vincenz
Apr 8, 12:55 PM
I wonder what the special promotion is.
Ugg
May 4, 03:04 PM
The bill and its proposed draconian penalties is just ridiculous.
On the other hand, Dr. Choi should tend to the physical and mental well-being of his patients, and stop trying to play safety nanny. Sorry, but I find his arguments unconvincing, and if a busybody doctor starting quizzing me about safety practices around my home, I'd tell him to F off.
You do understand that Dr Choi is a pediatrician, don't you?
Not asking about a child's physical environment, seems almost criminal in my mind. We put plugs in the outlets, child proof caps on medicines, child proof latches on cupboards, get rid of sharp edged furniture, require child safety seats in vehicles... I honestly don't see why a pediatrician should not concern himself with all aspects of a child's safety.
Are you an NRA member?
On the other hand, Dr. Choi should tend to the physical and mental well-being of his patients, and stop trying to play safety nanny. Sorry, but I find his arguments unconvincing, and if a busybody doctor starting quizzing me about safety practices around my home, I'd tell him to F off.
You do understand that Dr Choi is a pediatrician, don't you?
Not asking about a child's physical environment, seems almost criminal in my mind. We put plugs in the outlets, child proof caps on medicines, child proof latches on cupboards, get rid of sharp edged furniture, require child safety seats in vehicles... I honestly don't see why a pediatrician should not concern himself with all aspects of a child's safety.
Are you an NRA member?
GGJstudios
Apr 21, 12:01 PM
But you aren't. You are moving it by 2. And it's inconsistent.
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
rtdgoldfish
Apr 16, 08:47 AM
From my original post:
Funny thing out of all of this: I had a set of Monster Cables for the 360 which force the system to run in HD. Whoever took it will have a nice surprise when they get it home and find out they can't run it on their SD set. (Kinda assuming they won't have an HD TV if they are stealing a 360...)
I'm pretty sure this is why they haven't been able to play any games on the system. They keep logging into Xbox Live but since they get no video output from the console, they cant even see that there are friend requests, voice chat requests, messages, etc.
Funny thing out of all of this: I had a set of Monster Cables for the 360 which force the system to run in HD. Whoever took it will have a nice surprise when they get it home and find out they can't run it on their SD set. (Kinda assuming they won't have an HD TV if they are stealing a 360...)
I'm pretty sure this is why they haven't been able to play any games on the system. They keep logging into Xbox Live but since they get no video output from the console, they cant even see that there are friend requests, voice chat requests, messages, etc.
miamialley
Jul 21, 09:13 AM
Fine, but does it drop as many calls as my iP4?
twoodcc
May 8, 11:33 AM
yeah, -smp 12 but one core now shows minimal use. Before I restarted it it showed 4 cores with minimal usage... :confused: I'm going to try tossing the config file and see what happens. And of course it loses the wu each time I shut folding down.
so do you have it up and folding now?
i've been working on mine this morning. i gave up on 4.0 ghz and it's now running at 3.7 ghz. i think this is stable, but i guess we'll see
so do you have it up and folding now?
i've been working on mine this morning. i gave up on 4.0 ghz and it's now running at 3.7 ghz. i think this is stable, but i guess we'll see
lewis82
Apr 13, 01:27 PM
Why not get a mini displayport straight to DVI cable? I never understood the use of an adapter. Maybe someone can shed some light?
There's a use for Apple (they can sell you both the adapter and the DVI cable, at 40$ each) ;)
There's a use for Apple (they can sell you both the adapter and the DVI cable, at 40$ each) ;)
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....
slosh
Nov 24, 09:24 AM
In store you should be able to get both discounts.
are you sure about that, or could someone else verify this? trying to decide if i should take a drive down to the mall today....
thanks!
are you sure about that, or could someone else verify this? trying to decide if i should take a drive down to the mall today....
thanks!
alexprice
Jan 9, 04:45 PM
You must all believe me. I'm watching it right now!
JohnMacnMiami
Jan 15, 01:23 PM
Apparently the market was not excited about it.
Down $30+ a share since early Jan.
Oh well, 6 years until I retire, I'll hope to see it bounce back (heh heh)
Down $30+ a share since early Jan.
Oh well, 6 years until I retire, I'll hope to see it bounce back (heh heh)
one1
May 4, 12:08 AM
Wow... I rarely run across the checkerboard on mine and when I do it's gone in a second or two. Not obtrusive.
Surf more than just text pages. The heavier it gets the more checkerboards.
Surf more than just text pages. The heavier it gets the more checkerboards.
smacsteve
Jan 15, 10:49 PM
I only have one thing to say
iPod touch + new apps = $20.
Heh. No.
R-Fly
If you have a touch, which I doubt, you'd be more than willing to get those updates for $20! It's a steal!
iPod touch + new apps = $20.
Heh. No.
R-Fly
If you have a touch, which I doubt, you'd be more than willing to get those updates for $20! It's a steal!
steelfist
Nov 19, 05:57 AM
it would mean backstabbing and betrayal if apple went with amd.
vnle
Apr 10, 06:56 PM
Similar tastes...I have the 23" and M10's as well. But where did you find black Swans?...unless it's painted after the fact
Not the OP but here ya go! (http://lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Not the OP but here ya go! (http://lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Hastings101
Apr 9, 12:22 AM
Go for it! If they deserve it, they deserve it!
Yea, the other people working there deserve to suffer for something one person does :p
Yea, the other people working there deserve to suffer for something one person does :p
Cromulent
Nov 11, 05:44 PM
I guess we'll have to agree to disagree... The objective games in MW2 are great IMHO. Black Ops looks and feels ***** in comparison.
I guess so. I feel the same exact way about MW2. To me that game was ugly and poorly paced where as CoD Black Ops has improved the level design immensely and made the game play much more interesting and varied.
I guess so. I feel the same exact way about MW2. To me that game was ugly and poorly paced where as CoD Black Ops has improved the level design immensely and made the game play much more interesting and varied.
billchase2
Oct 13, 12:19 PM
i bet it will. i'm guessing $400-$500.
Chundles
Nov 16, 07:48 AM
Here we go folks.
...The claim - cited by DigiTimes...
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
...The claim - cited by DigiTimes...
Just to put everybody's mind at ease. These are the guys who predicted the arrival of a G5 iBook in early 2005.
They have never, ever been right.
Cynicalone
Apr 29, 02:33 PM
The macbook air's ship with 2gig standard. They wont leave a computer that new behind.
Or the new MacBook Air and all other Macs will move to 4GB standard.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
Or the new MacBook Air and all other Macs will move to 4GB standard.
You can use it with 2GB but it is not a very good experience, even with a just handful of Apps open.
motherduce
Jan 9, 02:46 PM
Bleh - don't waste your time waiting or anything. Really, it's not worth it. I was excited, but it's all for nothing unless you want one of the two items that were listed in the ticker.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 11:15 PM
Really, the only part i can accurately remember from MW2 is the DC section. I live in the south-east corner of PA so i've been to DC a few times (the DC zoo is one of my favorite places in the whole world). If i lived out west there would be nothing memorable about MW2.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
Fwiw, i do hold the flawed story against it. How can i be invested in a game that pretends one man can launch a missile just by strolling into a sub and asking kindly? Even games like Ratchet and Clank have stories that make sense (in context, of course), but MW2 was just too far for me to care about it.
As far as Black Ops goes, the story is ok. I dont like the whole interrogation thing, i feel like the story could be told a bit better, though my opinion may change after i finish the campaign. Any game with nixie tubes automatically scores a few points from me ;)
COD needs another MW. MW was a massive jump forward from COD3, and it did it all perfectly. W@W, MW2, and Black Ops all feel like a new map pack for MW instead of a whole new game.
ju5tin81
Sep 12, 07:26 AM
The main thing is... (For me anyway) is the ability to burn a film to DVD....
It'll be hard to make an impulse purchase on a new film, that I can only watch on my Mac, or, until I spend a few hundred quid buying a new iPod or wireless streaming gizmo for my telly... (Something I'd prefer not to do)
Can we please burn them so we can watch films on normal DVD players!
Just like iTunes does with CD's. (Don't mind if there is a restriction on numbers that can be burnt etc. Only gonna do it once.)
Also, aren't laptop HD's gonna need to grow up to accomodate all this media? A desktop, easy, get an external, but I'd like me (New MacBook) laptop to be attachment free!
It'll be hard to make an impulse purchase on a new film, that I can only watch on my Mac, or, until I spend a few hundred quid buying a new iPod or wireless streaming gizmo for my telly... (Something I'd prefer not to do)
Can we please burn them so we can watch films on normal DVD players!
Just like iTunes does with CD's. (Don't mind if there is a restriction on numbers that can be burnt etc. Only gonna do it once.)
Also, aren't laptop HD's gonna need to grow up to accomodate all this media? A desktop, easy, get an external, but I'd like me (New MacBook) laptop to be attachment free!
Links
Aug 14, 09:37 PM
I ordered the 'new' 23 inch display within 30 minutes of the store being back online, and I just unpacked it. Having no frame of reference to compare to an 'old' 23 inch, I can say that it is ridiculously bright and clear, has no pink cast whatsoever, and from a first careful look over it, 0 dead pixels!
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
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.
Hopefully no pink cast will develop (I've had it plugged in for about 10 minutes now.
I'm off to get one of those dead pixel checker programs...
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.
0 comments:
Post a Comment