Clive At Five
Oct 19, 01:54 PM
1) MacBook nano: 10.6" widescreen, metallic finish in nano colors, and thinner and more rounded than the current MacBooks (though the slimness will be limited by the optical drive, unless they get rid of an internal optical drive which I don't think Apple will do).
This would be rockin', though who knows whether or not it'll happen.
I think they could ditch the optical drive as long as they shipped with a 2GB (4 or 8 maybe *shrugs*) flash drive (which magnetically attached to the side of the compupter ;) ).
Now THAT would be worth investing in, hehe.
-Clive
P.S. I think "MacBookMini" flows better... but Apple pretty much abandoned the well-flowing names with "MacBookPro" :rolleyes: .
This would be rockin', though who knows whether or not it'll happen.
I think they could ditch the optical drive as long as they shipped with a 2GB (4 or 8 maybe *shrugs*) flash drive (which magnetically attached to the side of the compupter ;) ).
Now THAT would be worth investing in, hehe.
-Clive
P.S. I think "MacBookMini" flows better... but Apple pretty much abandoned the well-flowing names with "MacBookPro" :rolleyes: .
![map of west africa with countries. [edit] Countries](http://wikitravel.org/upload/shared//thumb/2/27/West_Africa_regions_map.png/500px-West_Africa_regions_map.png "[edit] Countries")
CaoCao
Apr 22, 08:20 PM
You mean because they passed laws against homosexuality?
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome� and in Athens, too!� and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
homosexuality≠bisexuality
While I find that a little simplistic, if you really want to run with that theory that's your choice.
Homosexuality in ancient Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_ancient_Rome)
Homosexuality in ancient Rome features dispassionately in many literary works, poems, graffiti and in comments, for example, on the sexual predilections of single emperors: Edward Gibbon famously observed that "of the first fifteen emperors Claudius was the only one whose taste in love was entirely correct". Surviving graphic representations are, on the other hand, rarer in ancient Rome than in classical Greece. Attitudes toward homosexuality changed over time ranging from the matter-of-fact acceptance of Republican Rome and the pagan Empire to rising condemnation, exampled by the Athenian Sextus Empiricus, who asserted that άρρενομιζία was outlawed in Rome� and in Athens, too!� and Cyprian.
The term homosexuality is anachronistic for the ancient world, since there is no single word in either Latin or ancient Greek with the same meaning as the modern concept of homosexuality, nor was there any sense that a man was defined by his gender choices in love-making; "in the ancient world so few people cared to categorize their contemporaries on the basis of the gender to which they were erotically attracted that no dichotomy to express this distinction was in common use", James Boswell has noted.
...
Later Empire
The rise of statutes legislating against homosexuality begins during the social crisis of the 3rd century, when a series of laws were promulgated regulating various aspects of homosexual relations, from the statutory rape of minors to gay marriages. By the sixth century homosexual relations were expressly prohibited for the first time, as Procopius notes.
On a related note, a search of the string "homo" in the article The Decline of Rome (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fall_of_rome) comes up with zero results.
You gotta do better than that bassfingers. :rolleyes:
homosexuality≠bisexuality
npinchot
Mar 17, 02:10 PM
He counted the cash I gave him which was $230.00
I am a reward zone member, the receipt said I paid $530.00 cash.
If he paid $530.00 total, that means the only option was the 16 GB Wi-Fi only model. He didn't mention getting any change, so is there really somewhere that has 6.2125% sales tax? Seems unlikely.
I am a reward zone member, the receipt said I paid $530.00 cash.
If he paid $530.00 total, that means the only option was the 16 GB Wi-Fi only model. He didn't mention getting any change, so is there really somewhere that has 6.2125% sales tax? Seems unlikely.
maflynn
Apr 13, 05:53 AM
I have to say that Networking has definitely improved from XP to Win 7, but when I switched over to OS X, one of the first things I noticed was how much *easier* and *simple* networking was on the Mac side.
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
My experience has been the exact opposite with the Mac, whether its trying to access a share on one of my other computers (my wife uses a PC) or accessing network resources on my work's network.
When in windows 7 it "just worked" I had no need to mess with eth0, drivers or any manually set up a network. I was able to connect to the resource and use it. Also it was much faster.
I had issues with OSX, that I was unable to access any shared files from my wife's computer. Accessing my work stuff was a bit easier but was SLOW, painfully slow. I pull up a folder with a couple hundred files, and I can easily sit there for well over 10 minutes while OSX does it thing. Windows, just a couple of minutes.
Networking is where windows has a clear advantage of OSX, in part because many (most?) enterprise networks are windows based, at least from my experience.
I wish windows goes UNIX to attain dead heat with Mac OS X.
I'll be the first one to jump and get a windows laptop (won't leave my macintosh though, ever ;)).
Given the design of windows, there's zero chance of that, it would require a complete rewrite and the folks at MS really don't see the design of windows being flawed. Especially since they see the marketshare being what it is - kind of like why fix it if it isn't broke mentality.
razzmatazz
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
Man I'm going to be at school while this is all going on. Hmm...time to play sick :rolleyes: :D
-aggie-
Jul 21, 01:55 PM
Maybe Apple could make that an Easter Egg. Those were the days, when Easter Eggs were common. Fun times.
Rocketman
And bunnies. Easter eggs and bunnies...sigh.
It's funny how people give Apple a hard time for spinning this information, when we all know the media was doing their own spin. If the media truly wanted the truth, they'd have conducted some research and have been able to really give us a good percent on how many people experience problems when using the iPhone 4 (I know, every phone has the "defect"...blah, blah, blah, blah). However, the real percent wouldn't make a good story. So, how can you blame Apple for at least trying to defend itself?
Rocketman
And bunnies. Easter eggs and bunnies...sigh.
It's funny how people give Apple a hard time for spinning this information, when we all know the media was doing their own spin. If the media truly wanted the truth, they'd have conducted some research and have been able to really give us a good percent on how many people experience problems when using the iPhone 4 (I know, every phone has the "defect"...blah, blah, blah, blah). However, the real percent wouldn't make a good story. So, how can you blame Apple for at least trying to defend itself?
AidenShaw
Nov 16, 10:34 PM
Capacitator? That must be some fancy new kind of capacitor... sweet!
It's the Brit pronunciation - like that extra syllable that they throw into aluminum...
It's the Brit pronunciation - like that extra syllable that they throw into aluminum...
Music_Producer
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
I doubt I'll get any sleep tonight :eek: (5.15 am PST right now) Can't wait *drool*
pkson
May 3, 09:39 PM
Nice ad!
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.
Dog puppiesmap of africa ms
West african countries
(map from here ,black new
West+africa+map+with+
West Africa Map Blank - Page 2
Where cocoa is produced. Well
West+africa+map+with+
west africa map,
Physical map of Africa.
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.
Applejuiced
Apr 15, 03:53 PM
That doesnt look right.
Square on the sides instead of the way it is now.
And whats that wide slot on the side?
Also theres traces of photoshop usage on those pics they say.
Square on the sides instead of the way it is now.
And whats that wide slot on the side?
Also theres traces of photoshop usage on those pics they say.
clevin
Jan 12, 07:15 PM
Actually, I find your post to be spot off. I find your portrayal of Mac owners to be shallow, self-serving, stereotyping and weak. I did notice you used the term 'some' in an attempt to mitigate your attack.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
i believe what u said, out of 50-100 mac users, only 2~4% read here. which does mean that majority of mac users are just as normal as pc users.
but its too subjective to say zealots u saw here are apple bashers, its MR. statistically, u sure see more apple zealots here. Its just very simple fact.
No, Texas is evil. These are just businessmen.
i strongly disagree.
The fact is, of the 50-100 Mac users I know, I only know one other person who reads these boards. The majority are just owner/users who love their machines. If I were to pick a group of smug zealots around here, it would be the the Apple bashers.
I expected the trolls to come flying out of the woodwork after Tuesday. You are living up to all my expectations.
i believe what u said, out of 50-100 mac users, only 2~4% read here. which does mean that majority of mac users are just as normal as pc users.
but its too subjective to say zealots u saw here are apple bashers, its MR. statistically, u sure see more apple zealots here. Its just very simple fact.
No, Texas is evil. These are just businessmen.
i strongly disagree.
DavisCollins
Jan 8, 12:09 AM
BTW, I had to laugh when they demoed FMV used as a wallpaper in Vista, and the crowd ooohed and awwed and clapped. :)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
yeah i watched it to. everything they "revealed" i was like yep. tiger has that. but when they started to talk about reverting to previous versions of files with "ShadowCopy" the wise-ass speaker said "Its even better than time travel" and a couple of people who got the joke giggled. what an ass.
and yeah i am deffinatly gonna put that link to use, because ill be at school. and when i get home im not gonna want to go straight to apple like i do everyday. (ill probly get one one of my teachers computers and look anyway)
Doctor Q
May 3, 07:25 PM
It's funny because nowhere in europe (well, from first hand experience in UK/ Scandanavia), do the carriers prevent tethering, nor do they charge an extra fee for it.
They have data caps (100MB, 500MB, 1GB etc) but they don't care what you use it for. And this makes sense. Thus I can work from cafes through my HTC Desire, and as long as I'm not streaming video or downloading many podcasts then the 1GB/month is more than enough for my phone and occasional tethered usage.
For once Europe seems to be ahead of the curve to the advantage of the consumer when compared to the USA.
I'd like that arrangement better. I'd rather pay for one package and use it as I like without being nickel-and-dimed.
They have data caps (100MB, 500MB, 1GB etc) but they don't care what you use it for. And this makes sense. Thus I can work from cafes through my HTC Desire, and as long as I'm not streaming video or downloading many podcasts then the 1GB/month is more than enough for my phone and occasional tethered usage.
For once Europe seems to be ahead of the curve to the advantage of the consumer when compared to the USA.
I'd like that arrangement better. I'd rather pay for one package and use it as I like without being nickel-and-dimed.
w_parietti22
Aug 7, 03:36 PM
Is there still a chance for an update?
CQd44
May 2, 10:33 AM
I find it amusing that the G1 can run Android Gingerbread fairly well, but Apple makes it impossible to upgrade the original iPhone to the latest and greatest iOS.
SevenInchScrew
Nov 28, 02:39 PM
I disagree with everything except for the RC Car...that IS gay.
If people have issue with the RC-XD, I have to question if they are even paying attention when they play. You get a call-out when someone launches one, and they are LOUD as hell driving around. Don't get me wrong, I've been killed by them on a number of occasions. Almost every time I did, though, it was because I was careless and walked right into it. Just be more cautious when you hear the call-out that one is around, and you'll probably survive more. I know I did.
Besides, the more people on the other team using the RC-XD, the less people they have using the Spy Plane, so it is a give-and-take thing.
If people have issue with the RC-XD, I have to question if they are even paying attention when they play. You get a call-out when someone launches one, and they are LOUD as hell driving around. Don't get me wrong, I've been killed by them on a number of occasions. Almost every time I did, though, it was because I was careless and walked right into it. Just be more cautious when you hear the call-out that one is around, and you'll probably survive more. I know I did.
Besides, the more people on the other team using the RC-XD, the less people they have using the Spy Plane, so it is a give-and-take thing.
LagunaSol
May 3, 11:56 PM
Android commercials need more rectal probing.
Google does all the rectal probing to Android users. ;)
Google does all the rectal probing to Android users. ;)
pudrums
Apr 13, 09:28 AM
Pre-ordered 22 Bullets
http://www.heftig-magazin.de/online/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/22-Bullets.jpg
http://www.heftig-magazin.de/online/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/22-Bullets.jpg
snowmentality
Mar 30, 12:35 PM
I'm not surprised, but I don't like it.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
One of the things I like most about the Mac is the amount of well-designed, affordable third-party applications available. On Windows my choices seemed to be either a) crappy and free or b) usable and expensive ($100+). I've bought a ton of software for the Mac that cost $20-30 and is beautiful.
The Mac App Store is fine as an option -- there really are users who would otherwise never even know about apps that didn't come with their machine, for whom a curated, controlled list of easily-installed apps opens up their world. It's a great way to do a list of recommended or highlighted apps -- sort of a nicer http://www.apple.com/downloads/macosx/. But it can't be the only option, not with the restrictions and fees it entails.
I'm okay with a "walled garden" for my phone. I don't want to tinker with my phone, I just want to use it. But I do sometimes need and want to tinker with things on my MBP, in order to do the real, heavy-duty work I need to do. And Apple has a lot of OS X users like me -- professionals in creative, scientific, or engineering fields whose work requires them to tinker. Hell, how would anyone even develop applications if OS X became an iOS-style walled garden?
For these reasons, I think it's awfully short-sighted of Apple to restrict design awards to apps in the App Store. Some applications with great design just won't be suitable for the App Store, because they're more niche or developer-oriented. Apple should still recognize good design and development for those applications.
I get that this might be a temporary thing to promote the App Store, since it's new. I hope that's all it's about.
kiljoy616
May 4, 06:16 AM
:rolleyes: iPad 3
Retina :cool:
Quad Core :cool:
Pixie dust coated. :D
Retina :cool:
Quad Core :cool:
Pixie dust coated. :D
mrkramer
Apr 13, 08:14 AM
I don't see anything wrong with it at all. People use children to carry goods all the time and the TSA agent was totally professional about it talking through each step. The rules are there to provide a layer of safety and if you think that it doesn't and don't like the rules, ride the bus!
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building. :rolleyes:
I don't get how you see nothing wrong with it. In addition to it being completely pointless and ineffective, if you moved this situation from the security line of an airport to anywhere else, the TSA agent would be thrown in jail for touching a little girl like that and the mother probably would as well for allowing it to happen.
Better yet, let's remove the TSA agents and let someone fly a plane into another building. :rolleyes:
I don't get how you see nothing wrong with it. In addition to it being completely pointless and ineffective, if you moved this situation from the security line of an airport to anywhere else, the TSA agent would be thrown in jail for touching a little girl like that and the mother probably would as well for allowing it to happen.
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!
star-affinity
Apr 29, 08:10 PM
Just like switching between tabs using ctrl-tab in Safari and other web browsers I think it would be good to be able to switch between subpanes using the same keyboard shortcut.
What do you think about that?
What do you think about that?
No comments:
Post a Comment