Montie Da Champ
Jun 28, 04:48 PM
I have an 8gb iPhone...
What do you have?
What do you have?
kainjow
Dec 17, 04:26 PM
Yep me too, see http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=164522
AoWolf
Oct 5, 05:01 PM
Excellent sounding. I must admit I like vistas tab system (clicking the box to make a new tab. Not that there is a problem with a ?T but I sometimes I want to click.
mizzytheboy
Apr 26, 08:34 AM
pes2011, real tennis Fight Night...:D
more...
Soulfly22583
Apr 1, 06:32 AM
http://i.imgur.com/xYJ0W.jpg
Another Slightly Stoopid shot this month
Another Slightly Stoopid shot this month
coder12
Apr 25, 12:11 AM
A disgrace on so many levels.
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
Disgrace has never been so beautiful.:p
more...
psychometry
Oct 5, 05:00 PM
This is my first post. It takes a lot for me to stop being a lurker, but the idea that any user can resize a textarea on a site I design, dynamically redrawing the page, is among the dumbest ideas I've ever heard. This will break valid page layouts in new and unheard of ways. Designers make form elements a size and shape for a reason.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
I look forward to finding a way using JavaScript to disable that feature the day that browser is released.
TwoSocEmBoppers
Dec 25, 04:12 PM
http://farm6.static.flickr.com/5004/5290840511_9545941f54.jpg (http://www.flickr.com/photos/heyjuliette/5290840511/)
Are those Sprinkles (http://www.sprinkles.com/) cupcakes?!
Are those Sprinkles (http://www.sprinkles.com/) cupcakes?!
more...
Sarahlau
Apr 21, 04:36 AM
This is an incredible product for iPhone 4 which you would hardly believe it! You can never imagine how amazing it looks and how powerful it is!
you can find www.two-phone.com
you can find www.two-phone.com
Sydde
Mar 20, 10:41 PM
No. If you take a life, you get to sit in a small dark room for 23,5 out of 24 hours of each day for the rest of your life. You will not be able to kill yourself, you will have to endure the absolute solitude. (EDIT: This is pretty much only for premeditated stuff, if you ask me)
But what does "premeditated" mean? If I grab a gun, walk across the street and dispatch my neighbor for no apparent reason, was that premeditated? I had to think about it beforehand, from the point of picking up the gun. How about a poker game, where one of the players gets pissed off and kills one of the others for apparently cheating? At some point, the killer had to decide to do it. Given no personal threat at hand, there is a decision point. Right up to the consummation of the act, the killer has the opportunity to decide not to end a life. Be it a month ago, working up an elaborate plan, 5 minutes beforehand, or in the instant the finger squeezes the trigger, premeditation accompanies any deliberate murder. If it is not an accident, it is premeditated, to what extent that is makes little/no difference.
Despite what you, I, or a victim's family might want, incarceration is not punishment. Incarceration is the protection of the public.
Because criminal punishment is simply ineffective. From a perspective of behavioral science, negative reinforcement only works if it is directly and irrevocably linked directly to the action. When the dynamic involves avoiding being caught rather than avoiding the action itself, the relationship between action and consequence breaks down, rendering punishment useless at best. As a result, the only real punishment factor in our justice system is retribution, which I think is a net negative.
Prisons, therefore, have no business trying to mete out punishment by making convicts miserable. It serves no useful purpose and I believe is actually counterproductive in that it breeds resentment toward society in the heart of the prisoner. Everything we do to make the prisoner (who may be released at some point) miserable reduces the likelihood that they can successfully rejoin society. The more problematic ex-cons are, the more money we waste on the system.
Now, I also believe that there are individuals who are wholly incapable of being rehabilitated. Some will simply have to spend their lives behind bars because they are too unstable. In some cases, psychiatric treatment might help, but supervision would be called for. If a fraction of the population can realistically be expected to remain confined for life, we could at least consider setting up facilities in which they would be able to do enough work to make up for their expense. The justice system desperately needs to address its impracticalities.
But what does "premeditated" mean? If I grab a gun, walk across the street and dispatch my neighbor for no apparent reason, was that premeditated? I had to think about it beforehand, from the point of picking up the gun. How about a poker game, where one of the players gets pissed off and kills one of the others for apparently cheating? At some point, the killer had to decide to do it. Given no personal threat at hand, there is a decision point. Right up to the consummation of the act, the killer has the opportunity to decide not to end a life. Be it a month ago, working up an elaborate plan, 5 minutes beforehand, or in the instant the finger squeezes the trigger, premeditation accompanies any deliberate murder. If it is not an accident, it is premeditated, to what extent that is makes little/no difference.
Despite what you, I, or a victim's family might want, incarceration is not punishment. Incarceration is the protection of the public.
Because criminal punishment is simply ineffective. From a perspective of behavioral science, negative reinforcement only works if it is directly and irrevocably linked directly to the action. When the dynamic involves avoiding being caught rather than avoiding the action itself, the relationship between action and consequence breaks down, rendering punishment useless at best. As a result, the only real punishment factor in our justice system is retribution, which I think is a net negative.
Prisons, therefore, have no business trying to mete out punishment by making convicts miserable. It serves no useful purpose and I believe is actually counterproductive in that it breeds resentment toward society in the heart of the prisoner. Everything we do to make the prisoner (who may be released at some point) miserable reduces the likelihood that they can successfully rejoin society. The more problematic ex-cons are, the more money we waste on the system.
Now, I also believe that there are individuals who are wholly incapable of being rehabilitated. Some will simply have to spend their lives behind bars because they are too unstable. In some cases, psychiatric treatment might help, but supervision would be called for. If a fraction of the population can realistically be expected to remain confined for life, we could at least consider setting up facilities in which they would be able to do enough work to make up for their expense. The justice system desperately needs to address its impracticalities.
more...
jessica.
Dec 24, 10:14 PM
Best ice cream maker ever. :D
Really because I was told by someone at William sonoma today to skip it ($80) and buy their $60 cuisinart. He said it doesn't stay cold long enough to firm up.
Really because I was told by someone at William sonoma today to skip it ($80) and buy their $60 cuisinart. He said it doesn't stay cold long enough to firm up.
untypoed
Apr 11, 04:36 AM
[Not going to quote the entire 3 pictures]
Who's ass is that?
Who's ass is that?
more...
ranviper
Apr 5, 12:38 PM
Wow, that is fricken hilarious!
chinoky
Dec 18, 08:09 AM
come on guys i need help
more...
Lau
Dec 18, 06:22 PM
2000000 posts! But when? iCal has the answer....:D
Rasmuskl
Jun 28, 10:36 AM
uhm, Hi,
I was sorta of wondering. Is there anyway to make a completly seperate Ical window, so that you have to Icals, not just one Ical with different color options.
I know this can be done by creating a new login, but i wanted to see if it can be done for the same login.
thanks
I was sorta of wondering. Is there anyway to make a completly seperate Ical window, so that you have to Icals, not just one Ical with different color options.
I know this can be done by creating a new login, but i wanted to see if it can be done for the same login.
thanks
more...
thelordnyax
May 31, 04:03 AM
Why does this forum still exist?
iphone 3G Launch Meetups...not happenning anymore
iphone 3G Launch Meetups...not happenning anymore
mrgreen4242
Nov 29, 03:10 PM
Your argument is kind of self-annihilating:
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
You say competition is tough... implying that there are a multitude of capable actors. i.e. Supply is high. This, in turn, would imply that capable actors are (or should be) a dime a dozen. However, Hollywood acts as though the A-List is all there is... which, if doing so, constricts supply to a significantly smaller population, therefore creating an artificially high demand for which they, subsequently, have to pay through the nose for... which WE now have to pay through the nose for. And for what? For a non-sensical, elitist, Movie Star ecosystem (an industry which alone brings in millions, if not billions).
If there are as many struggling good actors as you say there are (and I hope there are), I for one would LOVE to see them. I'm sick of the same 8 actors... Ben Stiller, Brad Pitt, Angelina Jolie, Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Vince Vaughn, Steve Carell, Johnny Depp... At least one of these seem to be in 90% of films these days. Some fresh blood would be nice... and easier on the checkbook.
-Clive
Juat to play devils advocate, nearly all the names on your list are relative newcomers to the "A-List". Excepting Pitt, Roberts, and MAYBE Depp, none of those people were big in the '90's. They did mostly smaller budget, less successful films. Up till the mid-90's Pitt was in only handful of OK movies, and really didn't get HUGE 'till after Fight Club or Interview with a Vampire.
What has Julie Roberts been in lately? Not seen her around in a year or two, in anything big at least. Depp was doing TV through the middle of the last decade, and only got MEGA famous in the late 90's.
Sure, those people are big ATM, but they weren't 10 years ago and they won't be in 10 years either. Yes, Hollywood relies to heavily on a big name to sell a crappy product, but they DO rotate those big names somewhat frequently.
Also, while paying someone, say, $20million for a movie is pretty nuts, there's a few things to consider. One, some movies NEED to give you a reason to go see it; doesn't mean they're BAD movies but more that they are a hard sell. Two, that's a fairly small portion of the budget. Let's say we can make a movie for $100m and we pay Tom Cruise $25m to be in it. We could pay some smaller, but equally talented unkown actor a mere $1m to do the same job.
So $100m cost vs. $81m cost. $81m is still a LOT of money to invest in something (and lets face it, movies are simply an investment). Spending a "little" more on Cruise isn't a bad insurance policy for your investment, especially if you (a studio) are doing 10 major movies this year, representing a billion dollars all together.
So, while I'm not trying to defend the studios business methods or choices, I can certainly see why they make them.
ECUpirate44
Apr 6, 03:24 PM
Jailbreak (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IOS_jailbreaking)
Happybunny
Apr 11, 04:13 AM
For the iMac
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Screenshot2011-04-11at105954AM.png
MBA
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Screenshot2011-03-02at15219PM.png
iPhone
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/photo-3.png
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Screenshot2011-04-11at105954AM.png
MBA
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/Screenshot2011-03-02at15219PM.png
iPhone
http://i694.photobucket.com/albums/vv310/happybunny2_photos/photo-3.png
MaxBurn
May 5, 06:07 AM
Duno about that, all i know is with a tethered jb its possible to have cydia and jb apps greyed out.
Not sure what would happen to grey out a native app.
If it happens again look around in settings and see if something is up with the phone or baseband section?
Not sure what would happen to grey out a native app.
If it happens again look around in settings and see if something is up with the phone or baseband section?
Macaddicttt
Sep 24, 08:26 PM
Gotcha.
But there are many many reasons they would have a problem with that. The most predominant reason would probably be... Dare I say it... Religion.
Religion doesn't even have to be a factor. Perhaps parents see the ideal of only having sex with one person in your entire life, of keeping sex as a complete giving of yourself reserved for the one man or woman you want to spend the rest of your life with. Perhaps parents see that hormones are not the best thing to follow and that relieving physical desires might have more emotional or psychological effects than a teenager would realize. Parents have the advantage of not being influenced by the hormones that teenagers have and can think rationally about the situation. Just because you're 18 doesn't mean that you know what's best for yourself and perhaps your parents can impart on you their experience.
I mean, if a person is an adult at 18, at the age of 18, you have absolutely no experience at being an adult. Being 18 doesn't mean you have 18 years of experience under your belt. Being 18 means you are learning to be able to make your own decisions now and should ask the advice of those who are older than you and had the chance to live more.
Haven't you guys seen those movies where at the end the old ladies' man says how he never was happy and wish he'd settled down with a woman he loved? :p :D
But there are many many reasons they would have a problem with that. The most predominant reason would probably be... Dare I say it... Religion.
Religion doesn't even have to be a factor. Perhaps parents see the ideal of only having sex with one person in your entire life, of keeping sex as a complete giving of yourself reserved for the one man or woman you want to spend the rest of your life with. Perhaps parents see that hormones are not the best thing to follow and that relieving physical desires might have more emotional or psychological effects than a teenager would realize. Parents have the advantage of not being influenced by the hormones that teenagers have and can think rationally about the situation. Just because you're 18 doesn't mean that you know what's best for yourself and perhaps your parents can impart on you their experience.
I mean, if a person is an adult at 18, at the age of 18, you have absolutely no experience at being an adult. Being 18 doesn't mean you have 18 years of experience under your belt. Being 18 means you are learning to be able to make your own decisions now and should ask the advice of those who are older than you and had the chance to live more.
Haven't you guys seen those movies where at the end the old ladies' man says how he never was happy and wish he'd settled down with a woman he loved? :p :D
phillipjfry
Jan 9, 09:59 PM
So I'm sitting here watching Simpsons DVD and listening to the keynotes in the background (for the first time) and about 4:30 minutes into the first video on the apple website, he says something that I had to replay over and over just to see if I heard it correctly.
About 4:28 minutes into the video he says
"2007, is going to be a great year for the Mac....but this is all we're gonna talk about the Mac today. We're gonna move on to some other things, over the course of the next several months we're gonna roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac. But for today, we're gonna move on."
I was glue to my screen during the time macrumorslive.com was up (and seriously guys, congrats on the photo and keynote updates by the minute, I would never personally take on such a task). Here is what I think threw everybody off into thinking that Mac and software was going to be talked about today in the keynotes:
9:18 am we're only talking about the mac today
which can be interpreted both ways. So yes things are going to be coming up very soon for the Mac, and maybe even a separate meeting or interview or some way to get to the masses that the new product lines are up. But it seemed like today's keynotes (and my first one I've ever followed) were all about the future of Apple (both financially and technologically). It was about Apple making its own little "footprint".
I think splitting up the product introductions was a better idea than one might figure. Snag some people into buying iPhone, AppleTV, and when the dust settles from the sales, allow people to regroup, pay off the credit card, and throw out a new/upgraded line of products, just in time to wipe the floor with Vista! Spring its just a little more than 2 months away. It took me all day to calm down after not hearing about Leopard in the keynotes, but this has to be why they didn't mention this. Hell, Macworld was on CNN tonight because of the iPhone, not because of Leopard or AppleTV or vPod. After word gets around by this CONFIRMED Apple product, people are going to take a serious look at other Apple product lines and see what else is to offer. That's when they should upgrade everything else, within the next two months.
Do I have Apple marketing tactics pegged or what? :)
About 4:28 minutes into the video he says
"2007, is going to be a great year for the Mac....but this is all we're gonna talk about the Mac today. We're gonna move on to some other things, over the course of the next several months we're gonna roll out some awesome stuff for the Mac. But for today, we're gonna move on."
I was glue to my screen during the time macrumorslive.com was up (and seriously guys, congrats on the photo and keynote updates by the minute, I would never personally take on such a task). Here is what I think threw everybody off into thinking that Mac and software was going to be talked about today in the keynotes:
9:18 am we're only talking about the mac today
which can be interpreted both ways. So yes things are going to be coming up very soon for the Mac, and maybe even a separate meeting or interview or some way to get to the masses that the new product lines are up. But it seemed like today's keynotes (and my first one I've ever followed) were all about the future of Apple (both financially and technologically). It was about Apple making its own little "footprint".
I think splitting up the product introductions was a better idea than one might figure. Snag some people into buying iPhone, AppleTV, and when the dust settles from the sales, allow people to regroup, pay off the credit card, and throw out a new/upgraded line of products, just in time to wipe the floor with Vista! Spring its just a little more than 2 months away. It took me all day to calm down after not hearing about Leopard in the keynotes, but this has to be why they didn't mention this. Hell, Macworld was on CNN tonight because of the iPhone, not because of Leopard or AppleTV or vPod. After word gets around by this CONFIRMED Apple product, people are going to take a serious look at other Apple product lines and see what else is to offer. That's when they should upgrade everything else, within the next two months.
Do I have Apple marketing tactics pegged or what? :)
chrono1081
Dec 27, 06:15 PM
Microsoft is rock solid?
Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.
I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.
Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.
+1 At least you were yanked of bed for legit reasons and not exchange servers going down for no reason...I should say no hardware reason....MS couldn't even figure out the issue :/ Thankfully I don't work there anymore so someone else gets to have the fun :P
As for MS not being serious about security I completely agree. The mere fact that a malware can make its files invisible to the whole OS including command prompt enrages me, especially when I plug the infected drive into a linux or mac machine and can manually see and delete said file.
Let's see, as a 15 year IT worker who has supported many MS environments, I have been yanked out of bed at 2am 3 times because "new" viruses that the Anti-Virus software didn't even know about, had brought down hundreds of machines on the network, and had even brought down routers and switches.
I think the $100,000 we might spend on IPS/IDS blades for all the core switches to analyze the traffic coming from Windows machines might be better spent if we just put Macs in the network and maybe stick a free Snort box in there as an after thought.
Companies spend millions just keeping their Windows machines in line -thank about it. MS has never been serious about security.
+1 At least you were yanked of bed for legit reasons and not exchange servers going down for no reason...I should say no hardware reason....MS couldn't even figure out the issue :/ Thankfully I don't work there anymore so someone else gets to have the fun :P
As for MS not being serious about security I completely agree. The mere fact that a malware can make its files invisible to the whole OS including command prompt enrages me, especially when I plug the infected drive into a linux or mac machine and can manually see and delete said file.
