BlueRevolution
Oct 29, 12:32 AM
I've never understood people who adopt this argument. You're essentially saying that, because a few folks think piracy is free advertising, Apple should give up all its intellectual property and copyrights. It would be like me spending money on a Lamborghini and then handing the keys to random strangers in the hopes they'd return it the next morning to encourage them to buy one of their own. Get real!
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it. It's not like a Lamborghini. What it IS like is me, a record label, spending money on making music, then letting people listen to it for free on the radio. How dumb would that be? :rolleyes:
Again with the physical example fallacy. We're talking about information here. It has no intrinsic value. This means that if I steal it, you still have it. It's not like a Lamborghini. What it IS like is me, a record label, spending money on making music, then letting people listen to it for free on the radio. How dumb would that be? :rolleyes:
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.
chrisblore
Sep 12, 02:50 AM
10am Cupertino (west coast US) time. Just over 9 hours to go.
That's 6pm in the UK or 5pm GMT.
That's 6pm in the UK or 5pm GMT.
Popeye206
May 3, 11:16 PM
When I hear �It�s just getting started,� that signals to me there is more to come. Which implies that patience will be rewarded. Which further implies to wait for future models. That's obviously not how Apple intended it, but that�s the way I interpret it as a viewer. Could just be me though. I am a very happy owner of many Apple products by the way�including an iPad 1st gen�so I�m not being biased against Apple by any means. JMO
I don't think they're trying to hint towards anything hardware... I think they're setting up for the changes coming with iOS 5, Lion and the new iCloud stuff.
Can't wait until June... I think we have some very nice surprises coming for all Apple devices.
I don't think they're trying to hint towards anything hardware... I think they're setting up for the changes coming with iOS 5, Lion and the new iCloud stuff.
Can't wait until June... I think we have some very nice surprises coming for all Apple devices.
Micjose
Apr 25, 01:43 PM
It doesn't look that bad. I would definitely buy it. :)
VulchR
Mar 18, 11:58 AM
...
Personally I much preferred it when Apple had no market share :cool: I miss the days of Ramdoubler, conflicting extensions, apple file exchange and overpriced SCSI drives :)
[Admittedly off-topic]
Eek! I don't... although I kinda miss AppleTalk and my PowerBook180 still works.
Personally I much preferred it when Apple had no market share :cool: I miss the days of Ramdoubler, conflicting extensions, apple file exchange and overpriced SCSI drives :)
[Admittedly off-topic]
Eek! I don't... although I kinda miss AppleTalk and my PowerBook180 still works.
SuperBrown
Jan 15, 05:59 PM
Compare the MBA to this sony notebook with similar specs:
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
http://www.sonystyle.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/CategoryDisplay?catalogId=10551&storeId=10151&langId=-1&categoryId=8198552921644507782&parentCategoryId=16154&XID=O:sony%20tz:dg_vinb_gglsrch
Whoa! Had no idea sub-notebooks cost that much. :eek:
If apple is trying to break into that market then maybe they do have something in MBA.
I think my disappointment (and that of many others) may stem from the fact that they really didn't come out with anything for me.
TV untethered from a computer + price drop + iTunes movie rentals is interesting. So is Time Capsule. Not earth-shaking enough, though, to make me run to the apple store this instant.
And $20 for iPod touch software. I don't own one, but I'd feel like I got screwed if I did.
twoodcc
May 2, 10:16 PM
well i think i finally got my home built system running at 4.0 ghz. it has been a long journey, to say the least. but it's folding away a bigadv unit and 2 GPUs. hopefully this will last all week since i'll be away
supermacdesign
Jan 5, 05:57 PM
I am such a geek I can't friggin wait. I've already got the giddy shakes... I know the MacWorld covergae auto-updates like every minute but I can't stop myself from refreshing!! I am so sorry MacRumors!!
darthraige
Dec 13, 01:38 PM
Immediately after Christmas? So 12/26? I doubt it. Hoping for the announcement at their keynote in January. Although, I have been saying that every January since the iPhone first debuted.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 04:44 AM
Friends aren't post.
u beat me to it!! i was going to say a similar thing ;)
u beat me to it!! i was going to say a similar thing ;)
Slix
May 2, 03:51 PM
Hm. Just sent in my iPod for a replacement for the battery issues I was having. Looks like when I get a new one, it'll work even better then.
BornAgainMac
Jul 21, 09:28 AM
Apple cracks me up. They say what they are thinking.
Shannighan
Jan 15, 02:32 PM
WHERE THE HELL IS THE GOD DAMN MACBOOK PRO UDATE???? THIS IS WHAT I WAS WAITING FOR!!!!!!!!!!!!!! NOW I HAVE TO WAT LONGER
that made me mad
but with HD movie rentals and a price drop i might buy a Apple tv now though
that made me mad
but with HD movie rentals and a price drop i might buy a Apple tv now though
fxtech
Mar 28, 03:15 PM
What exactly is a 'hater'? Someone that disagrees with the company line? Someone with a dissenting opinion?
That and someone who doesn't live on Kool Aid.
That and someone who doesn't live on Kool Aid.
thatisme
Jul 21, 09:36 AM
I find it great that they are doing this... in so far as it illustrates what their testing shows, that the iPhone 4 is not the only phone to have "antenna issues"
I don't see Apple as using this in an advertising campaign, just that they are backing up their claims and research with true visual evidence
If they were acting immaturely, they would have just left it at "well, everyone else has the problems like this too" and not offer up any data, evidence, etc to back up their claim.... It is very similar to a vocal majority on this site saying "Apple's antenna design is defective" and "All iPhone 4's are defective" as well as "Every iPhone 4 loses reception just by touching it"... no hard data showing that ALL phones are defective or that the antenna doesn't work...
I don't see Apple as using this in an advertising campaign, just that they are backing up their claims and research with true visual evidence
If they were acting immaturely, they would have just left it at "well, everyone else has the problems like this too" and not offer up any data, evidence, etc to back up their claim.... It is very similar to a vocal majority on this site saying "Apple's antenna design is defective" and "All iPhone 4's are defective" as well as "Every iPhone 4 loses reception just by touching it"... no hard data showing that ALL phones are defective or that the antenna doesn't work...
HyperZboy
Apr 9, 08:31 PM
Oh crap. 400 fear-mongering posts in the other thread were for naught. :eek:
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
LOL!
Come on people, think next time. Like Apple gives a rat's ass how their retailers horde iPads when Apple themselves can't even supply them.
HAHA!
Seems like half the people here have worked at Best Buy and the other half hate Best Buy and refuse to shop there. Yet both groups know equally as much about Best Buy's retail marketing plans as well.
Hmmm, what are the statistical chances of that happening? :D
Earth to Geeks... You think Apple doesn't specifically ship certain stock just for a promotion? (therefor it's not considered "stock" the day or week before)
Apple even ships stuff with orders to merchants not to open boxes until a certain day/time.
Not to mention, we know Apple has been having supply problems. So I see nothing wrong with Best Buy conserving stock for a promotion. This a whole lot of nothing except to the fanatics on geek websites who worship at the alter of Steve Jobs and have no lives.
If all these people posting really worked in retail, I'm convinced it must have really been at McDonald's, not Best Buy! I'm told by a reliable source they really will sell all of the Big Macs they have on hand. LOL
The only thing I've learned here is that the average Best Buy employee is not in the loop to know what they're talking about nor is the average Best Buy customer. Show me a local manager and I'd still think they're out of the loop. Unless somebody from corporate or a regional manager goes public or Apple or Best Buy makes a statement, this story is a whole lot about nothing.
0815
Apr 25, 12:24 PM
Would love a larger screen if they can maintain the same body size. I have no interest in something like the giant PDA-sized Android phones.
I'm fine with the current screen - but wouldn't mind a bigger one, as long (as you said) the phone does not get any bigger. I don't want a phone that does not comfortable fit in my back pocket or any other small pocket I might have.
I'm fine with the current screen - but wouldn't mind a bigger one, as long (as you said) the phone does not get any bigger. I don't want a phone that does not comfortable fit in my back pocket or any other small pocket I might have.
Pressure
Nov 16, 08:17 AM
And people thought Apple could never ever go Intel, so why not? Athlon 64 x2 cores have dropped in price,ati has a bunch of video chips it could mate and this machine would kill any integrated graphic solution if both Apple & Ati were wanting to do this. It would make sense. Rumors:)
Perhaps but they are not competing right now on either products or road maps.
You don't change vendor like the wind blows.
Perhaps but they are not competing right now on either products or road maps.
You don't change vendor like the wind blows.
aiqw9182
Mar 28, 02:42 PM
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
It's a hell of a lot easier updating your apps and re-installing applications through the Mac App Store than any previous method. You don't have to check every single app on your machine to see if it's updated, nor do you have to go to the developers website if they don't have an automatic updater or even a manual updater.
zap2
Mar 28, 07:10 PM
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
Making things easy isn't a negative, its positive, it streamlines the experience. Considering just how much unused power is inside of many PCs and Macs that until recently were the only way people "computed", it makes sense for companies to make things easier so more people can access and do more with their computers.
We(on Macrumors.com) are not your average computer user. I love tinkering with computers, smartphones, tablets, etc...but that doesn't mean I can't give credit to companies that make using technology easier to do more with.
Apple isn't stupid, they aren't going to cut themselves out of the OS market they helped create and the type of product that their "post PC" devices depend on. Just as iOS has gotten more complicated then it once was(which allows it to do more), OS X can allow more useful features to be used in an improved(read more intuitive and simpler) way. Its all about keeping balance, iOS doesn't need to be able to virtualize Windows XP locally and OS X doesn't need to only have one place to download applications.
Making things easy isn't a negative, its positive, it streamlines the experience. Considering just how much unused power is inside of many PCs and Macs that until recently were the only way people "computed", it makes sense for companies to make things easier so more people can access and do more with their computers.
We(on Macrumors.com) are not your average computer user. I love tinkering with computers, smartphones, tablets, etc...but that doesn't mean I can't give credit to companies that make using technology easier to do more with.
Apple isn't stupid, they aren't going to cut themselves out of the OS market they helped create and the type of product that their "post PC" devices depend on. Just as iOS has gotten more complicated then it once was(which allows it to do more), OS X can allow more useful features to be used in an improved(read more intuitive and simpler) way. Its all about keeping balance, iOS doesn't need to be able to virtualize Windows XP locally and OS X doesn't need to only have one place to download applications.
t-man
Apr 25, 08:16 PM
Fake. Display looks like paper / printed.
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
What makes me totally sceptical about this is that the icons on the screen appear wider than they are tall. The square icons on an iPhone, with the phone angled as it is in the photo, should appear taller than they are wide. The inevitable conclusion is that the photo has been stretched horizontally.
And another thing ... the screen in this pic could hardly be described as "edge to edge".
*LTD*
Apr 10, 09:36 AM
man you post that and then make me fire up IE so I can read his trolling post and remind myself why I have him on the ignore list. Quick skim and just reminded me not to take him off.
Reason for IE being fired up is that is my only browser on this computer that I do not have set to Autolog in.
From an earlier date:
read threw it. Seems to me just like standard Apple Fanboy post trying to twist the truth from what it really is.
Suggest you link to an article that is not trying to hide behind that fact.
Reminded me yet again that i should of just left you on my ignore list. Back you go.
There are other examples.
Dude, commenting on my posts and then announcing to everyone you have me on Ignore means you're not ignoring my posts.
Just sayin. But I'm quite flattered by your continued attention.
Reason for IE being fired up is that is my only browser on this computer that I do not have set to Autolog in.
From an earlier date:
read threw it. Seems to me just like standard Apple Fanboy post trying to twist the truth from what it really is.
Suggest you link to an article that is not trying to hide behind that fact.
Reminded me yet again that i should of just left you on my ignore list. Back you go.
There are other examples.
Dude, commenting on my posts and then announcing to everyone you have me on Ignore means you're not ignoring my posts.
Just sayin. But I'm quite flattered by your continued attention.
dalvin200
Sep 12, 03:16 AM
EDIT - Don't everybody else do what conditionals just tried to do. A few people did it last Tuesday night and we broke the internet.
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
U sure it was broke? not just your sloooooooowwwwwwww dial-up connection? ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment