as2
Sep 12, 08:09 AM
Considering that the videos are showing up on the German QuickTime page I think that the movie store is likely to be launched across Europe and Canada as well as the states.
I just hope that the quality of the downloads is good enough to watch on an external tv.
I just hope that the quality of the downloads is good enough to watch on an external tv.
Sdevante
Mar 17, 10:08 AM
I call shenanigans.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
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.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
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. 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.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
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.
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'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
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. 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.
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.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. 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. 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.
Calidude
Apr 16, 04:38 PM
But if you are poor and out of work, or you have a low skilled job - such as working at McDonalds - you aren't likely to be a good role model.
Spoken like a true Republican.
Spoken like a true Republican.
sdugoten
May 4, 01:11 AM
You are correct that the way it is setup we pay for access and it has limitations and restrictions. I think the point is this just feels wrong. We have to accept it in the USA because we don't have a lot of choice/options. But in general if I am paying for data then why can't I just use it on what ever device I want? It doesn't make sense from a consumer stand point aside from the fact if you want data (which you are forced to pay for if you get a smart phone) then you have to agree to the wireless company terms.
From their stand point, I think it is done to limit access while they build out the system. Watch though, once things get built out competition will come in and you will see data $$$ and limitations drop like minutes.
I don't know, but it seems you guys are paying way more than what I am paying here in Hong Kong.
Around $50 USD per month, it comes with 3900 minutes voice + unlimited data and free to use on tethering. And we are talking about the speed like this:
http://upload.trend.hk/images/1304359365.jpg
Comptition is good. :D
From their stand point, I think it is done to limit access while they build out the system. Watch though, once things get built out competition will come in and you will see data $$$ and limitations drop like minutes.
I don't know, but it seems you guys are paying way more than what I am paying here in Hong Kong.
Around $50 USD per month, it comes with 3900 minutes voice + unlimited data and free to use on tethering. And we are talking about the speed like this:
http://upload.trend.hk/images/1304359365.jpg
Comptition is good. :D
zombitronic
Oct 6, 04:47 PM
I think your arugument would be valid if phones were not subsudized and you have to buy them at full price. Because AT&T in this case is paying Apple $400 per phone you should choose a network first.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
If ISP were footing the bill for desktop then Verizon add still would work but for cell phones most of the cost of the phone is paid by the networks. Not the other way around.
My original iPhone was not subsidized and I had to buy it at full price. I chose the device with no qualms about what network I was required to use.
While the iPhone is now subsidized, so are many other phones on many other networks. If only certain networks were doing this to add value to choosing their contracts, I could understand your point of choosing the network before the device. Maybe I'm missing something but I don't understand how this changes my argument that the service is just a commodity while the device is the consumer's primary choice.
NAG
Jan 12, 07:20 PM
Anyone who leaps to a conclusion over this is foolish and shooting themselves in the foot. Print media is dead in its current form so you'll never see events banning people just because they have an online presence. Crucifying gizmodo for being the morons they are while claiming they're hurting other journalists is disingenuous. Do you really think conferences don't want any press to go to their events? The big conferences are under threat (E3 is a good example). I doubt they'd do anything horribly stupid over this. Ban gizmodo? Yeah, can see that. Require that you can only get in if you have a newspaper or magazine? Doubt it.
tk421
Oct 19, 10:23 AM
Woohoo!! This is the first time I can remember that Apple has had over 5% market share! :D
Rm.237
Apr 8, 01:01 PM
Perhaps! New Hardware is coming out (iMacs???) and the promo will be a buy a Mac get an iPad for $X.
Sure. Uh huh. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
Sure. Uh huh. Yeah right. :rolleyes:
twoodcc
Apr 11, 03:26 PM
well i'm about to leave my apartment tonight again for the next 2 months. this time i'll only be 2 hours away, so i can come back on the weekends if something messes up again. we'll see.
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
oh, and i had to restart my VM before i left to take out the -oneunit flag, and guess what, i lost that unit! it was 96% complete!
i'm so mad right now :mad:
BLUELION
May 3, 11:24 PM
...never mind. responded to wrong person.
I found a store online selling them
http://store.apple.com/us
I found a store online selling them
http://store.apple.com/us
Frosties
Jul 21, 09:41 AM
The Nokia phone have not the same bars/signal ratio as the iphone 4.
Funny Signs
funny signs pictures.
Filed under: Funny Signs
these funny signs.
More Funny Signs
funny road name signs and
funny signs!
dunk321
Mar 17, 01:24 AM
JohnnyQuest chill out man you sound worse then my Dad growing up as a kid. Just telling a story, and sorry for my grammar must be that UCF education I paid for. Go to the fridge and bust open a bottle of that hater-aid or better yet, go get laid. Since you obviously seem pretty stressed over the story. Who are you anyway? Judge Jury and Executioner? Please
Edge100
Oct 23, 12:26 PM
New investments in technologies and products would be by far the best use of the money. With Apple's cash, they could set up a research arm similar to Xerox PARC or the old Bell Labs and place themselves in the forefront of new technology for a long time. Instead, they seem to be notably stingy with their R&D dollars. Purchasing technologies by buying out smaller companies could also be advantageous, and Apple does do some of this, but not much -- not enough to make even a dent in their cash hoard.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
I'm not so sure that Apple needs to re-invent the wheel all the time. It seems to me that Apple is (historically) pretty good at introducing new features, long before other PC manufacturers.
While I agree that a dedicated research arm could, in the long term, create a lot of great, innovative products and technologies, I think they have the possibility, if not properly run, to become cash cows that produce little or nothing of any profit-making value. Researchers have a way of remaining focused on research, not profits.
I still think that buying up other small, but influential companies such as Digidesign would be a great thing for Apple. Think of all the products that Apple currently sells that were bought, rather than developed in-house:
iTunes
Final Cut Pro
Shake
Logic (and, by extension, Garageband)
LiveType
Heck, even MacOS X was, in many ways, 'bought' rather than developed by Apple.
DeSnousa
Apr 13, 04:44 PM
Oh yeah thanks to your help in getting the SMP client and giving the GPU client a go, I am now in the top 20 producers. Not bad considering when a few years back I had only an iBook and I was producing 48 points a day and did that for over a year!
I don't know how long I will be able to sustain that rate though might have to drop back.
I don't know how long I will be able to sustain that rate though might have to drop back.
Sined
Apr 10, 06:17 PM
Are keri and LTD married or do they share a room in an asylum? I'm confused.
Al Coholic
Apr 8, 12:58 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
exspes
Jan 13, 04:04 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.
extraextra
Oct 3, 01:48 PM
lets hope we get new MBPs before Macworld in Jan!
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
I reaallly don't see Leopard being out in January.
in Jan i hope to get iTV, iLife '07, Leopard and maybe an iPhone
I would like to see iTV a cross between Tivo and Front Row
There is not much i would like to see added to iLife but i bet Steve will make my buy it
I reaallly don't see Leopard being out in January.
SockRolid
Apr 16, 05:28 AM
wow the iOS/Apple closed ecosystem must really be the WORSE THANG EVAR if google is trying to trying to do it.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
l3lack J4ck
Nov 24, 11:36 AM
i just called Northpark (dallas) apple store and they said no other discounts can be included...they ever said governemnt could not be combined...
sorry guys
sorry guys
xUKHCx
Jan 5, 11:55 AM
Cool i prefer to see the introduction gives it the wow factor rather than the mild excitment of reading the keynote.
tjb1
Jan 3, 12:38 AM
I love reading this, suddenly half of the forum is a network specialist and knows what Apple will and will not do. Of course you can't forget the Verizon's network will fail just because all you specialists say so. Oh and the LTE network is only available in limited areas...gotta start somewhere.
Read somewhere about Verizon being up Samsung, HTC, Motorolas ass... What are they supposed to do, those are the suppliers of there phones? Oh and the androids releasing every month, of course because there is MORE THAN ONE COMPANY MAKING THE PHONES. Its not an exclusive operating system like iOS so more than one company can indeed make a phone that runs it.
I currently have a Samsung Rogue(dumb phone) on Verizon. I have service nearly everywhere I have been. My phone drops calls in the wind(Samsungs fault) and has many problems(Also Samsung, NOT VERIZON), this is one thing I hate about the (dumb) phones. Samsung released this phone with problems but you know what, they dropped this phone 4-5 months later and replaced it with another similar phone...did they do any updates? Yes, 1 and it fixed absolutely no problems that are widespread like the email client makes noise even when the phone is set to Vibrate/Alarm/Silent.
This is not the case for the smart phone side of things, yes the companies release them month after month but it being run on a common OS and open source these problems are not as prevalent.
One thing that still blows my mind is the $30 a month data plan...doesn't include Mobile Hotspot either which is heavily advertised on the smart phones. Also capped at 5gb, im sure a smart phone can easily eat up 5gb in a month with apps like XM Radio and other streaming. I can get to 25mb in easily 2-3 days just using mobile internet. I was hoping with AT&Ts new $15 data plan that Verizon would follow, guess not.
Read somewhere about Verizon being up Samsung, HTC, Motorolas ass... What are they supposed to do, those are the suppliers of there phones? Oh and the androids releasing every month, of course because there is MORE THAN ONE COMPANY MAKING THE PHONES. Its not an exclusive operating system like iOS so more than one company can indeed make a phone that runs it.
I currently have a Samsung Rogue(dumb phone) on Verizon. I have service nearly everywhere I have been. My phone drops calls in the wind(Samsungs fault) and has many problems(Also Samsung, NOT VERIZON), this is one thing I hate about the (dumb) phones. Samsung released this phone with problems but you know what, they dropped this phone 4-5 months later and replaced it with another similar phone...did they do any updates? Yes, 1 and it fixed absolutely no problems that are widespread like the email client makes noise even when the phone is set to Vibrate/Alarm/Silent.
This is not the case for the smart phone side of things, yes the companies release them month after month but it being run on a common OS and open source these problems are not as prevalent.
One thing that still blows my mind is the $30 a month data plan...doesn't include Mobile Hotspot either which is heavily advertised on the smart phones. Also capped at 5gb, im sure a smart phone can easily eat up 5gb in a month with apps like XM Radio and other streaming. I can get to 25mb in easily 2-3 days just using mobile internet. I was hoping with AT&Ts new $15 data plan that Verizon would follow, guess not.
starflyer
Mar 24, 03:32 PM
I still have my 10.0.0 box and CDs. I will go pull them out tonight.