PhoneyDeveloper
Apr 26, 10:39 PM
You should have used Philip Endecott's code.
CaoCao
Apr 18, 08:30 AM
Any basic history textbook will include basic information about a person. Left handedness often is mentioned, so is deafness, blindness and other physical differences. Homosexuality isn't in the same league, now is it?
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
Why do so many people have a difficult time acknowledging the unique contributions of gay people?
Have you heard of Wounded Knee? This country has a horrible problem in dealing with minorities an those on the right seem most interested in suppressing anyone who doesn't fit into their narrow and erroneous interpretation of American demographics.
It's very, very sad.
Left handed people have always been persecuted and represent a significantly larger portion of society than homosexuals, plus they tend to do well in society regardless of the persecution.
PeterQVenkman
Apr 5, 03:02 PM
Is it too late for April Fool's?
Edit - I kinda want a McRib now...
Edit - I kinda want a McRib now...
mkrishnan
Sep 8, 08:17 AM
How is he a 'no-talent ass clown'.
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
That term should be reserved for one person and one person only:
http://www.hollywoodimages.net/Michael_Bolton.jpg
Why should I change? He's the one who sucks.
http://www.thecobrasnose.com/images3/OSM&Ssm.jpg
:D
more...
ElBerserko
Oct 6, 05:15 PM
I spend at least 98% of my time in AT&T 3G coverage areas. While Verizon's coverage map may look impressive with their sea of red, they seem to be forgetting that dirt can't use 3G.
AHDuke99
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
It can't be all metal. Otherwise it will have some serious signal issues.
more...
Popeye206
Apr 8, 04:20 PM
I think I get it now. They save inventory so they can advertise they have iPad2 in stock on date x. Date x comes a long and hordes of people flock to their stores, buying all of their iPad2s in minutes. They now have an opportunity to try and move some of their Xoom inventory on thr more gullible in the group. I am sure most buys are trying to figure what pieces of the Xoom can be recycled.
Obviously that strategy isn't working with only 100K in Xoom sales so far! :p
Obviously that strategy isn't working with only 100K in Xoom sales so far! :p
Shoot
Mar 18, 07:36 PM
"does your phone have a removable battery?"
um... yes. it's definitely removable. apple will happily do that over swapping the phone if it's required. i've had it done and it meant i could keep all of my data.
and yes, you could do it yourself if you bought a battery and had a screwdriver.
um... yes. it's definitely removable. apple will happily do that over swapping the phone if it's required. i've had it done and it meant i could keep all of my data.
and yes, you could do it yourself if you bought a battery and had a screwdriver.
more...
takao
Nov 28, 06:27 PM
Make a Custom Class with Ghost, problem solved. Hell, equip that same class with the Strela, and not only will the various Choppers not shoot you, but you can then bring it down so it stops killing your team as well.
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
well you mean ghost pro ... the normal one is useless against that (i already have that layout ;) )
but seriously getting some of the perks to pro is ridiculously difficult while some others can be pro before hitting level 15
.. i have been trying to get ghost to pro for a while now and ironically i'm stuck on destroying an enemy turrent.. which somehow aren't popular at all jsut liek the tomahawk .. while i killed perhaps 30 guys with it i haven't been killed by a single tomahawk yet despite it being perfect for those "we are losing charlie" moments
another point of advice: don't bother with the top MP: it has only a 20 shot clip (opposed to some other MPs) and annoyingly ejects empty rounds right out of the top
having the mp just one slot below but with increased firerate add on (IMHO the best for taking down assault rifle users on short range) and silencer is the way better gun
in general with this being my first call of duty i have to say that my opinion of killing streaks hasn't changed at all ... it still is an invitation for camping in many, many game situations... and some of the attacks are simply ridiculous if you look at the size of some of the maps or their designs: yay for houses with no roofs/glass roofs
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 10:06 AM
I think grotesque should be a word reserved for murderers and child pornographers, not some dude who got a very cheap iPad due to some employee error. We're pretty much all adults here- there's no need to lecture people on morals and what their personal character may or may not include.
I think stealing, gloating, and putting someone's job at risk is grotesque. The OP walked out of BB knowing the cashier had made a mistake and decided to keep quiet. Anyone who has a concious would have gone back.
I think stealing, gloating, and putting someone's job at risk is grotesque. The OP walked out of BB knowing the cashier had made a mistake and decided to keep quiet. Anyone who has a concious would have gone back.
more...
Branskins
Apr 29, 01:29 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Come on, really?
Come on, really?
DiamondMac
Mar 25, 11:33 AM
The ability to know that my computer will load, not break down, etc...has been price-less for me with Mac OS's
Love it and will continue using it
Love it and will continue using it
more...
takao
Jan 12, 08:03 PM
Did he really say 10 million within a year? Surely he jests. It's not even coming out in Europe until and if he's thinking 10 million in the US alone, um... that's like 15% of Cingular's customer base.
i thought it was 2008 but then i guess it could also be 2009 ;)
i thought it comes out later this year and 2008 in asia ?
oh well if it's 2008 in europe ... that's what ? a full spring and an autumn collection of new phones ? ( ;) )
i thought it was 2008 but then i guess it could also be 2009 ;)
i thought it comes out later this year and 2008 in asia ?
oh well if it's 2008 in europe ... that's what ? a full spring and an autumn collection of new phones ? ( ;) )
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.
more...
baummer
Mar 17, 11:34 AM
Go back and pay the balance. Explain what happened. At least try to pay what you OWE. What you've done is essentially theft, even moreso by the fact that you know how much it costs and know how much you paid.
Mad Mac Maniac
Apr 21, 01:53 PM
Very true. At the same time I will read and form an opinion of the topic all on my own. I'm sure I'm not alone there, but then again I am sure many will take the popular vote route and just form their opinion based on that. Either way, a post that is good for you and me may not be good for others. I've had a fair share of PMs about my posts, both in support of and against. It is all subjective, as you say, and this rating system will be similar.
well sometimes there is an article about different kind of processor, chips or whatever. some stuff that I don't know anything about. So then I like to look at the votes and see if this is something that is good or bad for Apple. I like to think that majority of the people voting have the same love of apple products and have more insight on this issue than I do.
well sometimes there is an article about different kind of processor, chips or whatever. some stuff that I don't know anything about. So then I like to look at the votes and see if this is something that is good or bad for Apple. I like to think that majority of the people voting have the same love of apple products and have more insight on this issue than I do.
more...
crap freakboy
Jan 5, 05:43 PM
Excellent work MR.
Stops me sneaking a look before the stream is available.
Now I can watch after the kids and 'er indoors are asleep.
Fantastic.
Stops me sneaking a look before the stream is available.
Now I can watch after the kids and 'er indoors are asleep.
Fantastic.
JohnnyQuest
Mar 17, 01:03 AM
The fact that you feel good about yourself after doing this, to the point where you come on here to gloat, speaks volumes about your character.
Pretty grotesque.
Pretty grotesque.
Nekbeth
Apr 28, 09:38 AM
wlh99, let me tell you precisely what I want to achieve, so there is no more confusion.
Two views;
View 1 is the ticker and a button underneath (button start.
View 2 is display (label) with the timer running and a button underneath (button Cancel)
Button Cancel will have two maybe three funtions ( stop the timer, reset it or just reset it at once and call View1 so the user can reuse the timer over again. That's it, I want to add that function to my App for 1.1 or it could be 1.4 if don't get to study now hahaa.
I'll take care of the alarms, sounds and those details if it reaches to zero, that I know already.
By the way, what's with 3rd person reference? the OP? you can call me Nekbeth or Chrystian, it's a lot more polite. Maybe you guys have a way to refer to someone , I don't know.
Two views;
View 1 is the ticker and a button underneath (button start.
View 2 is display (label) with the timer running and a button underneath (button Cancel)
Button Cancel will have two maybe three funtions ( stop the timer, reset it or just reset it at once and call View1 so the user can reuse the timer over again. That's it, I want to add that function to my App for 1.1 or it could be 1.4 if don't get to study now hahaa.
I'll take care of the alarms, sounds and those details if it reaches to zero, that I know already.
By the way, what's with 3rd person reference? the OP? you can call me Nekbeth or Chrystian, it's a lot more polite. Maybe you guys have a way to refer to someone , I don't know.
chrisd1974
Apr 5, 04:32 PM
OMG I JSUT FOUND THE GRAETEST TV CHANNEL IN THE UNIVERSE WHERE YOU CAN WATCH ADS 24HUORS A DAY!111 IT"S CALLED HSN (Home Shopping Network)!!11
:D
Awesome. Do they have an app?
:D
Awesome. Do they have an app?
bushido
May 4, 08:25 AM
lol at those "u signed the contract" blablabla, its not like u have a choice, it should be left out from the damn contract u sign from begin with just like here in germany :D
countrydweller
Jul 21, 09:36 AM
Show me another phone that can drop calls from just the position of one finger. Nokia have their problems at the moment, but their reception has always been rock solid.
As for people being surprised at Apple's childishness, have you forgotten about the douchetastic "I'm a Mac campaign".
I can't, but my iPhone 4 hasn't dropped any of my calls, my 3G use to drop calls 2 or 3 calls a month.
As for people being surprised at Apple's childishness, have you forgotten about the douchetastic "I'm a Mac campaign".
I can't, but my iPhone 4 hasn't dropped any of my calls, my 3G use to drop calls 2 or 3 calls a month.
sunfast
Sep 12, 07:37 AM
Does this mean we won't be seeing iTunes 7.0? I mean if they were releasing a new iTunes wouldn't they make the changes on the new release?
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
I might be getting confused here - but isn't the music store just a web thingy and not part of the software? i.e. store and media player distinct, though interlinked
twoodcc
Oct 17, 09:16 AM
i wouldn't mind seeing both blu-ray and hd-dvd in one computer :cool:
No comments:
Post a Comment