Exactly what we're trying to do, 1% market share in 2008, 10 million units and we'll go from there. MacWorld 2007 Keynote
You're seeing things, BTW. I can't have made up any facts because I never presented anything as fact. Listen, you Schmock. First you make up "facts" about iPod sales being driven by the iPod Mini, that you make up facts about Jobs making sales predictions for the iPod, and now you completely act like you never did. You say you had this argument 20 times before? And after losing 20 times, you still make up stuff and pretend you won?
Well, I'd be quite willing to bet your subconscious recognised that you've made an error long before (relatively speaking) your conscious mind sees the error on screen, but I doubt you'll agree since you seem to have made your mind up.
You mean quite unlike somebody as open-minded as you, of course.
Every time I've seen it demo'ed pressing "home" brings up the standard 4 options at the bottom of the screen. "Phone" is always lower left. After that Favorites is two over.... and so on.
How do you know how far without any physical feedback ?
You mean apart from the width of the iPhone? Or are you claiming that it grows and shrinks?
Now, go look up the 1G and 2G iPod sales in the 2 years before they introduced the much cheaper iPod Mini. Do you mean the numbers before Windows compatibility or after? What about the fact that the Mini came out 8 months after the 3rd Generation iPod? Or that the first time they sold over a million a quarter was after the 4th Gen came out, long after the mini?
What the hell does "low bitrate" even mean for a "lossless" codec? If it's lossless then ISTM that by definition the bitrate is just whatever it needs to be. The output should be exactly the same as the input, the encoding perfect. It takes however many bits it takes. If you can cut the bitrate down and suffer any change to the output, then it's not a lossless codec. Bitrate means bits per time-interval, the fact that you seem to think it means audio quality notwithstanding. IOW "low bitrate" for a "lossless" codec means higher compression.
Look you dimwit, the whole point of this was that it isn't about some guy on slashdot saying he can (in a superior tone) tell the difference between 128 and 256. Exactly, the point was that from "To our subjects' ears, there wasn't a tremendous distinction between the tracks encoded at 128Kb/s and those encoded at 256Kb/s" they concluded "We'd be more excited if Apple increased the bit rate even further" - because obviously they think they could tell the difference between 256 and >256.
I think some were expecting fire, wrestling, and a Mortal Kombat style finish. It's not the job of these head honchos (even though Gates isn't really chair anymore) to bash the other guy. Especially not in public. . They have been spoiled by Linus, RMS, and Theo de Rath.
Right. Now we have that ever-so-helpful "you need to restart your computer" thing in four different languages. It doesn't even mention an error anymore. So simply restarting and hoping the user thinks he had a brown-out is better? Anyway, look in/Library/Logs/panic.log if you want to know more.
2. if patents are only 20 years (i thought it was meant to be 17 years), and the "invention" was in the 1960s, why is the patent only expiring now? this would, on the fact of it, appear to be an ever-greening abuse of the patent system, to extend a 20 year patent to approx 40 years.
And in this case, it might not have been a bad call. However, the fact still remains that, instead of spurring on the invention of consumer-level infra-red grills, this patent held back development until such a time that the patent was no longer an issue.
It did? The patent expired in 2000, and the consumer grills only appear now. This had nothing to do with the patent, but witht the materials.
But original infrared burners -- and some offered now to consumers -- contained ceramic material that was hard to clean, prone to flare-ups and fragile, Schwing said.
Read up the MOAB. The MOAB project was started by security researchers who decided to release their findings publicly (and not contact Apple beforehand giving them time to fix the vulnerability before it becomes publicly known) because they got mad when Apple outright denied some existing vulnerabilities they found. Security researchers? Do security researchers apply an exploit that crashes the visitors browser to their website just to prove the exploit exists (commenting in the HTML source "Never use the macbook at bed again when browsing the MoAB or you will fry your balls, looper"? Maybe. Do they serve animal porn pictures to those who try to access the URLs of future reports? Hardly. Do they claim that somebody tried to hack them when that somebody reports on their actions and readers do visit their site? Errm, no. Do they try to prove that by posting logs that prove they are wrong? Hell no.
You are incorrect. Apple has a terrible track record when it comes to handling vulnerabilities when compared to the other guy. Sure. Care to back that up? Not by quoting "security researchers", please. Why don't you start her: Secuny Vulnerability Report: Apple Macintosh OS X vs. Vulnerability Report: Microsoft Windows XP Home Edition (too bad they split up all the Windows versions).
There is no magic built within networking which makes a distinction between local networks and remote networks. The computer makes two distinctions: a LOCAL USER, meaning someone logged in to that machine, and a REMOTE USER, someone who is accessing that location from anywhere except the local machine.
That you don't know this fact is very telling about your knowledge level. Bwahhahahahhaha!
Unless you are a master hacker,you are nothing but an anonymous idiot. So put up, and tell us how you get a UPnP protocol packet to a Mac across the internet.
*Please*, no more, "Oh my god! OS X isn't bulletproof! Teh shock!" 'news' items. Whoa! You're completely missing the point.
The point is that Mac users are smug. They generally believe that they have better platform than Windows users, and it is the community's responsibility to continually let them know that their platform is, in fact, not perfect. And it's our smug responsibility to tell you that it would still better than Windows even if it was just as vulnerable - which it isn't.
Here's a hint: "lets remote users execute arbitary code"... I think we can safely label that one an "exploit", in your terminology. Welcome to the real world, pal. Well, if the "remote user" wouldn't actually have to be "an attacker on the local network".
how do we know that these kids wont turn out to be analogous to the kids being fogged by DDT?
You need to provide a cite for any human effects of DDT exposure. The kids suffering right now are those with malaria, which could be counteracted by light local application of DDT in areas where people live (not the widespread spraying that created problems in the past.)
A complete ban of DDT has caused much human suffering. Let's assume that DDT's effect on human health is negligible, let's further say that the known drastic effect on animal life is not important. That leaves the fact that DDT was and still is legaly used in many countries to fight Malaria - and has often become ineffective because the mosquitos became resistant.
Let me guess, you got your "knowledge" from State of Fear?
Now, I think this is a completely crappy way to run a network, and I think we just need to get rid of the idea of firewalls completely (at least as a generic cureall, I'm all for retaining them for specific applications); security needs to be at the client level, not at the network-gateway level; as more and more devices become mobile, they cannot and should not ever assume that their local network is secure. Some people actually use their internal network for something else but a way to go on the internet. Perfect security on the client side won't save them from a DDOS swamping their network - a gateway-firewall will.
Depressing to see that you got upmodded as informative while we all know that parody is fair use and that the ad is clearly designed not to confuse the consumer (or do you put your earplugs in your vagina?). But on the other hand, I am also wondering why Apple chose to sue *this* parody over all the others that are out there. Or maybe because it is an actual advert for an actual product, and thus not a "parody", but a "knock-off".
You reminded me of this: if you buy this item, you will have to buy an iPod too. So really, Apple is using his penis too much in his thinking activities... This product is actually profitable for him. I guess sometimes your penis is more important than your profit (eat that, Chomsky!). See, you just showed Apple is right about possible confusion - you don't need an iPod to use this thing. Your Honour, the "idiot in a hurry" has spoken.
Yes, every Muslim _is_ part of the problem. If they're not doing anything to stop their fellow Muslims from doing things like this, or "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation, or... then they're part of the problem. Something about, "No man is an island." And you as a Christian are a problem because you pretend that "honor killings," or genitalia mutilation are specific to Muslims and not also common among Christians in the same regions.
Actually, "only" abouta third. "Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
Slashdot Mirror
You're seeing things, BTW. I can't have made up any facts because I never presented anything as fact. Listen, you Schmock. First you make up "facts" about iPod sales being driven by the iPod Mini, that you make up facts about Jobs making sales predictions for the iPod, and now you completely act like you never did. You say you had this argument 20 times before? And after losing 20 times, you still make up stuff and pretend you won?
OK, what were Job's predictions of iPod sales for the first year? Or did you make that up like all the other facts from your post?
Well, I'd be quite willing to bet your subconscious recognised that you've made an error long before (relatively speaking) your conscious mind sees the error on screen, but I doubt you'll agree since you seem to have made your mind up.
You mean quite unlike somebody as open-minded as you, of course.Every time I've seen it demo'ed pressing "home" brings up the standard 4 options at the bottom of the screen. "Phone" is always lower left. After that Favorites is two over.... and so on.
How do you know how far without any physical feedback ?
You mean apart from the width of the iPhone? Or are you claiming that it grows and shrinks?Now, go look up the 1G and 2G iPod sales in the 2 years before they introduced the much cheaper iPod Mini. Do you mean the numbers before Windows compatibility or after? What about the fact that the Mini came out 8 months after the 3rd Generation iPod? Or that the first time they sold over a million a quarter was after the 4th Gen came out, long after the mini?
But then, the licensing of the production to its Commrade States hardly means the USSR didn't keep its IP.
Because you didn't read the article. The patent expired in 2000. And has nothing to do with an "infra-red lamp". http://www.google.com/patents?vid=USPAT4321857
It did? The patent expired in 2000, and the consumer grills only appear now. This had nothing to do with the patent, but witht the materials.
That you don't know this fact is very telling about your knowledge level. Bwahhahahahhaha!
Unless you are a master hacker,you are nothing but an anonymous idiot. So put up, and tell us how you get a UPnP protocol packet to a Mac across the internet.
Wikipedia.
The point is that Mac users are smug. They generally believe that they have better platform than Windows users, and it is the community's responsibility to continually let them know that their platform is, in fact, not perfect. And it's our smug responsibility to tell you that it would still better than Windows even if it was just as vulnerable - which it isn't.
You need to provide a cite for any human effects of DDT exposure. The kids suffering right now are those with malaria, which could be counteracted by light local application of DDT in areas where people live (not the widespread spraying that created problems in the past.)
A complete ban of DDT has caused much human suffering. Let's assume that DDT's effect on human health is negligible, let's further say that the known drastic effect on animal life is not important. That leaves the fact that DDT was and still is legaly used in many countries to fight Malaria - and has often become ineffective because the mosquitos became resistant.
Let me guess, you got your "knowledge" from State of Fear?
http://www.stripes.com/07/may07/MHAT_IV_Report_17N OV06.pdf
Actually, "only" abouta third. "Only 47 percent of soldiers and only 38 percent of Marines agreed that noncombatants should be treated with dignity and respect."
Yet for some reason only one party has used nuclear bombs as weapons od war.