parenthesis
Oct 10, 07:12 PM
I think Apple should keep the name "True Video iPod," just as a salute to all the rumor mongering.
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
I'd laugh. (and then buy one)
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.
arn
Jan 5, 10:31 PM
I am not sure whether or not this has been suggested, but is it not possible for someone in the audience (macrumors.com) to set up a video or audio feed?
It's been discussed in this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=265739
It's best summed up here:
It would be nice, but there are significant hurdles with streaming when you scale up to the volumes that a public keynote stream would attract. There are very few organisations with the infrastructure to serve large numbers of simultaneous streams, and even with donated bandwidth you then have the logistical problem of sending the feed from the source to multiple distribution points.
......
Oh it's definitely possible, but really there's only one company that could realistically cope with the traffic - Akamai - and even they would likely have problems. 150,000 people streaming 300kbit video would be about 44 Gbit/sec, which would be about 10-15% of Akamai's entire global bandwidth usage and 50% of their streams. Even audio would be 10 Gbit/sec for a 64 kbit stream.
Basically, serving up simultanous traffic for a live feed is very resource intensive. It's a very different thing to serve 100,000 people in a day vs 100,000 at the same time.
We're incorporating near-real time photos in this year's MacRumors coverage... so it shuold be pretty enjoyable.... barring any unforseen circumstances. :)
arn
It's been discussed in this thread:
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=265739
It's best summed up here:
It would be nice, but there are significant hurdles with streaming when you scale up to the volumes that a public keynote stream would attract. There are very few organisations with the infrastructure to serve large numbers of simultaneous streams, and even with donated bandwidth you then have the logistical problem of sending the feed from the source to multiple distribution points.
......
Oh it's definitely possible, but really there's only one company that could realistically cope with the traffic - Akamai - and even they would likely have problems. 150,000 people streaming 300kbit video would be about 44 Gbit/sec, which would be about 10-15% of Akamai's entire global bandwidth usage and 50% of their streams. Even audio would be 10 Gbit/sec for a 64 kbit stream.
Basically, serving up simultanous traffic for a live feed is very resource intensive. It's a very different thing to serve 100,000 people in a day vs 100,000 at the same time.
We're incorporating near-real time photos in this year's MacRumors coverage... so it shuold be pretty enjoyable.... barring any unforseen circumstances. :)
arn
lordonuthin
Jul 11, 12:15 PM
well after moving, i finally have my computers setup again. i just got internet access today, but it is looking terribly slow. i just started folding with 4 GPUs for right now. i'll see how this goes before i start with the big units
Good to have you back folding again. We need the points...
Good to have you back folding again. We need the points...
more...
bmustaf
Dec 13, 05:07 PM
I'm not buying it (either in terms of the story, or in terms of a supposed hybrid phone if it does make it to market).
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/4g-verizon-iphone-to-debut-after-christmas/)
MacDailyNews reports (http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/exclusive_verizons_iphone_rumored_to_be_lte_device_coming_right_after_xmas/) that it has received information from a "source that we believe to be credible" regarding management training for the Verizon iPhone offered by the company last week. According to the report, the Verizon iPhone will launch immediately after Christmas and is in fact an LTE 4G device.The report also claims that the Verizon iPhone is already shipping to Verizon warehouses, and the carrier will maintain control over all stock until launch in order to control information leaks.
Finally, the source indicates that the iPhone 5 was intended to be LTE-only at its debut next summer, but Steve Jobs and Apple are upset that the carriers are not building out their LTE infrastructure quickly enough to make that happen.
Verizon's 4G network launched last week (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/01/verizons-4g-network-to-launch-next-week-no-handsets-until-mid-2011/) for mobile broadband customers, but the carrier noted that it does not expect to debut 4G-capable handsets until the middle of next year.
MacDailyNews is not a frequent source of rumors, and has a mixed record on the information it has published in the past. In addition, we are skeptical that Apple had ever seriously planned for the fifth-generation iPhone 5 to be "LTE-only", given that even the most aggressive LTE build-out schedules from the carriers have long planned for it to be several years before their entire networks are upgraded to the standard. In fact, other sources (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/11/mid-2011-iphone-to-utilize-dual-mode-gsm-cdma-chip-skip-4g/) have indicated that the fifth-generation iPhone won't support LTE at all, a move which would follow Apple's precedent with not supporting 3G in the original iPhone as it waited for greater availability and more advanced technology for utilizing the standard.
Consequently, we are publishing this rumor on Page 2 for interest and discussion.
Article Link: 4G Verizon iPhone to Debut After Christmas? (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/4g-verizon-iphone-to-debut-after-christmas/)
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/4g-verizon-iphone-to-debut-after-christmas/)
MacDailyNews reports (http://www.macdailynews.com/index.php/weblog/comments/exclusive_verizons_iphone_rumored_to_be_lte_device_coming_right_after_xmas/) that it has received information from a "source that we believe to be credible" regarding management training for the Verizon iPhone offered by the company last week. According to the report, the Verizon iPhone will launch immediately after Christmas and is in fact an LTE 4G device.The report also claims that the Verizon iPhone is already shipping to Verizon warehouses, and the carrier will maintain control over all stock until launch in order to control information leaks.
Finally, the source indicates that the iPhone 5 was intended to be LTE-only at its debut next summer, but Steve Jobs and Apple are upset that the carriers are not building out their LTE infrastructure quickly enough to make that happen.
Verizon's 4G network launched last week (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/01/verizons-4g-network-to-launch-next-week-no-handsets-until-mid-2011/) for mobile broadband customers, but the carrier noted that it does not expect to debut 4G-capable handsets until the middle of next year.
MacDailyNews is not a frequent source of rumors, and has a mixed record on the information it has published in the past. In addition, we are skeptical that Apple had ever seriously planned for the fifth-generation iPhone 5 to be "LTE-only", given that even the most aggressive LTE build-out schedules from the carriers have long planned for it to be several years before their entire networks are upgraded to the standard. In fact, other sources (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/10/11/mid-2011-iphone-to-utilize-dual-mode-gsm-cdma-chip-skip-4g/) have indicated that the fifth-generation iPhone won't support LTE at all, a move which would follow Apple's precedent with not supporting 3G in the original iPhone as it waited for greater availability and more advanced technology for utilizing the standard.
Consequently, we are publishing this rumor on Page 2 for interest and discussion.
Article Link: 4G Verizon iPhone to Debut After Christmas? (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/12/13/4g-verizon-iphone-to-debut-after-christmas/)
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 10:25 AM
I see where you going wlh99, and don't worry.. my full intention is to learn, not to get code from all of you. Many people in this thread underestimate my knowledge of objective C (and I understand why, I got lost with the pointers). I have 2 1/2 months since I started development and had 0 idea of the language or programming (I was a Pastry Chef actually :D, which is the name of my first app).
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
Believe me when I tell you that I know what's going on with my code. I'm aware that If you release an object that it doesn't exist you'll get an exception every time.
Making it work is a lot less important than knowing how to do it, for future work.
Back to the Code, let me go give it try.. b-back
UPDATE**
Ok, it doesn't crash now but timer still won't restart. I'm going to create another timer object (not pointer, I'll use the same pointer). I get this idea that I can't reuse or reset the same timer over again (invalidating and releasing it only pauses the timer). Wish me luck :)
more...
fredoviola
May 4, 09:46 AM
A child's imagination is the magic thing, not the 500 dollar computer that dulls the child's truly magic thoughts. I wish Apple would stick to humorous ads. These pieces done with "moving" bits of piano music make me a bit sick.
quagmire
Aug 3, 08:44 PM
Never going to happen car dealer have bribe our politcal leaders to the point that nothing will ever be passes against the
As it stands manufactures can not legally open and run there own dealership and the laws make it very difficult for a manufacture to remove an agreement to sell to one dealler ship
I know that and it sucks because all the blame for one bad dealer experience goes to the manufactures.
Dealerships have way too much power. You can thank them for the Pontiac G3 and G5.
As it stands manufactures can not legally open and run there own dealership and the laws make it very difficult for a manufacture to remove an agreement to sell to one dealler ship
I know that and it sucks because all the blame for one bad dealer experience goes to the manufactures.
Dealerships have way too much power. You can thank them for the Pontiac G3 and G5.
more...
ImageWrangler
Oct 6, 12:54 PM
AT&T is evil, let's get that out of the way, so if the iPhone came to a different network I'd be all over that like, well, like a person that thinks AT&T is evil and hates sleeping with the devil.
That said, some of the peeps defending Verizon also beg a chuckle. Evil? No, not that I'm aware of. But super stellar league of awesome as many are implying? Uhhh, no, definitely not.
My sig other has Verizon with a (semi)smart phone, and I have AT&T with the iPhone. At home she can only make calls from the kitchen as her signal goes in and out, I get five bars of 3G anywhere in the house, in the basement, the barn, the garage. We leave the house and travel west she goes to analog then no service, I'm fine however. There is a bizarrre dead zone near where we live where I do go to EDGE for a bit, but otherwise fine. NYC where I'm from, in the city, full bars, but yes, dropped calls, but my friends there regardless of network complain about it. Think about it, big steel buildings in concrete canyons where you can't make sight-line with any cell array, many of which are tacked on buildings (ugly as that is), c'mon, get serious. And her Verizon drops calls in NYC same rate I do only I get a stronger signal.
So half of this "Verizon is teh godz herherher" is kinda overblown here. Decent I'm sure, sup0r awesome as some are saying? Uh, no, not hardly.
That said I'd welcome the option even though, sadly, with Verizon's spotty coverage all over upstate New York probably sadly would have to stay with AT&T until VERIZON got better service.
That said, some of the peeps defending Verizon also beg a chuckle. Evil? No, not that I'm aware of. But super stellar league of awesome as many are implying? Uhhh, no, definitely not.
My sig other has Verizon with a (semi)smart phone, and I have AT&T with the iPhone. At home she can only make calls from the kitchen as her signal goes in and out, I get five bars of 3G anywhere in the house, in the basement, the barn, the garage. We leave the house and travel west she goes to analog then no service, I'm fine however. There is a bizarrre dead zone near where we live where I do go to EDGE for a bit, but otherwise fine. NYC where I'm from, in the city, full bars, but yes, dropped calls, but my friends there regardless of network complain about it. Think about it, big steel buildings in concrete canyons where you can't make sight-line with any cell array, many of which are tacked on buildings (ugly as that is), c'mon, get serious. And her Verizon drops calls in NYC same rate I do only I get a stronger signal.
So half of this "Verizon is teh godz herherher" is kinda overblown here. Decent I'm sure, sup0r awesome as some are saying? Uh, no, not hardly.
That said I'd welcome the option even though, sadly, with Verizon's spotty coverage all over upstate New York probably sadly would have to stay with AT&T until VERIZON got better service.
wlh99
Apr 27, 02:44 PM
Target is the object that the message is going to execute isn't it. For example, if it's self, that means that those parameters are for the timer object you just created. Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not trying to challenge your knowledge, just to learn as I go.
If you see my code before, I'm using NSDate for my timePicker. One favor, I'm not answering more quiz questions, I get your point.. I still need to learn more fundamentals.. I get it, just please contribute with the thread to find solutions or not.. (there are many Professional Forums).
If this were a "Professional Forum" I would just give you an answer. I want to know what you do and do not know, so I can help you learn it. So please don't take the questions as condescending, they will help us help you.
Think of objects as people, so to speak. Not only is the NSTimer an object, but so is your viewcontroller. So are the buttons. These objects know how to do things. These things they know how to do are methods. A message is an instruction for an object to do something.
cancelIt: is a method in your viewcontroller object, as are all the methods we have discussed. Then self would refer to the viewcontroller, not the timer. Self would refer to the timer if you had access to apples code that implemets the timer and you were modifiying that.
So a target is the object you are sending a message to. The message is the name of the method you want the object to execute.
[aTimer invalidate]; // tells the timer pointed to by aTimer to execute the invalidate method
When you press a button, a message is sent. The target and method are chosen when you make the connection in Interface Builder. In your case, the target is your viewcontroller, and the method is one of the start or cancel methods.
I asked the question becasue it is fundamental to what an NSTimer is/does.
An NSTimer sends a message to an object at regular intervals.
In your case, the NSTimer is telling your viewcontroller to execute the echoIt: every second. The important part is that your viewcontroller is an object, echoIt: is something your viewcontroller is doing (not the timer). You only have one viewcontroller, so anything it stores (for example seconds) will persit for any NSTimer you create.
Now look at the NSTimer documentation:
more...
funny bunny pics. happy bunny
Happy bunny 7406
more...
Allegiance - funny bunny
Funny Bunny
more...
happy easter funny bunny.
Funny Bunny Romper Suit
more...
funny-pictures-bravo-unny
Happy Bunny Backgrounds For
funny bunny. funny bunny
If you see my code before, I'm using NSDate for my timePicker. One favor, I'm not answering more quiz questions, I get your point.. I still need to learn more fundamentals.. I get it, just please contribute with the thread to find solutions or not.. (there are many Professional Forums).
If this were a "Professional Forum" I would just give you an answer. I want to know what you do and do not know, so I can help you learn it. So please don't take the questions as condescending, they will help us help you.
Think of objects as people, so to speak. Not only is the NSTimer an object, but so is your viewcontroller. So are the buttons. These objects know how to do things. These things they know how to do are methods. A message is an instruction for an object to do something.
cancelIt: is a method in your viewcontroller object, as are all the methods we have discussed. Then self would refer to the viewcontroller, not the timer. Self would refer to the timer if you had access to apples code that implemets the timer and you were modifiying that.
So a target is the object you are sending a message to. The message is the name of the method you want the object to execute.
[aTimer invalidate]; // tells the timer pointed to by aTimer to execute the invalidate method
When you press a button, a message is sent. The target and method are chosen when you make the connection in Interface Builder. In your case, the target is your viewcontroller, and the method is one of the start or cancel methods.
I asked the question becasue it is fundamental to what an NSTimer is/does.
An NSTimer sends a message to an object at regular intervals.
In your case, the NSTimer is telling your viewcontroller to execute the echoIt: every second. The important part is that your viewcontroller is an object, echoIt: is something your viewcontroller is doing (not the timer). You only have one viewcontroller, so anything it stores (for example seconds) will persit for any NSTimer you create.
Now look at the NSTimer documentation:
more...
*LTD*
Mar 6, 01:53 PM
Yep. Apple takes ideas that others managed to half-ass and makes them beautiful, usable and desirable. Good enough for me. Good enough for record-breaking quarters, too. And all accomplished with a closed, tightly-controlled ecosystem. Correction . . . all accomplished because of a closed, tightly-controlled ecosystem.
Cassie
Jan 13, 01:20 AM
A lot of whining on these forums the second they reopen.
I'll log on just to laugh myself silly when I read the threads created by n00bs saying "Why didn't Apple release so-and-so" and "I hate apple, im leaving them foreverz!!!11111!"
It's sad, really (And slightly disturbing)
I'll log on just to laugh myself silly when I read the threads created by n00bs saying "Why didn't Apple release so-and-so" and "I hate apple, im leaving them foreverz!!!11111!"
It's sad, really (And slightly disturbing)
more...
Jimmieboy
Sep 12, 02:56 AM
3.00 am! I don't think I'll be up then. I love to sleep. I guess getting up at around 6 won't matter though. Hopefully the new products if any will be on the apple site. If not I"ll check out macrumors to see the latest news on the conference. I can't wait! Yahooooo for apple
dunk321
Mar 17, 10:52 AM
Lets keep the flaming going lol, Maybe it will reach 500 posts, lmao funny how people believe everything they read in a forum, sec I'm also a lawyer, and Doctor, yea I can pick any profession I want on MacRumors, everyone enjoy their iPad, I'm going back to the real world, while the debate in this thread continues.
more...
Abstract
Apr 7, 05:28 AM
Nice Volvo! Love the look of their wagons.
MrMac'n'Cheese
Apr 18, 07:30 PM
I find it highly unnecessary for the TSA to pat down kids, especially, kids younger than 8-9 yrs old.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
When was the last time we ever heard of a toddler shoe bomber?
They are horribly inappropriate, one "questionable" TSA lady groped my sister's boobs one flight, as if, last time I checked there are no records of people hiding crap in their boobs.
I understand the intent may be safety, but measure the risk peoples.
more...
martymcr
Nov 27, 03:26 AM
They are doing a similar event in the UK on Friday 1st December - a 'one day only special sales event'
Lord Blackadder
Aug 8, 02:40 PM
You forgot something. You are comparing diesel to unleaded even in hybrid form. You need to compare the generators (unlead to unlead). Now image if those very high gas mileage diesel running as a hybrid.
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
The problem with battery right now is we are still working on a break threw. When we finally get a true break threw in battery technology I can see things really taking off.
Batteries are very efficient at story power. problem is they are a little on the heavy side but we are getting better at it.
Modern diesel hatchbacks like the Golf TDI (Euro engines, not the US-spec) can exceed 50-60mpg (http://www.volkswagen.co.uk/new/golf-vi/which-model/engines/fuel-consumption). The Volt is harder to measure because it's a plugin, so some power comes from the grid. GM's own webiste is rather mealymouthed about fuel economy. At one point they claimed over 200mpg (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chevrolet_Volt), but that included a full batery charge from the grid. Using only its onboard generator it gets about 50mpg (http://www.greencarreports.com/blog/1044209_now-we-know-2011-chevrolet-volt-will-get-50-mpg-in-gas-mode). So all the extra tech essentially fails to improve on a diesel. The plugin feature may actually make the car less green/efficient if you get the juice from a dirty or inefficient power plant.
I'd really like to agree with you, believe me. But the reason I'm skeptical is that we have no proof that a battery "breakthrough" is really on the horizon. I read somewhere that the overall efficiency of an electric car is currently only about 5-7% greater than a gasoline-powered car (EDIT here (http://auto.howstuffworks.com/fuel-efficiency/alternative-fuels/fuel-cell4.htm) is a link for those numbers, but admittedly not a very good one). The energy efficiency of batteries is reasonably good, but they are still too big and heavy, as well as being expensive and dirty to manufacture. And again, electric cars are only as good as the powerplant they get power from, and that is where the biggest efficiency loss comes into play.
As for the mass rail system. You might be thinking of the east coast. Trying coming to some city west of the Mississippi and you will see how little rail they have and we just do not have any good way to put a rail system in. It is very costly to retrofit those system in and it is a very slow process. Slowly it is happening but really the system that was designed in the past was based around people driving their own personal cars around. That was 40+ years ago that was put in so now it is harder to do put it in now.
It's less logistics than politics, sadly. And you are right, it's not cheap. But we have to do it eventually. Moving to dependence on our interstates and letting passenger rail services atrophy was a mistake, and now we will be forced to fall back on our rail networks more.
Electric cars (that are able to fully charge in under 20 minutes) subsidized by a solar panel roof is the future. Don't think a 300 mile range would be out of the question (within a few years) and would def work even in large countries like the U.S.
If you look here, they are talking 5 minutes for 70% charge of the car, even though it is currently only a short range vehicle.
Link: http://www.crunchgear.com/2010/07/05/new-quick-charger-for-electric-cars-is-really-quick/
Two issues with that: First, solar panels are neither practical in most states, nor to they really have the lifespan to do more than break-even interms of paying for the,mselves.
Second, that juice still has to come from the power plants, with all the attendant downsides.
I really don't want to sound like a naysayer, but "going green" has become so fashionable that I think people are ignoring the engineering realities. We want whizz-bang electrics and hybrids when a simple diesel would be much easier to get on the market literally today and dramatically decrease our national fuel consumption (and dependence on oil imports) while we work to perfect the next step in alternative fuel vehicles. One step at a time, people!
Why are we letting Congress and the EPA block sales of diesels here that could be used in everyday cars in addition to series hybrids?
twoodcc
Apr 25, 09:41 PM
well i got a new motherboard and processor for my third i7 system. i also put in 4 GPUs in it as well. i have it running all 4 GPUs and a bigadv unit in a VM, but i'm not sure if the bigadv VM is working right. it didn't look quite right when i left, but i had to leave. i guess i'll find out in 3 days if it's working or not
musser
Nov 26, 05:11 PM
Look at these numbers. Is that anything to write home about?
Ugg
May 4, 02:37 PM
Guns are within my scope of practice (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/blogs/rchoi/detail?entry_id=88328)
Should pediatricians be punished for asking about guns in the home?
Far be it for me, a Bay Area pediatrician, to tell Floridians about how to keep their kids safe. But having spent half of my life in the south (and I don't mean LA), perhaps I am only partially carpetbagging.
Florida's Governor Scott is on the verge of signing into law a bill that would penalize doctors for asking about guns in the home. The original bill shockingly included a $5 million fine and a five year prison sentence if a doctor asked about a patient's gun ownership, entered gun ownership information into a medical record, or refused to care for patients who declined to answer related questions. An unsatisfying compromise amendment between the NRA and the Florida chapter of the AMA limited the penalty to the possible revocation of a medical license and would allow questions about gun ownership and entry of that information into the medical record only if "medically necessary".
Similar legislation is making its way through the Alabama legislature.
Particularly bewildering to me were claims made by state legislators that gun safety was outside the scope of a pediatrician's practice. According to Marion Hammer, a past president of the NRA, "Families take their kids to pediatricians for medical care, not to talk about guns."
Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.
If guns are so important to society, why is it taboo to have an adult conversation about their impact on that society?
Should pediatricians be punished for asking about guns in the home?
Far be it for me, a Bay Area pediatrician, to tell Floridians about how to keep their kids safe. But having spent half of my life in the south (and I don't mean LA), perhaps I am only partially carpetbagging.
Florida's Governor Scott is on the verge of signing into law a bill that would penalize doctors for asking about guns in the home. The original bill shockingly included a $5 million fine and a five year prison sentence if a doctor asked about a patient's gun ownership, entered gun ownership information into a medical record, or refused to care for patients who declined to answer related questions. An unsatisfying compromise amendment between the NRA and the Florida chapter of the AMA limited the penalty to the possible revocation of a medical license and would allow questions about gun ownership and entry of that information into the medical record only if "medically necessary".
Similar legislation is making its way through the Alabama legislature.
Particularly bewildering to me were claims made by state legislators that gun safety was outside the scope of a pediatrician's practice. According to Marion Hammer, a past president of the NRA, "Families take their kids to pediatricians for medical care, not to talk about guns."
Couple this with the fact that the NRA has prevented any studies on guns and their impact on American society and I think we can all rest assured that we're heading towards a society ruled by the American Taliban. Heavy sarcasm intended.
If guns are so important to society, why is it taboo to have an adult conversation about their impact on that society?
blahblah100
Apr 8, 04:57 PM
As I said above, they will probably use it to sell something they can't move. My guess, "Purchase a Windows 7 phone, we will let you buy an iPad 2."
"Purchase an xServe..." oh wait...
"Purchase an xServe..." oh wait...
Flowbee
Nov 16, 01:09 PM
please no page 1 vs page 2 comments... :)
OK... This should be on page 3. :p
[Damn you, longofest!]
OK... This should be on page 3. :p
[Damn you, longofest!]
jshrager
Sep 12, 05:20 AM
the distribution rights are totally different for movies.
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
when a tv show comes out in the us the uk channels buy the rights from the us companies and this often means we don't get the shows in the UK for ages. and they don't come to ITunes in uk as it would be for apple to negotiate this with the uk tv company like channel 4.
some films are released internationally at the same time and so are the DVDs thus there is no reason why these films can't be released on an ITMS in the US, UK and wherever else the DVD would be released worldwide on the same date.
my cousin's an itunes lawyer working nr regents street store in london so she was explaining about tv shows to me....i'll try find out about the probs with movies if indeed the ITMS is released today and not in the UK.
sound reasonable?
No comments:
Post a Comment