moderately
Apr 30, 10:19 AM
Agreed. I thought we were well past the days when computer applications had to emulate their analog compatriots. Leather, wood, paper, stone = not for computer UIs please! :mad:
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
Speaking of bad iCal, why is it I can't flip pages in the Calendar app on my iPad by actually flicking the pages (a la iBooks)? Instead I have to tap on arrow buttons? What's up with that???
I like this; it shows the world is still in motion. "apps shouldn't look like their analog compatriots but they should behave like them. "
quagmire
Aug 3, 08:44 PM
Never going to happen car dealer have bribe our politcal leaders to the point that nothing will ever be passes against the
As it stands manufactures can not legally open and run there own dealership and the laws make it very difficult for a manufacture to remove an agreement to sell to one dealler ship
I know that and it sucks because all the blame for one bad dealer experience goes to the manufactures.
Dealerships have way too much power. You can thank them for the Pontiac G3 and G5.
As it stands manufactures can not legally open and run there own dealership and the laws make it very difficult for a manufacture to remove an agreement to sell to one dealler ship
I know that and it sucks because all the blame for one bad dealer experience goes to the manufactures.
Dealerships have way too much power. You can thank them for the Pontiac G3 and G5.
Illuminated
Apr 7, 04:32 PM
Just got a bamboo plant for my desk...not the vase/pebbles...
also a red velvet whoopie pie, and a vanilla cake whoopie pie..
Both things from Reading Terminal Market in Philly...:D
also a red velvet whoopie pie, and a vanilla cake whoopie pie..
Both things from Reading Terminal Market in Philly...:D
zedsdead
Apr 29, 03:51 PM
Bummer, I really liked the iOS-style scrollbars. My favorite thing about Lion is the inverted scrolling. It feels more natural on a touchpad once you get used to it.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
I agree. I am using scroll reverser on Snow Leopard right now and enjoy it a lot. After about a day or two it becomes more natural.
gravytrain84
Mar 17, 01:19 PM
Yeah that employee probably lost his job dude.
Hopefully. He's obviously a moron
Hopefully. He's obviously a moron
kdarling
May 2, 07:44 PM
I really don't see the point. If you wanted to install your own "homebrew" apps without using the App Store, you can already do so by using "ad-hoc deployment" or joining the Enterprise Developer Program. Either option makes rolling out your own apps simple.
1) I think you're really missing one whole point of jailbreaking, which is to allow officially unsupported modifications such as widgets on the lockscreen.
2) The Dev Programs cost money, which a lot of home developers don't want to spend. Even personal ad-hoc is going to cost $100 a year just to allow an app to run on your own and friends' devices.
After five years, that'll be $500 just to keep your app(s) running, something that costs almost nothing to do on other systems for eternity... not to mention the pain of keeping dev profiles up to date on your friends' devices.
As pointed out before, that's one reason why the Apple App Store is so full of junk. Many home developers post their personal apps in the Store just so they won't have to babysit the devices of everyone they know.
1) I think you're really missing one whole point of jailbreaking, which is to allow officially unsupported modifications such as widgets on the lockscreen.
2) The Dev Programs cost money, which a lot of home developers don't want to spend. Even personal ad-hoc is going to cost $100 a year just to allow an app to run on your own and friends' devices.
After five years, that'll be $500 just to keep your app(s) running, something that costs almost nothing to do on other systems for eternity... not to mention the pain of keeping dev profiles up to date on your friends' devices.
As pointed out before, that's one reason why the Apple App Store is so full of junk. Many home developers post their personal apps in the Store just so they won't have to babysit the devices of everyone they know.
Night Spring
Apr 21, 01:05 PM
That isn't it, because I can change the scores up or down (by TWO points) at will.
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
Hmmm, well, when *I* do it, it goes up 2 but down 1!
andyblac
Aug 9, 11:58 AM
UK specs have been updated.
:), just ordered myself a Mac Pro 2.66 with 20" ACD. shipping on the 15th August :D
:), just ordered myself a Mac Pro 2.66 with 20" ACD. shipping on the 15th August :D
beestigbeestje
Apr 15, 03:20 PM
yop, definitly fake..
Calidude
Apr 15, 10:00 PM
I'm beginning to think that on a lonely, quiet Friday night this is the most action that Calidude can hope for.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
I'm 50 ... and married, Calidude.
What's your excuse?
Pffft I'm practically married myself. Live-in gf. Friday nights are a thing of the past.
dalvin200
Jan 12, 03:53 AM
Damn... that pretty much sucked for the Moto presentation..
made the company look like a fool.. :eek:
wonder what the outcome of this will be....
and such a small apology on the giz article...
as for banning from macworld - well, the guy who actually pulled the trigger on the tv remote thingy should get banned for real!
made the company look like a fool.. :eek:
wonder what the outcome of this will be....
and such a small apology on the giz article...
as for banning from macworld - well, the guy who actually pulled the trigger on the tv remote thingy should get banned for real!
CalBoy
Apr 15, 04:21 PM
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
Sister#39;s Shoulder Tattoo by
Tattoo Expo - Tatuaje - In
Cherry Blossom Shoulder Tattoo
Shoulder Tattoo for Girls
Shoulder tattoos for men
Well actually we know the TSA methods don't work because both of the incidents were from European airports that mirror what the TSA does. Added to the number of weapons that make it through TSA checkpoints, it's easy to see that the TSA does in fact not work to the extent that it is expected to.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds.
I understood your rather simplistic attempt at game theory just fine. The problem remains that one side is not a rational actor. The command portion of terrorists have virtually nothing to lose with a botched attempt, and neither does the fanatic patsy. A 50/50 ratio isn't good enough for our security because the downside for both command and patsy are much smaller than the upside (from their perspective). The chances of failure need to be much higher in order to effectively deter terrorists.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
Sacrificing these things is appropriate when there is a tangible gain. There hasn't been much of a tangible gain with TSA, and this is coming from the head of Israeli Security. We're paying a lot and getting almost nothing in return. Every year there's a new "standard" put out there to make it seem like TSA is doing something, but time and again security experts have lambasted TSA and its efforts as a dog and pony show.
Your own opinion of flying should be an example of how ridiculous things have gotten. If people now become disgruntled and irritated every time they fly, for perhaps marginal gains in security, then our methods have failed.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
It is difficult to prove, but you can make an educated guess about what the cause is. Other than the correlational evidence, there is no other good data to suggest that TSA has actually been effective. In no field is correlation enough to establish anything but correlation.
I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
No, that's not how it works. If you want to assert your idea as correct, the burden is on you to show that it is correct. I am going to try to poke holes in your reasoning, and it's up to you to show that my criticisms are invalid on the bases of logic and evidence.
So far you've only cited correlation, which is not sufficient evidence for causation. You ignored my criticism based on military intervention, changing travel patterns, etc, and only want to trumpet your belief that correlation is enough. It's not. If you don't want to do more on Mac Rumors, then don't post anymore on this topic concerning this line of discussion.
mahonmeister
Oct 19, 02:45 PM
How does one go about buying stock? Never done it before, except in Economics class and I lost a bunch of fake stock. :p
I was thinking of buying a couple hundred bucks worth. Any advice? I just want to get my feet wet here and have some fun watching it go.
I was thinking of buying a couple hundred bucks worth. Any advice? I just want to get my feet wet here and have some fun watching it go.
kresh
Oct 28, 05:08 PM
Folks, I think you are misinterpreting what the OSx86 project is doing (at least in this case)...
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
Oh no, we get what they are doing (from the blog at OSx86):
"I had to remove a key which you need to reinsert if you want to run it GUI, due to legal issues. I called it the "magicpoem" maybe you got the point now. The hex for it is around so don't mail me about it, I want spread anything illegal.
I hope Steve, you enjoy this release, read my poem and think about it. The community was victorius again. Thanks to everyone who supported me and/or worked this out with me. Special thanks go to (in no special order):"
The whole point of them "running the rat-race for 2 days" was to make the kernel work with the express intent of running the Aqua GUI.
How much plainer does it need to be, their whole intent is to enable people to steal the GUI and enjoy the Apple OS X experience for free.
The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it? And you know where this path eventually leads to? WGA!! I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!
The OSx86 project is taking the Darwin and XNU source that Apple releases and making them so they can run on any x86 hardware. Basically, they are bringing back the functionality that Darwin and XNU had BEFORE Apple ported OSX to Intel, as the x86 versions of Darwin used to run on any x86 hardware until Apple started including a lot of EFI-specific commands (as well as some other things). If you download and compile the OSx86 source, you won't be able to get a full-fledged OSX user experience, because they have not circumvented Apple's TPM protections for the GUI. In order to get Aqua, you need to have the Aqua resource files (which you'd have to get from a OSX install CD), and you'd have to get the TPM keys, which would be illegal.
Also remember, Darwin and XNU does NOT EQUAL the full OSX user experience. Darwin/XNU is just a command-line operating system, as that is the only part that is open-source.
Oh no, we get what they are doing (from the blog at OSx86):
"I had to remove a key which you need to reinsert if you want to run it GUI, due to legal issues. I called it the "magicpoem" maybe you got the point now. The hex for it is around so don't mail me about it, I want spread anything illegal.
I hope Steve, you enjoy this release, read my poem and think about it. The community was victorius again. Thanks to everyone who supported me and/or worked this out with me. Special thanks go to (in no special order):"
The whole point of them "running the rat-race for 2 days" was to make the kernel work with the express intent of running the Aqua GUI.
How much plainer does it need to be, their whole intent is to enable people to steal the GUI and enjoy the Apple OS X experience for free.
The whole OSx86 project is a warez project hiding behind OSS. It just re-enforces the negative OSS image.
edit: They even have screenshots of Aqua running on an unknown Pentium 4 processor. If that's not promoting warez, what is it? And you know where this path eventually leads to? WGA!! I rue the day when Apple has to try and lock down OSX like MS is forced to attempt with Vista!
hypmatize
Apr 8, 07:42 PM
Return that. I'll send you my BD for free.
EDIT: Actually I just saw you are in Germany, you can still have it if you pay shipping, but I don't know if it will work because of country restrictions...
You can send it to me :D:o
EDIT: Actually I just saw you are in Germany, you can still have it if you pay shipping, but I don't know if it will work because of country restrictions...
You can send it to me :D:o
Nekbeth
Apr 27, 07:49 PM
No, self refers to the instance of the object that is executing the currently running code. It is highly context dependant.
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
Yes, that's what I though.. I was asked the meaning of "target", so I gave an example that target:self in NSTimer refer to the timer object (one of my quiz questions), but I can't remember his name.. said that "self" refer to the controller even inside the NSTimer. That's why I said.. interesting, I mean.. all of you should know what your talking about a lot more than me. (specially Master balamw)
About the timer and how it's going... well, I really don't have time to continue to make it work, so I have postpone it for a later update. I just need to learn more about it to fix it. But hey, If you feel like giving the answer, go ahead.
The only thing that I'm missing is to restart the Timer (or use another one). Invalidating my Timer only pauses it, even = nil or releasing it, my Timer just continues where it left.
I have found a tutorial where you can start, stop and reset a timer, I could use that, but I want a datePicker to select time and the tutorial doesn't show that. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmTQi98vec&feature=related
Please, let me know if you need more code of the timer. I think I have share all of it.
balamw;12474773]By this point I would have expected Nekbeth to have called us "Nazis" instead of "Pros" in order to satisfy Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).
B
that is the dumbest thing I've read in a while :p
Inside a method of your view controller, yes, self refers to your view controller. Inside a method in your view object, self refers to the view object. Inside the NSTimer object, self refers to the NSTimer.
Yes, that's what I though.. I was asked the meaning of "target", so I gave an example that target:self in NSTimer refer to the timer object (one of my quiz questions), but I can't remember his name.. said that "self" refer to the controller even inside the NSTimer. That's why I said.. interesting, I mean.. all of you should know what your talking about a lot more than me. (specially Master balamw)
About the timer and how it's going... well, I really don't have time to continue to make it work, so I have postpone it for a later update. I just need to learn more about it to fix it. But hey, If you feel like giving the answer, go ahead.
The only thing that I'm missing is to restart the Timer (or use another one). Invalidating my Timer only pauses it, even = nil or releasing it, my Timer just continues where it left.
I have found a tutorial where you can start, stop and reset a timer, I could use that, but I want a datePicker to select time and the tutorial doesn't show that. Here is the link: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5jmTQi98vec&feature=related
Please, let me know if you need more code of the timer. I think I have share all of it.
balamw;12474773]By this point I would have expected Nekbeth to have called us "Nazis" instead of "Pros" in order to satisfy Godwin's Law (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Godwin's_law).
B
that is the dumbest thing I've read in a while :p
jimbo999
Oct 3, 12:01 AM
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
B
Not "anything where encryption is used." But if something is encrypted, it can only be reverse engineered under 1201(f):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
Made with the Shoulder Tattoo
armor tattoo shoulder, armor
B
Not "anything where encryption is used." But if something is encrypted, it can only be reverse engineered under 1201(f):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
mackk
Oct 8, 10:07 AM
I live in NYC and work in Manhattan every day, and my coverage is fine.
But I have a 1st gen iPhone...
But I have a 1st gen iPhone...
icsedge1
Oct 10, 07:12 PM
nope, it just means they are iPods with video, as opposed to Video iPod. :rolleyes: it's got to be widescreen before i am going to watch tv on it.
Sedge
Sedge
Agent69
Nov 16, 07:16 PM
Is EFI supported on AMD based systems? If not, then this would be a problem, as Mac OS X currently requires it.
Lord Blackadder
May 6, 11:02 PM
Me too. I've shot guns and was once shot at, and live with someone who's shot guns and is disfigured by being shot pointblank. Both of us are for gun control.
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 use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
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.
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 use to be a everyday needed practical aspect of life (like cars still are today). They no longer are.
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.
dethmaShine
Apr 12, 06:16 PM
The Windows task bar is now by far much better with the addition of aero peek
Networking, its easier, faster and generally better then dealing with OSX
To some extent yes, but with expose in SL, Apple already implements the best of the dock features. But yes, hyperdock would be cool.
In general though I think apple needs to add features to catch up because MS has caught up and surpassed apple with windows 7.
Surpassed how? What are those features?
I guess the bottom line for me is this: I see Microsoft working hard and adding features, to improve the OS. I see apple working hard at making OSX act more like an iPad. I also think given that they really didn't provide the consumer features in 10.6 that they should have done that in 10.7. Its not like they didn't have time, given that SL was released in 2009
That's just your misconception. There's no harm in making it iPad like if it becomes better. If you think your status will go down because you're using a product that's a bit derived from a so called toy, then its up to you.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
Networking, its easier, faster and generally better then dealing with OSX
To some extent yes, but with expose in SL, Apple already implements the best of the dock features. But yes, hyperdock would be cool.
In general though I think apple needs to add features to catch up because MS has caught up and surpassed apple with windows 7.
Surpassed how? What are those features?
I guess the bottom line for me is this: I see Microsoft working hard and adding features, to improve the OS. I see apple working hard at making OSX act more like an iPad. I also think given that they really didn't provide the consumer features in 10.6 that they should have done that in 10.7. Its not like they didn't have time, given that SL was released in 2009
That's just your misconception. There's no harm in making it iPad like if it becomes better. If you think your status will go down because you're using a product that's a bit derived from a so called toy, then its up to you.
You really don't know what you are talking about.
qtx43
Apr 16, 01:22 PM
Miss by a mile pal. iPad has nothing to do with your opinion about iPhone. If you can't accept the fact that iPhone has re-invented the phone industry, a fact all the media accepted, then even a hundred iPad in your household couldn't save your ********. You know that if you're older than 15.Miss by a mile, indeed. You can't read.
toke lahti
Jan 15, 06:22 PM
To all of you saying Blu-Ray, do you really think Apple is going to put that in their computers if they are trying to get digital distribution to work? I just don't see it happening.
Apple also claims to be pro choise for pro video content creation.
Can you imagine pro video without blu-ray in 2008?
Once again pro choise is no choise...
Next dissapointment time will be wwdc at summer?
Maybe they don't update xraid to make demand for TimeCapsule also ;)
Apple also claims to be pro choise for pro video content creation.
Can you imagine pro video without blu-ray in 2008?
Once again pro choise is no choise...
Next dissapointment time will be wwdc at summer?
Maybe they don't update xraid to make demand for TimeCapsule also ;)
No comments:
Post a Comment