TheMacBookPro
Mar 18, 09:01 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPad; U; CPU OS 4_2_1 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8C148 Safari/6533.18.5)
Thats some pretty narrow minded thinking there buddy.
Not your buddy, tyvm.
I'm just posting about some harassment I've been experiencing because of the phone I've purchased and was wondering if other iPhone owners have experienced it, and by judging from the responses a lot have.
You should've searched before creating a new thread. This forum gets one of these 'omg what's wrong with people who prefer their own phone' and 'the iPhone is the best WTF is wrong with android users' every few days.
I already feel great about my purchase, and I haven't been here long enough to know if the users are fanboys. Judging from the responses I'd say these guys seem pretty fair. Pretty judgemental and silly post in my opinion.
Because they're agreeing with you (surprise, surprise). I'd say people are fair too if they blindly agreed to everything I say.
And my post is silly? Pot, kettle if I ever seen it ;)
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
Fair enough. Most people on here refuse to think that anyone other than Apple can make a good phone.
Just curious now- what HTC phone was your friend using to play angry birds @2fps? I had no idea that HTC made a worse android phone (compared to the original G1).
Thats some pretty narrow minded thinking there buddy.
Not your buddy, tyvm.
I'm just posting about some harassment I've been experiencing because of the phone I've purchased and was wondering if other iPhone owners have experienced it, and by judging from the responses a lot have.
You should've searched before creating a new thread. This forum gets one of these 'omg what's wrong with people who prefer their own phone' and 'the iPhone is the best WTF is wrong with android users' every few days.
I already feel great about my purchase, and I haven't been here long enough to know if the users are fanboys. Judging from the responses I'd say these guys seem pretty fair. Pretty judgemental and silly post in my opinion.
Because they're agreeing with you (surprise, surprise). I'd say people are fair too if they blindly agreed to everything I say.
And my post is silly? Pot, kettle if I ever seen it ;)
I couldn't exactly call myself an Apple 'fanboy' either. If HTC made a better phone I'd gladly go pick it up, but I'm simply posting my experiences.
Fair enough. Most people on here refuse to think that anyone other than Apple can make a good phone.
Just curious now- what HTC phone was your friend using to play angry birds @2fps? I had no idea that HTC made a worse android phone (compared to the original G1).
stoid
Aug 9, 06:54 PM
Would someone who bought what they assume to be the newer
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
Mine is 2A6241XXXXX
manufacture date: June 2006
version of this display with improve brightness and contrast
please post part of your serial number.
Mine: 2A6211XXXXX (Xs represents the rest of my number)
date of manufacture: May 2006
Determined from the decoder at:
http://www.chipmunk.nl/klantenservice/applemodel.html
I'm trying to detemine if the one I just bought is in this new batch.
And if it isn't I want to return it quickly.
I have 15 days to return it and exchange if I don't want this display to the store
where I bought it (not from an Apple store).
Mine is 2A6241XXXXX
manufacture date: June 2006
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
balamw
Oct 5, 02:49 PM
It seems that you got encryption and decryption mixed up.
How so. Please elaborate?
The decryption keys are everywhere and not top secret. Each iPod and iTunes has access to them. If you can get your hands on them you have something like hymn or FairKeys. Where does one get the encryption key?
EDIT: BTW I'm quite serious, if I got it wrong please help me understand where you're coming from.
B
How so. Please elaborate?
The decryption keys are everywhere and not top secret. Each iPod and iTunes has access to them. If you can get your hands on them you have something like hymn or FairKeys. Where does one get the encryption key?
EDIT: BTW I'm quite serious, if I got it wrong please help me understand where you're coming from.
B
more...
vizkiz
Apr 15, 04:18 PM
There is too much shadow on the side gradient.
Not if the pictures were taken with an iPhone :D
Not if the pictures were taken with an iPhone :D
Plutonius
Aug 3, 12:05 PM
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
+1 ....
That will most likely be my next car.
more...
fungus
Apr 25, 05:42 PM
Eventually it just has to be called "iPhone". No numbers, and certainly no asinine feature indicators. Internally it will be "iPhone (nth generation)", and the previous model on sale for $99 (or $49) will be "iPhone (previous generation)", just like iPods. Same goes for the iPad. Seriously, 10 years from now what are they going to call it... the iPhone 14s? This makes sense how?
Glideslope
Apr 25, 01:08 PM
4s ftw.
No. 4s is reality. 5 next June/July. Then every June/July after. :apple:
No. 4s is reality. 5 next June/July. Then every June/July after. :apple:
more...
jonnysods
Apr 8, 05:28 PM
This is funny. Welp, glad I don't buy stuff at Best Buy.
It's my 'try before I buy store', as we don't have an Apple Store in our city.
It's my 'try before I buy store', as we don't have an Apple Store in our city.
leekohler
May 7, 12:44 AM
I'm for gun control as well, but the phrase is so broad as to be almost meaningless. Guns need to be regulated at all times. But the level and manner of regulation are very vexed questions.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
Exactly. And this is why I have never understood why my more liberal friends would want to ban guns, but not drugs. It's stupid. Education and regulation are key to managing risk associated with any of these things.
I think the notion that fewer guns means less gun crime is true in the absolute sense, but far from the whole story - nor is it linear process.
Guns have never been a practical everyday tool for the vast majority of humanity. However, a lack of practical utility is not in itself a good reason to ban, criminalize, or otherwise restrict legal access to something. Nor is the fact that something is dangerous by itself grounds for bans or criminalization. We are surrounded by dangerous things every day. Seeking to manage risk is far more effective than a policy of trying to simply legislate it away.
Exactly. And this is why I have never understood why my more liberal friends would want to ban guns, but not drugs. It's stupid. Education and regulation are key to managing risk associated with any of these things.
more...
virus1
Jan 6, 02:29 PM
the first day the keynote is SOOO slow on the apple server, and nobody has ever seemed to figure out how to download it normally (w/out stream), otherwise it would be all over bittorrent.
so my plan is to hold off ALL DAY and start the stream at like 1 or two in the morn (yes, it is a school night..) and hopefully it will be less bogged down then.
NOBODY COPY ME!!!!
so my plan is to hold off ALL DAY and start the stream at like 1 or two in the morn (yes, it is a school night..) and hopefully it will be less bogged down then.
NOBODY COPY ME!!!!
SockRolid
Apr 16, 05:28 AM
wow the iOS/Apple closed ecosystem must really be the WORSE THANG EVAR if google is trying to trying to do it.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
Dumpster fires are open. Weedpatches are open. Cesspools are open.
Pick one and jump in.
more...
fivepoint
Mar 4, 02:02 PM
All anyone has to remember in a liberal vs conservative discussion is one simple fact: There has been no law ever initiated by conservatives to help working class citizens. All of these ideas- min wage, child labor laws, max hours per week, workplace safety, etc, all spring from liberal thinking, because liberals give a damn. Conservatives as a rule are too worried about who might take their hard earned money. You know the "sorry we just can't afford it" argument.
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What if I said that liberals don't give a damn about working class citizens, and that only communists do for the same reasons you stated, just taken to the next level. Would that make sense? Sad. :rolleyes:
BTW, the anti-gay segment has no business being in this bill. All politicians should realize that individual bills should be able to stand on their own two feet instead of sneaking them by in such a disgustingly snake-in-the-grass fashion.
Minimum wages = unemployment, lower growth
child labor laws = limits free will and opportunities for youngsters
max hours per week = limits free will, opportunity for higher personal revenue
workplace safety = bureaucracy, red tape, lower growth
Don't be naive. The goals are the same, more wealth, health, prosperity, and safety for all. Conservatives simply disagree with your methods. They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What if I said that liberals don't give a damn about working class citizens, and that only communists do for the same reasons you stated, just taken to the next level. Would that make sense? Sad. :rolleyes:
BTW, the anti-gay segment has no business being in this bill. All politicians should realize that individual bills should be able to stand on their own two feet instead of sneaking them by in such a disgustingly snake-in-the-grass fashion.
p0intblank
Sep 12, 08:17 AM
Very sweet! :D I love waking up to surprises like this. Notice Apple says the iTunes Store is being updated, rather than the iTunes Music Store? I know this is obvious, but I just thought I'd point it out.
Gah, I can't wait until 1:00 EST!
Gah, I can't wait until 1:00 EST!
more...
KnightWRX
Apr 8, 01:55 PM
We are all to blame here for jumping.
Who's this we ? My first post in that other thread was questionning the source of the rumor and asking why everyone was taking it as fact without any proof. :D
Use "I" if you must, don't include all of us in your over-reaction.
Who's this we ? My first post in that other thread was questionning the source of the rumor and asking why everyone was taking it as fact without any proof. :D
Use "I" if you must, don't include all of us in your over-reaction.
Bevz
Apr 15, 08:37 PM
Probably a fake, but i like the design anyway...
more...
jaydentaku
Sep 30, 07:01 AM
This is a front. I want to see the plans for the 8 floors of subterranean mega vaults.
kuwisdelu
Apr 29, 03:47 PM
Hmm, I thought the way it was in the older Lion builds looked nicer.
mlomeli
Mar 24, 03:02 PM
Yay! Now, where's the cake...
MattZani
Apr 6, 05:42 PM
I finished it one seating.... :o
I can't not eat a Ben & Jerry's in one sitting...
I can't not eat a Ben & Jerry's in one sitting...
asphalt-proof
Jan 13, 09:07 PM
My predictions are thus: (feel free to write them down and pass them down to your grandchildren to be read as scripture)
1. There will be much "boom-age"
2. But it will be a hollow sounding 'boom'
3. iTunes rentals of movies
4. Updates on on the laptop line
5. A presentation of of the SDK and what some devs have already produced on it along with a software update on iphone
6. A heartfelt thanks to the employees and their families
6. end of Keynote
7. Much weeping and lamentation on the internets.
I think that "something in the Air" may be referring to rentals of movies, and maybe .Mac intergration with the iPhone. Maybe there will be an ultralight macbook released as well, but don't we usually see SOME evidence of something concrete by this time. If nothing else, at least a blurry photo of something in an elevator. but this time, nothing.... nada. Maybe they have found all the leaks and have efficiently and effectively plugged them. But it just seems too quiet. I predict a less than exciting Macworld this year.:(
1. There will be much "boom-age"
2. But it will be a hollow sounding 'boom'
3. iTunes rentals of movies
4. Updates on on the laptop line
5. A presentation of of the SDK and what some devs have already produced on it along with a software update on iphone
6. A heartfelt thanks to the employees and their families
6. end of Keynote
7. Much weeping and lamentation on the internets.
I think that "something in the Air" may be referring to rentals of movies, and maybe .Mac intergration with the iPhone. Maybe there will be an ultralight macbook released as well, but don't we usually see SOME evidence of something concrete by this time. If nothing else, at least a blurry photo of something in an elevator. but this time, nothing.... nada. Maybe they have found all the leaks and have efficiently and effectively plugged them. But it just seems too quiet. I predict a less than exciting Macworld this year.:(
Adidas Addict
Apr 25, 01:36 PM
I don't understand people who think the next iPhone should be called 4S (and some think 4GS, wth?)
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
I think the reason why Apple called the current generation iPhone 4 because it's the 4th iPhone. Just because they tacked on an 'S' at the end of 3G doesn't mean the next should be 4S.
And even if they DID call it the 4S, the iPhone after that would be iPhone 6, not 5...
Don't you agree?
If it keeps the same design/form factor it will be named the 4*/4** if it's a totally new design it will be iPhone 5.
SilentPanda
Apr 21, 12:03 PM
It may be that the backend has a different value stored than what displayed in your cached version. Honestly I know about as much of the system as you do. I haven't seen that behavior exhibited but I do thank you for bringing it up so that it can be looked into.
hypmatize
Apr 8, 09:13 PM
I was supposed to get it today but my dad had a doctor appointment so i'll be getting it tomorrow:D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
yeah its a great game....its a lot of fun :D
http://img703.imageshack.us/img703/1339/ps3justcause2.jpg (http://img703.imageshack.us/i/ps3justcause2.jpg/)
so freaking can't wait to do crazy stuff in that game:D!! specially the skydiving part (Grand Theft Auto4+Spider Man 2 = Just Cause 2):D
yeah its a great game....its a lot of fun :D
0 comments:
Post a Comment