atari1356
Sep 25, 11:03 AM
Why are people rating this news as negative? It seems like a decent update to a good program, and it's free for existing Aperture users. What were you expecting?
Eduardo1971
Apr 29, 02:59 PM
I sure as hell wouldnt move back to Windows for my everyday machine. I would move back to my Commodore 64 before that. :)
Ahh! Trip down memory lane. The Commodore 64c was my first computer. I believe I must have been in high school when my parents bought it. Gosh, I', teary eyed now...:o
Ahh! Trip down memory lane. The Commodore 64c was my first computer. I believe I must have been in high school when my parents bought it. Gosh, I', teary eyed now...:o
kuwisdelu
Apr 9, 11:49 PM
I know they made lots of under the hood stuff, but nothing that entices the consumer to upgrade. Look at 10.5 and that had lots of stuff for the consumer.
I don't really care whether it enticed other consumers to upgrade. I thought they were pretty exciting new features. Yeah, there were no consumer-oriented features, but you didn't say "consumer features," just "features." :)
I don't really care whether it enticed other consumers to upgrade. I thought they were pretty exciting new features. Yeah, there were no consumer-oriented features, but you didn't say "consumer features," just "features." :)
toddybody
May 2, 12:44 PM
Because a huge amount of the reported details on this matter are wrong.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
I am glad they are addressing it as well; however...Apple's response to this issue has been somewhat confusing (and begs the question as to why they needed that much data and why it was not encrypted properly). Ill be first to say that it most likely is and was just a dumb move on Apple's behalf...
My greater point was, that folks seem predisposed to trust Apple's decisions on EVERYTHING. I mean, just look at threads on apple's decision not to include specific HW in their systems...no BluRay, no res bump on recent 13 MBP refresh (even though the previous Air has a standard 1400x900 res), poor GPU selection in iMac, Antenna Gate, Apple's disproportioned profit margins...All this is perpetuated and supported by "Apple Fans". The reasons are "Blu Ray is a dying format, and Apple is actually doing us a favor by not including it" (WTF?)... "The 1280x800 screen on my 13MPB is fine, people need to stop whining for things they dont need"..."Wow! they gave the iMac a 5750! Finally some powerful graphics!"..."Youre holding it wrong"..."Mac's cost more cause theyre just so well built". Its like some Apple fans will think of anyway to spin an Apple decision as "they know whats best for us".
Were taking a beating with a smile, then remarking on how wonderful and magical it was.
While the method of storing the cell location cache may show poor judgment on Apples part, I don't see any malicious intent. The system is logical implemented and on the surface, cell location data does not appear sensitive enough to justify encryption. It is only after further analysis that potentially sensitive data can be inferred.
Regardless it's good to see it being addressed.
I am glad they are addressing it as well; however...Apple's response to this issue has been somewhat confusing (and begs the question as to why they needed that much data and why it was not encrypted properly). Ill be first to say that it most likely is and was just a dumb move on Apple's behalf...
My greater point was, that folks seem predisposed to trust Apple's decisions on EVERYTHING. I mean, just look at threads on apple's decision not to include specific HW in their systems...no BluRay, no res bump on recent 13 MBP refresh (even though the previous Air has a standard 1400x900 res), poor GPU selection in iMac, Antenna Gate, Apple's disproportioned profit margins...All this is perpetuated and supported by "Apple Fans". The reasons are "Blu Ray is a dying format, and Apple is actually doing us a favor by not including it" (WTF?)... "The 1280x800 screen on my 13MPB is fine, people need to stop whining for things they dont need"..."Wow! they gave the iMac a 5750! Finally some powerful graphics!"..."Youre holding it wrong"..."Mac's cost more cause theyre just so well built". Its like some Apple fans will think of anyway to spin an Apple decision as "they know whats best for us".
Were taking a beating with a smile, then remarking on how wonderful and magical it was.
Lurchdubious
Apr 9, 09:47 PM
New car for the wife! '08 Honda Odyssey EX-L
http://imageexp.dealercarsearch.com/Media/2383/H7052460_17.jpg
http://imageexp.dealercarsearch.com/Media/2383/H7052460_17.jpg
Chosenbydestiny
Nov 25, 09:44 AM
Bought my very first mac, core 2 duo macbook 2 ghz white. Didn't know they would be on sale, I had been saving this cash for a mac since the rumors of core 2 duo laptops started. I'm so happy to have finally switched now, hopefully the results of my music projects will be better. Although right now.... I'm pretty much just playing with widgets, lol.
Carouser
Mar 17, 12:30 PM
I think its the kid's responsibility here. The OP had every intention of paying for his purchase, but the cashier dropped the ball big time. When you take on a job, you assume the responsibilities that come with it. Making a mistake that big will have consequences. I would hate to have someone that makes mistakes like that working for me.
In other words, you think if someone else makes a mistake and you find out about it, there is zero problem with exploiting that mistake and bragging about it, it's totally free and clear. I would hate to have someone with an attitude like that employing other people.
Maybe one day someone can take advantage of your spouse or grandmother; I'm sure you'll be first in line to tell them it was their fault for making a mistake in the first place (which every person in the world does; that's why they're called 'mistakes').
The OP 'had every intention of paying for his purchase' until he knew he could get away with not paying for it.
In other words, you think if someone else makes a mistake and you find out about it, there is zero problem with exploiting that mistake and bragging about it, it's totally free and clear. I would hate to have someone with an attitude like that employing other people.
Maybe one day someone can take advantage of your spouse or grandmother; I'm sure you'll be first in line to tell them it was their fault for making a mistake in the first place (which every person in the world does; that's why they're called 'mistakes').
The OP 'had every intention of paying for his purchase' until he knew he could get away with not paying for it.
![marijuana wallpapers. [Attachment]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_sWiOAZIViDfyTkzXOnCWMD5mhDJ_46AH-owRrtBT-6ojPoF32OzutAh8iqBlGtguvIFAyNm1MZ_6_Q1A4snSZFLbPXNt7rYCuMCOao5c1phUH1SmmM0P50wr_PZPL9B27IwpFG0XTuO72QFxHTRxS5DZKfo4KOmUa1iRG8enKWAB45cie1ldY=s0-d "[Attachment]")
skipsandwichdx
Oct 16, 08:25 AM
Wi-FiPod Leather TubeSock?
DeathChill
May 3, 11:34 PM
But have you actually *touched* the internet before? Browsing the internet is a really magical experience on the iPad. ;)
I touched the Internet before. I got charged. :(
I touched the Internet before. I got charged. :(
koruki
Mar 17, 06:12 PM
for the things you mentioned you should replace the word 'envy' with 'jealously' :)
I've bought the first iPhone and have never gone back. I totally understand your situation lol, it comes with owning any luxury item. Usually its people who've never owned it themself that go bashing it. I personally haven't had as much encounters but I have friends who get harassed constantly lol.
The antennagate thing is the classic example of a non-user/owner reading some silly article and gripping it for every attack. None of my friends or myself use a case and we have absolutely no reception issues.
The funniest case was my friends colleague attacking him, saying it was the worse phone ever, most overpriced phone ever, its heavy! it has no flash! His Xperia X10 was miles better! Week later he buys his own iPhone 4 and stayed quiet about the topic. I rest my case.
On a positive note, I always get good encounters with the girls at work about iPhones lol.
I've bought the first iPhone and have never gone back. I totally understand your situation lol, it comes with owning any luxury item. Usually its people who've never owned it themself that go bashing it. I personally haven't had as much encounters but I have friends who get harassed constantly lol.
The antennagate thing is the classic example of a non-user/owner reading some silly article and gripping it for every attack. None of my friends or myself use a case and we have absolutely no reception issues.
The funniest case was my friends colleague attacking him, saying it was the worse phone ever, most overpriced phone ever, its heavy! it has no flash! His Xperia X10 was miles better! Week later he buys his own iPhone 4 and stayed quiet about the topic. I rest my case.
On a positive note, I always get good encounters with the girls at work about iPhones lol.
mattcube64
Apr 7, 11:13 PM
Another one, lulz :p
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5141/5599217577_323b08ec50_b.jpg
Also had some Chipotle, got gasoline, and picked up some screen protectors and random accessories.
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5141/5599217577_323b08ec50_b.jpg
Also had some Chipotle, got gasoline, and picked up some screen protectors and random accessories.
heehee
Apr 25, 02:45 PM
Well I don't know about you but if I saw someone beating the **** out of someone else while I'm working I would certainly get involved. And I would expect the same consideration from others.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
You expect employees who make minimum wage to break up a fight? They should call the cops, but for sure not break up a fight.
If your employed somewhere part of your job is keeping the peace.
You expect employees who make minimum wage to break up a fight? They should call the cops, but for sure not break up a fight.
Russell L
Aug 15, 01:21 AM
This is getting very messy.
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
Another purchaser of the 23" contacted AppleCare and reported this in Apple's Monitor Forum:
"I just talked to an AppleCare specialist and he said that this is still the old model based on my serial number. 2A6241XXXXX and manufactured June 2006"
"I called the apple store online on the phone and asked them how I would get the new one that is as the one they sell now. They said, it is guaranteed 100% that I would get the new one online, but through their retail stores, it is very likely to get the previous model, because they still have the old ones."
So both of us (mine made in May ( 2A6211XXXXX) and yours in June 2006 (2A6241XXXXX) have the old model with the following specs according to his report:
Brightness 270cd/m2
contrast ratio 400:1
So I guess no one can be sure of what they are getting, no matter how or where they buy it.
Well, I sprung for a new 23" at the Apple Store in SF last Friday (along with a new Mac Pro!). I asked the salesman to find me one with the highest serial number, which was 2A6251xxxxx (also June 2006). FWIW, the display was set at its highest brightness setting and was just too bright--I've now got it set at about 25% and it looks terrific. No obvious dead pixels, no pink cast. I also purchased the AppleCare warranty, so I should be covered over the next 3 years.
Russell
SimonMW
Jan 15, 05:50 PM
still 700:1 contrast ratio
In the context that manufacturers state such figures, this is meaningless. All it really boils down to is how white their whites are so they can claim a high contrast ratio, even though in the real world it means sod all.
Now what would really get me interested is a flat screen that displays truly black blacks.
In the context that manufacturers state such figures, this is meaningless. All it really boils down to is how white their whites are so they can claim a high contrast ratio, even though in the real world it means sod all.
Now what would really get me interested is a flat screen that displays truly black blacks.
dakwar
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
Happy B-day OSX.
steadysignal
May 4, 10:17 AM
I really like the tone of these commercials.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
its almost at the taunt stage now.
i love it.
reminds me of the think different campaign - feeling-wise.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
its almost at the taunt stage now.
i love it.
reminds me of the think different campaign - feeling-wise.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 08:43 PM
I do actually know the difference between causal and correlational relationships.... :D
I will stand by my hypothesis that something that the TSA is doing is working to make hijackings less likely to happen in the USA.....
Just because hijackings are down doesn't mean that TSA is actually working. Since 9/11 we've had a guy who got c4 into his shoe, another who lit his underwear on fire, and countless TSA tests have shown guns and other weapons make it through without much trouble.
Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock, and at worst much worse because they not only slow down travellers, curtail individual dignity, and cost billions, but also breed distrust and adversarial stances from the public that is supposed to be served.
I will stand by my hypothesis that something that the TSA is doing is working to make hijackings less likely to happen in the USA.....
Just because hijackings are down doesn't mean that TSA is actually working. Since 9/11 we've had a guy who got c4 into his shoe, another who lit his underwear on fire, and countless TSA tests have shown guns and other weapons make it through without much trouble.
Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock, and at worst much worse because they not only slow down travellers, curtail individual dignity, and cost billions, but also breed distrust and adversarial stances from the public that is supposed to be served.
sushi
Oct 1, 07:31 PM
Basement. Follow the Gizmodo links and you'll find the rather uninteresting floorplan thereof.
I see. Thanks. :)
I see. Thanks. :)
MacNut
Apr 27, 09:50 PM
But couldn't sexual harassment issues also potentially happen with lesbians in the women's bathroom or gay men in the men's bathroom? How come that is not issue?Unless somebody announces that they are gay or lesbian in the bathroom I doubt anyone would notice. If a woman walks into the mens room or vise versa people would notice.
VenusianSky
Oct 6, 03:47 PM
Former Verizon, unhappy AT&T customers...
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
Dagless
Apr 13, 08:49 AM
I imagine they have to scan kids because desperate smugglers/addicts have hidden drugs on their children in the past.
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.
applekid
Mar 29, 12:26 AM
Well, it sounds like the cops haven't given up on cracking the case at least. Just hang in there. If there's been so many break-ins in the area, it's time they lay down the law.
JoeG4
Mar 19, 04:27 PM
On this note, I thought I'd point out that I hate it when Mac users give me **** for using a Sony laptop when I have more Macs then they've ever owned. :D
No comments:
Post a Comment