obeygiant
Apr 15, 02:26 PM
How is "gay history" different than regular history? lol
dmr727
Jul 27, 04:21 PM
^^^ that's what I was thinking too. This is a pretty full featured vehicle - once I start looking at all the goodies, a mid 30's price doesn't seem so out of the ballpark. I still have my prejudices against GM - but I'm really trying to give them the benefit of the doubt here.
I'm on Honda's list for their Clarity, but I'm not holding my breath that my name will be drawn anytime soon - I meet all their 'ideal candidate' guidelines, but they seem more interested in giving the first models to celebrities. So it's nice to see some other options out there for me to mull over.
I'm on Honda's list for their Clarity, but I'm not holding my breath that my name will be drawn anytime soon - I meet all their 'ideal candidate' guidelines, but they seem more interested in giving the first models to celebrities. So it's nice to see some other options out there for me to mull over.
bassfingers
Apr 23, 01:17 PM
Right. We should leave that to corporations.
It's funny that unions are doing exactly what people are afraid corporations are doing.
But what's even funnier, is that all the while, the unions bring us down. They ruin education, give millions of dollars to crappy candidates that are just going to repay them later by pushing crappy legislation that helps out the unions.
They do little-to-no good for anyone, and are some of the strongest and most corrupt political machines in existence. But people are afraid of big businesses?
grow up, and don't ask for more than you earn. It's your job to earn your money. It's not the governments job to baby you the whole way there, and its pitiful to rely on a union to make sure you get overpaid and have job security no matter how bad you are at your job
It's funny that unions are doing exactly what people are afraid corporations are doing.
But what's even funnier, is that all the while, the unions bring us down. They ruin education, give millions of dollars to crappy candidates that are just going to repay them later by pushing crappy legislation that helps out the unions.
They do little-to-no good for anyone, and are some of the strongest and most corrupt political machines in existence. But people are afraid of big businesses?
grow up, and don't ask for more than you earn. It's your job to earn your money. It's not the governments job to baby you the whole way there, and its pitiful to rely on a union to make sure you get overpaid and have job security no matter how bad you are at your job
VenusianSky
Oct 6, 03:47 PM
Former Verizon, unhappy AT&T customers...
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
It is impossible to argue that Verizon would be better if it had the iPhone. We will never know the answer to such a question unless exclusivity goes over to Verizon. If Verizon would have got the iPhone deal instead of AT&T, thousands and thousands (whatever the number may be) of cusomters would have left AT&T, Sprint, etc. to join up with Vierzon just to get an iPhone. The networks may or may not have become over-saturated with the additional cusomters. We will never know. So if you are really that unhappy with AT&T's service, go back to Verizon. I'm sure they would welcome you back with open arms. I personally couldn't imagine paying for such terrible service if I were in that situation. AT&T's service just happens to be great in my area.
more...
LightSpeed1
Apr 12, 01:13 AM
http://www.chipotle.com/en-us/assets/images/menu/menu_burrito_bowl.png
mmmmmmMan, now I have the taste for one.
280513Nice!:D
mmmmmmMan, now I have the taste for one.
280513Nice!:D
MattSepeta
May 4, 04:04 PM
Why is someone bothered if the question itself does no harm. Grow up or change doctors if you don't like to be asked questions. This law is about as anti-libertarian and useless government intrusion as it gets.
Yep. You summed it up well.
Yep. You summed it up well.
more...
spazzcat
Mar 28, 06:54 PM
Before it was sooo.... hard. My wrist still hurts from dragging one single file to the Applications folder. Oh, and I just love having to pay sales tax on the apps. :rolleyes:
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
So they shouldn't be able to make the rules for their awards on their platform???
I don't hate the Mac App store, I just don't think it should be a factor in the award. With that said, its Apples award and they can do as they please with it, including making acceptance of onerous terms a prerequisite to compete.
So they shouldn't be able to make the rules for their awards on their platform???
Some_Big_Spoon
Oct 11, 12:50 AM
I'm sure I'll get snarkey comments, but here goes: If I can't check my email on it, I'm not interested.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
I've got a couple iPods and a shuffle. They play music, and that's great, but I want something that gets MY information to me. When that happens, they've got me sold.
more...
avalys
Jan 9, 01:33 PM
Well, Apple stock is up 7%, so it must've been good, whatever it was.
Come on guys, post the stream!
Come on guys, post the stream!
snberk103
Apr 15, 08:03 PM
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.
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
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.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
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.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
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.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
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.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
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.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
more...
Megan Fox Wallpaper
megan fox wallpaper
more...
megan-fox-wallpaper (36)
.jpg "Megan Fox Wallpaper (1)")
Megan Fox Wallpaper (1)
more...
Megan Fox Wallpaper for PSP
Sexy/Megan Fox
more...
meagan fox wallpaper. megan
Megan Fox - Wallpapers at
Megan Fox Wallpaper
All we know is that increased security screening is not perfect. Perhaps you can extrapolate the European experience (in this case) to the TSA... but that's as far as you can go.
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.
Do you always start with the insulting tone (see bolding) when the debate isn't going your way? I would argue that both sides are rational actors, though both sides may also employ non-rational players. The higher echelons of terrorist organizations have shown themselves to very worried about being captured by the fact that they are so hard to catch. If they didn't care, they wouldn't be going to a great deal of trouble to avoid it. Therefore, to my mind, they are rational actors. That 50/50 number is one that I threw into the argument as an "for argument's sake". Please don't rely on it for anything factual. The TSA in fact catches more than 50% of their training/testing planted weapons. And yes, I think even if the the number was as low as 50/50 a rational actor would do everything... oh heck... I've already written all that - you've not presented anything else of substance in it's place, so I'll just save my typing finger....
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.
That's the funny thing. I've never actually said that the TSA is the best thing around. All I've said is that the TSA is doing something. That's all - that the TSA is doing something right. Not everything. Just something. Go back and look it up. Even the head of the Israeli security never said they were useless (as in doing nothing right). Just that it wasn't the best use of resources. Oh, and if you know Israelis (and I do), then you'll also know that there is another Israeli who knows just as much as that first fellow, and she thinks the TSA is doing things just fine.
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.
That's the problem with 90% of the decisions Governments make. All they have is correlational connections. Or incomplete causal relationships. Or... basically the best they can do is make an educated guess, and hope for the best.
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.
No, on two counts. 1) You asserted "Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock...". I countered your assertion by saying that the TSA must be doing something right, and used the stats on hijackings. I (to paraphrase you) "poked hole in your reasoning". You've presented nothing that counters my evidence, except to try mocking it as simplistic. If it is, then show how it is.... If my argument doesn't convince you. Then say so, and then leave it at that. I have my opinion, you have yours. But if you want me to change my opinion you had better do better. 2) I've forgotten - cr*p.
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.
You are right correlations don't show causation. But they are evidence for it. If you have evidence that shows otherwise, present it.
more...
tman07
Apr 12, 04:35 PM
Nice! Meet mine; :D
Hey!
I got one too! Meet my lil man!
...and the new 42" 1080p 120hz lcd :)
(bonus interweb pts if you know what music video is playing!)
Hey!
I got one too! Meet my lil man!
...and the new 42" 1080p 120hz lcd :)
(bonus interweb pts if you know what music video is playing!)
UTclassof89
Jul 21, 12:07 PM
Umm, that's still less than 1%. That's pretty good. That would be out of 100 million calls. 99 million calls were fine.
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
You seem to have missed the "... MORE than iPhone 3gs" part.
A better antenna should drop FEWER calls (unless there's a flaw)
more...
darkwing
Apr 4, 08:21 AM
I bought the 360 on launch day back in 2005 with cash. Camped out at Wal-Mart for 18 hours for it too. Again, didn't do this so some idiot could steal it :(
I suggest you buy a PS3 instead. With their sales numbers, it's obvious nobody wants one! Therefore, nobody will steal it!
(The PS3 is my favorite console, as everyone knows. I'm just making a joke. No need to move this post to console war. :P)
I suggest you buy a PS3 instead. With their sales numbers, it's obvious nobody wants one! Therefore, nobody will steal it!
(The PS3 is my favorite console, as everyone knows. I'm just making a joke. No need to move this post to console war. :P)
Finlandboy
Apr 11, 01:14 PM
Bought a temporary cheap case for my iPad 2 off Amazon due to be broke from buying the ipad and spring break.
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
but im extremely happy with it and it is higher quality then i expected so i'm content. :D
more...
FFTT
Nov 24, 07:25 AM
This is a great sale for those who do not qualify for the education discount.
My friend is buying an iMac for his girlfriend and I think he'll end up pulling the trigger today online.
It's only $101.00 off, but that's enough to cover a few extras.
My friend is buying an iMac for his girlfriend and I think he'll end up pulling the trigger today online.
It's only $101.00 off, but that's enough to cover a few extras.
roadbloc
Apr 5, 05:49 PM
Not currently available in the UK Store...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
Thank God. What a pathetic app...
more...
ngenerator
May 3, 03:38 PM
This is a major setback IMHO...
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
Not all of us are stuck with a 2GB data limit, and some of us use that "unlimited" concept to tether pretty much every device I have on my desk ;) They make no extra cash off of me
I know it is illegal but carriers make tons of cash with their inflated prices... Who protects us from that?
Not all of us are stuck with a 2GB data limit, and some of us use that "unlimited" concept to tether pretty much every device I have on my desk ;) They make no extra cash off of me
nwcs
May 4, 09:48 AM
I don't know any medical staff that actually uses one on the job. You simply can't input information on the thing while on the go and holding it in your other hand.
You clearly don't know much about the medical world. Here's one link just to get things going:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/physician-mobile-use-grows-45-percent
Oh, and here's the story about a hospital that just ordered 1800 iPads...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/20/ottawa-ipads-hospital374.html
You clearly don't know much about the medical world. Here's one link just to get things going:
http://www.healthcareitnews.com/news/physician-mobile-use-grows-45-percent
Oh, and here's the story about a hospital that just ordered 1800 iPads...
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/story/2011/04/20/ottawa-ipads-hospital374.html
citizenzen
May 5, 05:38 PM
Uh huh- then what? Get our neighboring countries to do the same?
I guess it's a good thing that I've given up hope that America will give up it's gun obsession.
Since as you say, there are no possible solutions. :rolleyes:
I guess it's a good thing that I've given up hope that America will give up it's gun obsession.
Since as you say, there are no possible solutions. :rolleyes:
Amazing Iceman
May 5, 01:14 AM
I think Apple really got it right with the iPad. The main focus won't be USB, SD card slot, HDMI or anything else like that. They have solutions for "connectivity" already. Even if it isn't your preferred solution, they won't go back and do it in a way they don't figure is the ideal way. If they eventually want to allow the additions of mice, printers, cameras, Apple would much rather all that stuff is done through Bluetooth, RFID, or WiFi.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
Heheh! Compared to your 30" Cinema Display, the iPad looks like an iPod Nano next to a 17" MBP.
The goal of the iPad is to be lightweight and functional. Overloading it with ports would make it as desirable as a Windows NetBook, and I'm not interested in those clunky devices.
No. The real future of the iPad is for it to become thinner and lighter and add their own cloud based syncing. The rumours are that they have a carbon fiber guy on board now. Perfect. Make everyone else look and feel even clunkier. Sure they'll improve on the cameras and processors, but the idea here is to make a magic piece of paper that can do anything.
They will add the ability to have pressure sensitivity one day (when it doesn't increase the cost of the iPad and is a real alternative to a Wacom Cintiq... which are $2k). Maybe they can find a way to put all the sensitivity in the pen and have it bluetooth that info back to the iPad.... so no pressure sensitive addition to the iPad; just a costly pressure-sensitive bluetooth pen.
Heheh! Compared to your 30" Cinema Display, the iPad looks like an iPod Nano next to a 17" MBP.
The goal of the iPad is to be lightweight and functional. Overloading it with ports would make it as desirable as a Windows NetBook, and I'm not interested in those clunky devices.
KnightWRX
Apr 28, 09:42 AM
So, please don't take everything I typed and generalize it, because it's not for everyone.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
I do understand where Dejo, Balamw and the others are coming from though. And frankly, they are probably better suited to help you than I am. I don't have a lot of experience with Objective-C and Cocoa, not like they do, having mostly come into it recently.
Back to the code, here is a photo of my connections (ignore canceBigtimer). What you say is true I don't know how NSTimer works entirely , just some parts, I realize that and it is one of the reason I postpone my timer for a future update (need to study it).
I have two timers, because, like I said.. I don't have full knowledge of timers. I know now that 1 timer is enough, even if I use two timers and start them at the same time, the log only shows 1 loop and the countdown in separate labels show e.g. 59 in one and 58 in another and so on.
Ok, how about we work on making 1 timer work then ? The code you posted is very complicated and I don't think it has to be this complicated. Going 1 timer would simplify this.
I see your Start Button is associated to 3 actions. Is this really what you want ? Let's simplify this. As an exercise, make 1 method, call it startTimer (like I did) and have only that action associated with your start button. From there, you can call the other methods yourself as needed.
Once you have modified the code in this way, post again what you have in full, what it is doing and what you think it should be doing. We'll go from there.
You mention my two global variables, It makes sense that the timer does not stop because the variables are outside the method that creates the timer. is that whats going on?
No, the variables are "fine" where they are. They would be better positionned in the @interface block and declared as instance variables, but implementation scope globals work too.
What you need to do however is reset those if you want your timer to start back at 0. Somewhere in your "stop/reset" code, there needs to be an initialization of those back to 0 :
seconds = 0;
minutes = 0;
If your Cancel button is what should reset it, then this should be right now in newActionTimer. But ideally, we'll get rid of that function when you simplify the code down to 1 timer.
Look at my NSLog outputs in my screenshot earlier. There's 3 methods there. updateLabel, cancelTimer, startTimer. This should have given you a big indication of how not complicated you should have made this.
If you want 3 buttons, start, reset, stop, you'd technically need 4 methods, as follows :
-(IBAction) startTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) stopTimer: (id) sender;
-(IBAction) resetTimer: (id) sender;
-(void) updateLabel;
One to update the label as needed, one to start the timer, one to stop it and one to reset it.
Also, NSTimer is not your timer. The timer is what you are creating with ATimerViewController. You need to grasp this. NSTimer simply calls methods, in this case, it should be update label. That's about all it should be doing. Both the stop and reset methods should release the NSTimer object instance. startTimer should always create a new one. However, reset should be the one to set back seconds/minutes to 0.
scottsjack
Mar 28, 06:38 PM
Respectfully, I think you're missing the point. In its totality, installing an app is more like:
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
1) Google or otherwise search for an app. Make sure its the Mac version, compatible with your OS version, processor, etc. There probably won't be any reviews, more like select quotes from people who liked it.
2) IF you trust that website, fill out your credit card information, PayPal account, etc.
3) Download it and do the process you described for installing.
4) If you need to re-install the app, buy a new computer, etc. hope that the company allows you to re-download it.
5) If you have a good/bad experience, good luck reviewing it or rating it.
I'm a pretty tech-savvy guy and I still appreciate the ease of the Mac App Store.
Oh my gosh, the terrible amount of work you have to go through just to buy and install an application. Put convenience as your first priority and Steve will make many things "easier" for you. . .
GadgetGav
May 2, 11:47 AM
Not quite. The data collection dialog was separate from the EULA agreement and was a voluntary opt-in. Whether you chose to opt-in or not did not affect how your device operated.
Personally, I opted-in. I have no problem helping Apple to maintain their location database.
Are you sure it was separate? Regardless, my point was that most people blindly click through those things (me included) and then get all mock-outraged when something comes up that was in the small print. It's taking a lot on trust to just click 'Accept' and most of the time it's OK... But check out the South Park episode for how it could go wrong..! :)
I didn't say that opting in to the crowd sourced database affected your device, I'm saying that now that the tin-foil hat brigade have an option to completely disable this cached database file, _that_ could affect performance for things like Maps because it will have to calculate position from new data every time.
Personally, I opted-in. I have no problem helping Apple to maintain their location database.
Are you sure it was separate? Regardless, my point was that most people blindly click through those things (me included) and then get all mock-outraged when something comes up that was in the small print. It's taking a lot on trust to just click 'Accept' and most of the time it's OK... But check out the South Park episode for how it could go wrong..! :)
I didn't say that opting in to the crowd sourced database affected your device, I'm saying that now that the tin-foil hat brigade have an option to completely disable this cached database file, _that_ could affect performance for things like Maps because it will have to calculate position from new data every time.
63dot
Mar 4, 12:37 PM
Yes, I absolutely really think so. The problem is that if (as I suspect) you only get your news from left-leaning organizations you're only getting half of the truth. Based on what I see, it's still the right that is more energized, it's still the right that is excited to vote in 2012, because deep down everyone realizes that these protesters are protesting for petty reasons. They don't care about the kids, the schools, the state, the budget, the economy... they just don't want THEIRS to be taken away. I've seen several polls which report exactly the opposite regarding public opinion on the unions... it's all in how you phrase the question.
IMHO, unless there's a MAJOR uptick in the economy and some MAJOR concessions made on the left regarding reducing the deficit, they don't stand a chance to win seats in 2012. Still a chance for the White House? Yes, but he probably won't be favored at that point if significant improvesments are seen in every day Americans' lives.
If I were the right wing, I would want to be energized.
The Senate and White House is in the dem's hands.
I think the GOP is energized but in the wrong areas. Dude, you have to capture the middle and the GOP does not appear to be doing that.
IMHO, unless there's a MAJOR uptick in the economy and some MAJOR concessions made on the left regarding reducing the deficit, they don't stand a chance to win seats in 2012. Still a chance for the White House? Yes, but he probably won't be favored at that point if significant improvesments are seen in every day Americans' lives.
If I were the right wing, I would want to be energized.
The Senate and White House is in the dem's hands.
I think the GOP is energized but in the wrong areas. Dude, you have to capture the middle and the GOP does not appear to be doing that.
No comments:
Post a Comment