neiltc13
Sep 12, 08:37 AM
It has to come back soon, think of all the sales they're losing!
MacRumors
Mar 24, 02:58 PM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2011/03/24/mac-os-x-turns-ten-years-old/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/155706-mac_os_x_boxes.jpg
Wrist Tattoos For Men And
Typically, star tattoos are
glee lea michele tattoos.
tattoos on wrist. AFI Star
dragonfly tattoos on wrist
tattoos on wrist men.
spots Tattoos women wrist
Photo of men forearm to wrist
star tattoos for men
Stand-alone wrist flame
tattoos for girls on wrist.
cover up wrist tattoos
tattoos on wrist men. cross
nautical star tattoo wrist
celebrity wrist tattoos.
angel wings tattoos designs
wing wrist tattoos
Reacent Post
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2011/03/24/155706-mac_os_x_boxes.jpg
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....
puuukeey
Jan 9, 03:19 PM
http://www.insideout-tees.com/sucktees/well_this_sucks.gif
gangzoom
Mar 17, 05:49 PM
I get the opposite, every one I know these days seem to have a iPhone, or Mac..i've been using Macs since the days of the MacPlus, and remember the the time when people use to stare at me blankly when i tried to explain to them why my computer running system 6.5 cannot run "PC" programs :p
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 :)
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 :)
azentropy
Apr 29, 04:34 PM
The interface is still a mess, a giant step back in terms of usability and appearance IMO. Still very difficult to tell what buttons or tabs are active and what is not. For example in "System Preferences" the "Show All" button looks grayed out. The decolorization of the finder is pretty bad too (as was the de-coloration of iTunes before). I likes to be able to quickly reference icons visually by color.
I REALLY don't like the direction Apple is taking things.
I REALLY don't like the direction Apple is taking things.
Ping Guo
Apr 26, 12:19 AM
If that is a guy holding that phone he needs to cut those nails...Damn hippy!
Ah but that's the old Chinese snot-digging nail.
Ah but that's the old Chinese snot-digging nail.
KingCrimson
Apr 21, 08:00 PM
Hopefully it's totally new from the ground up, ditch all the Win32/legacy crap that's hindered MSFT for years.
Rodimus Prime
Apr 15, 05:33 PM
One thing I can not see in the pictures is a microUSB slot. It makes it seem unlikely that apple is going to try to follow that everyone else agreed apron. It is nice to be able to in a pinch use some one else charger. Oh and please do not use the adapter crap argument apple could include because that complete defeats the point of using the standard.
madmax_2069
Apr 4, 02:59 PM
no what i mean is IF he has all his info showing that he owns the 360 then they (MS) should communicate with the police to get this taken care of. if the police has all the info showing his house was broken into and other info. then MS should give out the info to the police to be able to track it down. if your 360 was stolen and they used it to start buying arcade games using your CC info then what would you say about it, you would want it back wouldn't you
the whole reason each 360 has its own ID number is to track them down in case they was stolen. seem's like MS isn't doing what they set out to do with the unique ID identification of the 360 or XBOX. now if your 360 was stolen wouldn't you want to see your 360 returned or let the thieves keep it so you would have to buy another one. so your basicity telling me that MS should do nothing, even tho they implemented a ID system to track down a said system if this was to happen and not use it to help get the said system back and to catch the thieves.
you seem to be one of those people that side with the thieve to me. if you ask me i think everything should be done that can be don't to catch them and get the system back no questions asked.
the whole reason each 360 has its own ID number is to track them down in case they was stolen. seem's like MS isn't doing what they set out to do with the unique ID identification of the 360 or XBOX. now if your 360 was stolen wouldn't you want to see your 360 returned or let the thieves keep it so you would have to buy another one. so your basicity telling me that MS should do nothing, even tho they implemented a ID system to track down a said system if this was to happen and not use it to help get the said system back and to catch the thieves.
you seem to be one of those people that side with the thieve to me. if you ask me i think everything should be done that can be don't to catch them and get the system back no questions asked.
sevimli
May 3, 09:33 PM
Well done apple! :apple:
63dot
Mar 4, 06:31 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.
Hey, I believe you and know what you say is true.
When you corner him on such a topic, he will just spout out concurrences or dissents which tend to support his point of view. And if interpreted in a creative way, one can say the GOP has sometimes sided with workers. But that's a very old GOP and not the neo-cons of today.
Hey, I believe you and know what you say is true.
When you corner him on such a topic, he will just spout out concurrences or dissents which tend to support his point of view. And if interpreted in a creative way, one can say the GOP has sometimes sided with workers. But that's a very old GOP and not the neo-cons of today.
shartypants
Mar 28, 05:39 PM
Its Apple's award, I think they have the freedom to set the rules as they wish. They are simply trying to encourage developers to go to the Mac App Store, don't they have that right with their award?
Asu
Jan 15, 04:48 PM
Waiting for a mid range upgradeable desktop for years. Something between the mini and the pro. Still using my maxed out CUBE withe the Giga processor upgrade and stuff.
REALLY REALLY hankering for a backlit apple keyboard for EONS! using the same backlighting features as on the laptop keyboards. If they can do it on the laptops why don't they do it on the keyboards?
Time capsule is a nice product, it won't replace my Infrant Readynas though.
REALLY REALLY hankering for a backlit apple keyboard for EONS! using the same backlighting features as on the laptop keyboards. If they can do it on the laptops why don't they do it on the keyboards?
Time capsule is a nice product, it won't replace my Infrant Readynas though.
appleguy123
Apr 27, 06:13 PM
Hmmm... how can I use this new system to my advantage in the MRville WW game? ;)
I honestly don't think it would make anything easier.
What would is changeable polls with user-restricted voting.
I honestly don't think it would make anything easier.
What would is changeable polls with user-restricted voting.
Evangelion
Aug 8, 04:03 AM
The Cinema Displays aren't for general consumers like most of you posting in this thread. They're for professionals who need even backlighting, excellent color accuracy, and a large viewing angle. That's why Apple charges a premium for them. If you don't care about these things get a Dell.
What makes you think that you can't get those features in a Dell? Do you have any facts?
What makes you think that you can't get those features in a Dell? Do you have any facts?
Ugg
May 5, 08:43 PM
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
OP or OPer?
OP or OPer?
citizenzen
May 5, 05:10 PM
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
It's impossible to enforce a gun ban when all you have to do is drive to the next town to buy them.
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
martymcr
Nov 27, 03:26 AM
They are doing a similar event in the UK on Friday 1st December - a 'one day only special sales event'
drsmithy
Nov 17, 12:53 AM
2. AMD is far superior. Right now Intel is in the lead, but it's not a true lead. For the longest time, AMD had the better architecture.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
"For the longest time" ? x86 CPUs did exist before the year 2000, you know.
Intel had to do something, so they went back to the P3, tweaked it a little, and added some huge caches, and gave us a CPU modeled after a 6 year old (guessing here) CPU that ran at around the same GHZ speeds, but was faster.
The P3 (which begat the Pentium M, which begat Core, which begat Core 2) was basically just a souped-up P2. A P2 was basically just a Pentium Pro with MMX and an off-die L2 cache (what Apple would later call a "backside cache").
The Pentium Pro (Intel's first totally new x86 chip design since the 386) came out in 1995. So all your fancy new x86 Macs have a direct lineage to an Intel CPU over a decade old.
Personally I think it's a credit to Intel that the PPro has scaled from a massive, hot, "slow" 150Mhz server CPU all the way through low-power dual-core laptop chips up to a top-end quad-core CPU. AMD has been through three new CPU designs in the same timeframe and only been unquestionably faster for maybe 50% of it.
Angelo95210
Mar 9, 05:48 AM
they aren't
Could you elaborate on this? Useless reply at this point...
Actually there are some pretty innovative companies around. We here on this forum are just a bit too much focused on Apple. Apple is good to innovate on design, not that much on technology. There are some companies like Archos, Sony, LG that release interesting products too.
Could you elaborate on this? Useless reply at this point...
Actually there are some pretty innovative companies around. We here on this forum are just a bit too much focused on Apple. Apple is good to innovate on design, not that much on technology. There are some companies like Archos, Sony, LG that release interesting products too.
tvguru
Sep 12, 08:30 AM
if there are new product announcements as everyone believes to be the case, the store will have to be updated as well as the iTunes store.
does anyone remember how long the apple store's down prior to new products being listed?
If I remember correctly about an hour before showtime. Hey cool I made a pun.
does anyone remember how long the apple store's down prior to new products being listed?
If I remember correctly about an hour before showtime. Hey cool I made a pun.
butaro
Nov 24, 07:03 PM
better not be, i almost dropped some cashhhhhhhhhhhh
saunders45
Sep 8, 10:27 AM
So Saunders then what you're saying is that to believe in god you can't swear? He's not sending mixed messages because his songs aren't saying ******* god.
And just so you know, compared to any other big rappers right now, Kanye doesn't swear at all. He has the cleanest lyrics of any of the current big rappers because he isn't gangsta rap.
While I do agree that he isn't a thug/gangsta rapper, which is a good thing, I still believe he is sending mixed messages. He is trying to portay himself as though he believes/follows Jesus, and yet is swearing......
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
And just so you know, compared to any other big rappers right now, Kanye doesn't swear at all. He has the cleanest lyrics of any of the current big rappers because he isn't gangsta rap.
While I do agree that he isn't a thug/gangsta rapper, which is a good thing, I still believe he is sending mixed messages. He is trying to portay himself as though he believes/follows Jesus, and yet is swearing......
Do I believe in God? ******* yeah!!!
Sounds kind of stupid to me........ Mixing God and swearing....
0 comments:
Post a Comment