slb
Oct 29, 02:26 AM
Well, Logic Pro 7 has been cracked and can be downloaded via usenet...
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
No, it has not. Take a closer look at what the "crack" does.
reallynotnick
Apr 25, 04:30 PM
As an owner of a 4.3in EVO (came from the original iPhone), I have to say I welcome a larger screen on the iPhone, though I admit 4.3in is quite large. I figure 3.7-4in is the sweet spot.
ct2k7
Apr 16, 10:11 AM
Just to say that that metal one on the Foxconn box has the same serial as the iPod nano 16GB Chromatic.
!� V �!
Apr 29, 05:37 PM
You didn't have to click-drag. Just click your option, exactly as before. (Same as iOS, you don't have to drag the slider, you can press on your option.)
Although, the design of the buttons made it look like you had to do this, which is probably why they changed it.
Considering the Finder, where a slider had 3+ options to select, the user would eventually get frustrated. They could have kept it and added the same blue colour to the text or option being selected.
Although, the design of the buttons made it look like you had to do this, which is probably why they changed it.
Considering the Finder, where a slider had 3+ options to select, the user would eventually get frustrated. They could have kept it and added the same blue colour to the text or option being selected.
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.
paradox00
Apr 25, 12:54 PM
So that is fine, I dont think people will care if they skip 5. Why are you adamant that they wont skip 5?
Why are you so adamant that they will use 4S instead of 5?
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
Why are you so adamant that they will use 4S instead of 5?
-The 3GS had an identical appearance to the 3G, but with upgraded internals, hence the S.
-A 3.7" iPhone would not have an identical appearance to the iPhone 4 by virtue of the screen size alone, so there would be no reason to simply add an S.
-3G is a feature description, adding an S might make some sense there as it could also be considered a "feature description". 4 is a revision number, why would they add an S to that? 4.5 or 5 would make more sense.
-The iPhone 4 and iOS 4 were launched in the same time frame, it makes sense for the numbers on each to match up. What's next? iPhone 5 and iOS 5 of course. I don't know why they'd stray from matching revision numbers so quickly after finally achieving them.
-If they plan on calling the phone after this 6, why would they skip 5, which sounds like a bigger upgrade than 4S?
As far as I'm concerned, 4S is the least likely name possible for the next iPhone. iPhone 5, 4G (LTE), 4.5 (very unlikely), and plain "iPhone" all have a much greater chance than 4S (with 5 being the most likely). I just spent way to much time on this minor issue though.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 05:38 AM
Wow and you cannot judge a person's character by a mistake a cashier made in a store!!!
No, you judge a person's character by how he reacts to a mistake a cashier makes. But you already knew that.
No, you judge a person's character by how he reacts to a mistake a cashier makes. But you already knew that.
Lancetx
Jul 21, 10:19 AM
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.
Exactly. Nokia should have kept their mouths shut instead of calling out Apple last week. Now Apple is simply responding back to them in kind. Nokia said they didn't have the issue with any of their phones, but obviously that is not true.
As for those here that still complaining about the iPhone 4, you can always return your iPhone for a full refund as Apple has stated on several occasions...
Exactly. Nokia should have kept their mouths shut instead of calling out Apple last week. Now Apple is simply responding back to them in kind. Nokia said they didn't have the issue with any of their phones, but obviously that is not true.
As for those here that still complaining about the iPhone 4, you can always return your iPhone for a full refund as Apple has stated on several occasions...
iOS v Android
May 3, 02:04 PM
Why is it that Google always touts how open is so good, then they realize that, oh, guess we should tighten things up a bit, maybe being too open is not such a good thing.
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
this has nothing to do with google or openess. it is the carriers restricting access to the apps. This is the carriers and their policies. They see the apps as a threat to the plans they sell so they blocked them
iGary
Sep 25, 09:44 PM
I have an experiment for those that say "My car runs fine on Chevron gas."
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
1. Use parking break.
2. Try accellerating to freeway speeds.
Report back when done.
Seriously, you realize that the "straightening tool" is not a free-form rotation tool, right? It's optimized for 1-10 degree straightenings, not flipping the picture around.
That having been said, yes, straightening is maddeningly slow on G5s (also on iPhoto ... I have dual 2.0 G5s, and fullscreen or even windowed straightening stutters all over the place). They've got an algorithm problem there (or, more likely, an algorithm which doesn't check for a "break" often enough, which makes it unresponsive and seem really slow). But, the test for that isn't doing a 180-degree rotation on an image; the test is trying to get a correct 1.25 degree rotation when the tools seem to be fighting with you.
The key is this: they could fix the tool to work perfectly for straightening, and still flipping the image around 180 degrees would be slow as molasses to render. Which is just fine, because the 90-degree rotate works fast as can be.
I'd answer this, but you know, I'm tired of fighting sarcasm.
Les Kern
Apr 25, 02:20 PM
Pbbbt... Looks fake.
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 03:12 PM
I'll give it does have advantages. I don't think I would agree that it is "a hell of a lot easier", as most apps have an automatic updater or some mechanism to make you aware that an update is available.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
The Mac App store updating mechanism is flawed, at least in my experience. For example, a few days ago the Mac App Store did not detect that I had the app Awaken 4 on my mac, even thought they host Awaken 5 on the store. I had to go to the developers website and download Awaken 5 and then update it the old fashioned way.
I, like many people, had a hard time getting XCode 4.00 to be upgraded to XCode 4.01. AppStore simply wouldn't recognize that I had previously purchased XCode 4 (yes, I had the XCode installer in /applications ). Downloading outside of the appstore would have been vastly easier...
I never said it was perfect. If you have many apps as I do that DON'T have automatic updates then it is a royal pain in the ass to go to their site(assuming you even know where it is), download it again, unpackage the dmg, and place it in my applications folder. Sure, if you only have a few apps then it isn't THAT bad but I have upwards to 20 apps that I have to do this with. It's a chore. With the Mac App Store I can take a quick glance, click update all if there are any updates and be done with it.
VictoriaStudent
Mar 17, 02:32 AM
:rolleyes: Good luck getting anywhere with that.
not trying to go anywhere with it. I don't particularly care what happens to our "friend." I just find his arrogance horrendous.
not trying to go anywhere with it. I don't particularly care what happens to our "friend." I just find his arrogance horrendous.
wmmk
Aug 14, 02:40 PM
the world sucks
the world sucks because good things cost more than not quite as good things? as economically left as i am, i struggle to see your reasoning. in capitalism, there are free markets. in free markets, manufacturers price their own merchandise to be competitive with other manufacturers.
the world sucks because good things cost more than not quite as good things? as economically left as i am, i struggle to see your reasoning. in capitalism, there are free markets. in free markets, manufacturers price their own merchandise to be competitive with other manufacturers.
.jpg "funny sayings for kids.")
LimeiBook86
Apr 29, 01:13 PM
The power of Mac OS X. The magic of iPad.
Oh god...
Yeah that doesn't sit too well with me either. But as long as there are a good set of nice new features without much of the iPad-ness mucking it up I'll be pleased. I hope to see more of Lion soon, the more features the better! :D
Oh god...
Yeah that doesn't sit too well with me either. But as long as there are a good set of nice new features without much of the iPad-ness mucking it up I'll be pleased. I hope to see more of Lion soon, the more features the better! :D
Markleshark
Sep 12, 08:49 AM
Um, Disney owns a ton of companies that don't make cartoons.
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
See, I thougt iToons was quite clever...
womble2k2
Apr 26, 03:08 AM
Why is there multiple vanishing points!?! I believe it is a fake.
mrsir2009
Apr 23, 05:34 PM
Microsoft is planning to release an App Store for Windows.
Oh yay! Another app-store rip off years after the OSX one has debuted.
Oh yay! Another app-store rip off years after the OSX one has debuted.
calderone
Apr 10, 10:31 PM
http://p.mdcd.net/product_images/full/45be79751d8454084fe5362f1d9dc3f9e5f9e3d7.jpg
Got a great deal on a used executive model. Loving it so far.
Got a great deal on a used executive model. Loving it so far.
leekohler
May 5, 09:27 PM
Dude. I haven't once suggested banning guns.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
I was under the impression you had. Here you gave me that impression:
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
Fair enough. It took your statement as referring to bans.
Frankly awareness, or more specifically education, is the only solution. Gun owners need more education, particularly those who arm themselves for home defense or concealed carry. If citizens are expected to demonstrate proficiency in driving a car before being allowed on the road - and further proficiency for special kinds of driving (such as racing licenses, commercial licenses, limousine drivers, police driving training etc etc), then gun owners should get considerably more training in self-defense with firearms. Most hunters agree that mandatory hunter-safety classes are a good idea. If that is the case, self-defense training is even more necessary.
Furthermore, the public at large needs to be more educated about laws, regulations and firearms themselves. Fear of firearms can be healthy. Willfull ignorance towards them, not so much.
Exactly. I have never understood why my more liberal friends want to ban anything. Education is the key to solving the vast majority of our problems, not ignorance or fear. I grew up around guns all my life and had fun with them. I also loved archery.
After starting to play hockey and having skydived for three years, the one thing I've finally learned that is the most helpful thing in life is this- do things that scare you. Learn about them. You'll be better off, and you'll grow immensely as a person. Those things will also bring incredible people into your life.
Go to a firing range and learn about guns, citizenzen- even if it scares and repulses you. Trust me, you'll be all the better for it, and you might learn something about yourself you never knew was there. After all, knowledge is power.
These days I'd be satisfied with a hint of awareness.
I was under the impression you had. Here you gave me that impression:
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
Fair enough. It took your statement as referring to bans.
Frankly awareness, or more specifically education, is the only solution. Gun owners need more education, particularly those who arm themselves for home defense or concealed carry. If citizens are expected to demonstrate proficiency in driving a car before being allowed on the road - and further proficiency for special kinds of driving (such as racing licenses, commercial licenses, limousine drivers, police driving training etc etc), then gun owners should get considerably more training in self-defense with firearms. Most hunters agree that mandatory hunter-safety classes are a good idea. If that is the case, self-defense training is even more necessary.
Furthermore, the public at large needs to be more educated about laws, regulations and firearms themselves. Fear of firearms can be healthy. Willfull ignorance towards them, not so much.
Exactly. I have never understood why my more liberal friends want to ban anything. Education is the key to solving the vast majority of our problems, not ignorance or fear. I grew up around guns all my life and had fun with them. I also loved archery.
After starting to play hockey and having skydived for three years, the one thing I've finally learned that is the most helpful thing in life is this- do things that scare you. Learn about them. You'll be better off, and you'll grow immensely as a person. Those things will also bring incredible people into your life.
Go to a firing range and learn about guns, citizenzen- even if it scares and repulses you. Trust me, you'll be all the better for it, and you might learn something about yourself you never knew was there. After all, knowledge is power.
BRLawyer
Sep 12, 04:41 AM
So, let me see...for those of us NOT living in the US, what do we have?
Movie Store - NOT available (downloading movies is not my cup of tea anyway);
Streaming device for movies bought in the iTMS - NOT available as well
New Nanos with SAME capacity?? - No, thanks...
I was going to receive a (female) friend tonight, but she postponed for tomorrow...so this means I will have instead a big "yawning" session tonight at Apple news/rumor sites, with few things applicable to people outside of the US...move along, citizens... :(
Movie Store - NOT available (downloading movies is not my cup of tea anyway);
Streaming device for movies bought in the iTMS - NOT available as well
New Nanos with SAME capacity?? - No, thanks...
I was going to receive a (female) friend tonight, but she postponed for tomorrow...so this means I will have instead a big "yawning" session tonight at Apple news/rumor sites, with few things applicable to people outside of the US...move along, citizens... :(
BForstall
Mar 17, 01:57 AM
It's very hard to take anyone seriously who believes in fairy tales like karma.
macenforcer
Aug 8, 07:50 PM
Just picked up the 30" today. WOW!
This monitor is so choice. If you have the means, I highly suggest you pick one up.
- (Ferris Bueller)
This monitor is so choice. If you have the means, I highly suggest you pick one up.
- (Ferris Bueller)
flopticalcube
Nov 27, 05:48 PM
Sale Day MB 2/120 now shipping! :)
Shipment exception. :(
C'est la vie.
Shipment exception. :(
C'est la vie.
