that suggest a speedbump or something? There's not been much rumour activity around that though.
quagmire
Jul 27, 05:06 PM
The Volt should sell for no more than $20,000. What a ripoff!!!!
Name one vehicle that has the electric motors and lithium ion battery the volt and leaf has that goes for less then $20,000.
Name one vehicle that has the electric motors and lithium ion battery the volt and leaf has that goes for less then $20,000.
Jethrotoe
Apr 28, 06:07 AM
I must say, I have never seen a more patient group of mentors in my life.
Hats off to ya. You are all great. I've learned volumes reading your posts.
And thank you.
Hats off to ya. You are all great. I've learned volumes reading your posts.
And thank you.
monaarts
Mar 17, 12:04 PM
And I'm also a Microsoft Fanboy!!! Haaaaaaa Long live the Microsoft Zune the ultimate iPod Killer!!!
I thought you are "going back to the real world, while the debate in this thread continues."???
On a side note, what do you do for a living? Seriously, not where you work but what do you do?
- Joe
I thought you are "going back to the real world, while the debate in this thread continues."???
On a side note, what do you do for a living? Seriously, not where you work but what do you do?
- Joe
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 01:42 PM
What these guys forget, and everyone else who proposes this, is the fact that OS X solely exists to sell Apple's hardware and not the other way around.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. Apple is a computer company. A computer = hardware + an operating system + software. This was always the way it was until IBM made their terrible strategic errors with the PC. Now we think companies like Dell make computers. They really don't -- they are Microsoft remarketers.
iLife, iWork, OS X, Pro Apps all have the single purpose of selling hardware. Apple is a hardware company by choice, it's what they want to do.
They are not a software house and I can't see them trading away their hardware business to gain OS X marketshare. It's not not what Apple is all about.
I think this is a bit of an over-simplification. Apple is a computer company. A computer = hardware + an operating system + software. This was always the way it was until IBM made their terrible strategic errors with the PC. Now we think companies like Dell make computers. They really don't -- they are Microsoft remarketers.
OdduWon
Jul 24, 02:34 PM
wait was that a poke at apple being dead zune :confused:
donlphi
Sep 25, 02:27 PM
According to the new features list for Aperture 1.5
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
Technically my POWERMAC G4 can run iMovie, Keynote, and other mac software. RUNNING and FUNCTIONING (at a reasonable speed) are two totally different things. iPhoto takes a day to get going. I can't imagine aperture.
Anyway... I don't want to ruin anybody's happy day, but the reality is, if you don't have the latest and greatest Apple Machine, the current software runs pretty slow.
Go to the Apple store (yes, this means some of you will have to leave your apartment) and try running this software on a mac mini. Don't get depressed when it takes your entire lunch break to start the software. Forget about moving stacks of photos around and editing. As I mentioned... I had problems with the G5 QUAD and the original aperture at my Apple Store in Seattle. THEN AGAIN... they haven't updated half the things in the store. SLOPPY SLOPPY SLOPPY.
Just a thought.
"Run Aperture on any Intel-based Mac. Any desktop, including Mac mini, iMac, and Mac Pro. Or any notebook, including MacBook and MacBook Pro.
"
Technically my POWERMAC G4 can run iMovie, Keynote, and other mac software. RUNNING and FUNCTIONING (at a reasonable speed) are two totally different things. iPhoto takes a day to get going. I can't imagine aperture.
Anyway... I don't want to ruin anybody's happy day, but the reality is, if you don't have the latest and greatest Apple Machine, the current software runs pretty slow.
Go to the Apple store (yes, this means some of you will have to leave your apartment) and try running this software on a mac mini. Don't get depressed when it takes your entire lunch break to start the software. Forget about moving stacks of photos around and editing. As I mentioned... I had problems with the G5 QUAD and the original aperture at my Apple Store in Seattle. THEN AGAIN... they haven't updated half the things in the store. SLOPPY SLOPPY SLOPPY.
Just a thought.
wpotere
Apr 13, 07:25 AM
That again? You do realize that 9/11 had very little to do with airport security but everything to do with incompetence on the side of the secret service and negligence on the side of the US government? TSA has not made airtravel any safer than prior to 9/11.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
iVoid
Sep 28, 10:53 PM
Too many folks think just because you have wealth that you have to build a oversized Gaudy McMansion as some kind of totem to prove your wealth to the unwashed masses.
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
I myself like smaller well built with high quality material and nice architecture with a large lot/waterfront.
Actually, this seems like a McMansion to me. Very narrow to fit into a tight lot.
Except the lot is much bigger in this case than a McMansion lot typically is. :)
I wonder if the design was made when they couldn't tear down the old house and they thought they'd have to squeeze it in. :)
davepoint
Aug 12, 04:31 PM
surely they wouldn't update the specs only to release something new in a month or so..
linux2mac
Mar 30, 09:12 AM
This is why I switched to Mac. I don't miss these Windows headaches or spending money on anti-virus software every year. :D
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
Spotify ads hit by malware attack
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12891182
err404
May 2, 01:25 PM
Isn't it interesting how a seemingly intentional act (active user tracking) changes to a "bug" once it's existence is published in the news media? :D
Not again... The database in question is NOT used by Apple to actively track users. It's a local cache on your phone, sent to you from Apple. This database serves a legitimate purpose on your phone to improve the performance of location services.
The issue is that this DB can be used by others (not Apple) to gain in-site into your relative location over time. Technically I wouldn't even call this a 'bug' since it's working as designed. However it is a serious oversight on Apples part.
FTR - Apple does collect location data from your phone (assuming you opted-in). This tracking is done via entirely different process than is being discussed.
Not again... The database in question is NOT used by Apple to actively track users. It's a local cache on your phone, sent to you from Apple. This database serves a legitimate purpose on your phone to improve the performance of location services.
The issue is that this DB can be used by others (not Apple) to gain in-site into your relative location over time. Technically I wouldn't even call this a 'bug' since it's working as designed. However it is a serious oversight on Apples part.
FTR - Apple does collect location data from your phone (assuming you opted-in). This tracking is done via entirely different process than is being discussed.
Lone Deranger
Apr 2, 11:49 AM
MS still playing catchup by the looks of the feature list in my opinion.
Nothing there to tempt me away from OSX. Not even tempting enough to make me upgrade my W7 license.
(And my god that desktop background image looks hideous).
Nothing there to tempt me away from OSX. Not even tempting enough to make me upgrade my W7 license.
(And my god that desktop background image looks hideous).
ozzyman500
Mar 19, 07:29 AM
How could you have it for ages? I think this guy is over exaggerating a little too much.
yellow
Jan 10, 04:07 PM
Kind of like using a MBP Front Row Remote at an Apple Conf and switching people's displays to Front Row?
Thomas Veil
Mar 3, 08:36 PM
Just found out about the anti-gay stuff myself. This be the language: (http://news.firedoglake.com/2011/03/03/ohio-sb-5-includes-anti-gay-marriage-language/)
Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.
And this be the entire bill. (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_PS_N.html)
These people are completely out of control (per NT1440).
Sec. 3101.01 of S.B. 5: … A marriage may only be entered into by one man and one woman. Any marriage between persons of the same sex is against the strong public policy of this state. Any marriage between persons of the same sex shall have no legal force or effect in this state and, if attempted to be entered into in this state, is void ab initio and shall not be recognized by this state. The recognition or extension by the state of the specific statutory benefits of a legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is against the strong public policy of this state. Any public act, record or judicial proceeding of this state, as defined in section 9.82 of the Revised Code, that extends the specific statutory benefits of legal marriage to non-marital relationships between persons of the same sex or different sexes is void.
And this be the entire bill. (http://www.legislature.state.oh.us/BillText129/129_SB_5_PS_N.html)
These people are completely out of control (per NT1440).
kdarling
Apr 16, 06:36 PM
Ahhhh.... dude... the only Apps that don't really get approved are ones that do things that can cause security risks or just plain trying to steal your information.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
First off, Apple does not have the time or ways to check for security risks. They don't have the source code, and we've already seen apps with banned talents appear. Moreover, security research shows that many iOS apps can access personal information (and many do send that off to remote servers without Apple making a peep).
As for approvals, apps that "duplicate" Apple functionality are banned. That alone means a lot of cool stuff is not available from their store.
You also cannot write a homebrew app for your friends and give it to them to use, unless you want to pay $100 a year to keep a dev license going. That's another reason why there's so much crud in the app store.
Unfortunately, we've also seen apps approved that should never have been, such as the baby shaker one.
Don't confuse approval control with a guarantee of either security or quality.
leekohler
Mar 4, 11:07 AM
Keep talking Veil, 2010 was just the 'coming attractions.'
No- you keep talking, please. Please, we beg you to keep trying crap like this. It'll all but guarantee the Republicans' demise. Really, you could not self destruct more beautifully. You're not for freedom at all, just freedom for government and corporations to walk all over their workers. And since you never mentioned the anti-gay addition to this bill, I assume you're OK with that too.
No- you keep talking, please. Please, we beg you to keep trying crap like this. It'll all but guarantee the Republicans' demise. Really, you could not self destruct more beautifully. You're not for freedom at all, just freedom for government and corporations to walk all over their workers. And since you never mentioned the anti-gay addition to this bill, I assume you're OK with that too.
jrtc27
Apr 30, 03:45 AM
No, because then as pointed out by your MS friend, it would be Windows NT 6.1 ;) Your blog post even says it doesn't make sense, so I don't see how "MS gave you info" when your "source" says it doesn't make any sense.
The reason why it is 6.1 is to maintain compatibility with software/drivers that worked in Vista - they did not want another Vista moment!
I don't get why everybody hates this UI change - I personally think it looks a lot better and people will not get confused:).
The reason why it is 6.1 is to maintain compatibility with software/drivers that worked in Vista - they did not want another Vista moment!
I don't get why everybody hates this UI change - I personally think it looks a lot better and people will not get confused:).
twoodcc
Sep 20, 08:13 AM
we looked into it, our a/cs chew 30w each WHEN THEY ARE TURNED OFF! its insane. we now turn them off at the power box.
yeah well the guy added some freon to it, so hopefully it will work better now. he also put some dye in there to check for leaks
yeah well the guy added some freon to it, so hopefully it will work better now. he also put some dye in there to check for leaks
MagicBoy
Mar 25, 01:05 PM
If you think that John Siracusa (or citations thereto) is a troll, then your ignorance is breathtaking. (The absence of your actually addressing the issue at hand in lieu of ad hominem attacks is conspicuous and dubious.)
Pull the other one.
Pull the other one.
Geckotek
Dec 20, 11:49 AM
Yes I'm well aware of China Mobile's vast GSM Edge network. But this is a 3g phone. So that 558 Million actually doesn't count given that it would be like giving the phone to T-Mobile knowing that they can't support 3g. And Apple doesn't pull moves like that since it would open them up for lawsuits (if someone unlocks on their own, that's on them).
The real numbers to look at are 152 Million valid GSM 3g subscribers against 178 Million CDMA customers. And no contract prohibiting having a phone for both. So again, if this is about making money, why didn't they make a CDMA phone for that second group. Assuming they are open to having a CDMA iphone at all.
You can't add. That would be 152M GSM 3G subscribers vs 85M CDMA subscribers. And to answer the last question, probably because they had a GSM phone all ready to go.
And on what basis would someone have a lawsuit? Because the phone has more capability than the network????? Sorry, no basis for a lawsuit there. That just makes no sense.
I don't think China has much interest in the iPhone.
We're talking about China specifically.
Edit: DOH! You changed your post. (actually, Apple had problems keeping up w/ demand in China)
The real numbers to look at are 152 Million valid GSM 3g subscribers against 178 Million CDMA customers. And no contract prohibiting having a phone for both. So again, if this is about making money, why didn't they make a CDMA phone for that second group. Assuming they are open to having a CDMA iphone at all.
You can't add. That would be 152M GSM 3G subscribers vs 85M CDMA subscribers. And to answer the last question, probably because they had a GSM phone all ready to go.
And on what basis would someone have a lawsuit? Because the phone has more capability than the network????? Sorry, no basis for a lawsuit there. That just makes no sense.
I don't think China has much interest in the iPhone.
We're talking about China specifically.
Edit: DOH! You changed your post. (actually, Apple had problems keeping up w/ demand in China)
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
No comments:
Post a Comment