bedifferent
Apr 29, 07:30 PM
It'll only happen if people put up with it. The only way to voice your opinion sometimes in a capitalistic society is to simply walk away and not buy/put up with the offending product.
I wish more people understood this and voted with their dollars. We've seen BestBuy, Target, Walmart wipe away small businesses in the U.S. People complain yet shop at Target to save a few cents on pens? A friend used to own his own pharmacy in the 80's-90's. He left as he couldn't keep up with the prices of Walmart/Target that could afford to buy tons of merchandise in cheap bulk. Now he's working for Walgreens, after owning his own business and making $100k+/year. He's 65. So much for his retirement.
If people want change, instead of complaining and fighting each other (even over something as silly in the grand scheme of life as an OS), work with one another. If Egypt can do it, why can't we?
I wish more people understood this and voted with their dollars. We've seen BestBuy, Target, Walmart wipe away small businesses in the U.S. People complain yet shop at Target to save a few cents on pens? A friend used to own his own pharmacy in the 80's-90's. He left as he couldn't keep up with the prices of Walmart/Target that could afford to buy tons of merchandise in cheap bulk. Now he's working for Walgreens, after owning his own business and making $100k+/year. He's 65. So much for his retirement.
If people want change, instead of complaining and fighting each other (even over something as silly in the grand scheme of life as an OS), work with one another. If Egypt can do it, why can't we?
alent1234
Apr 8, 12:43 PM
ok, now i can go back to best buy. they aren't evil anymore and the sales people are the most knowledgeable i've seen
arn
Sep 12, 01:18 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
Apple already did that design. It's called the Apple G4 Cube.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=g4cube
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
Apple already did that design. It's called the Apple G4 Cube.
http://www.apple-history.com/?page=gallery&model=g4cube
Dont Hurt Me
Jan 12, 06:27 PM
He didn't do it by himself. There was a whole company working on things. The difference is that he had a vision of what should be happening.
It took smart people in all areas to make Apple what it is today.True but who gets all the millions and stock options? not the workers.
It took smart people in all areas to make Apple what it is today.True but who gets all the millions and stock options? not the workers.
AlBDamned
Nov 10, 03:50 AM
I got my copy at about 10am on release day here in Aus, and have had about 3 hours so far - 50/50 on campaign/multiplayer.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
It pains me to say it, but so far it's pretty disappointing. I bought it mainly for the multiplayer. MW2 had it flaws - nukes, quickscoping, matchmaking - but what it had nailed was the graphical polish, sound, movement and overall look and feel.
BlackOps feels like a trip back in time. It's jerky, the guns all sound the same, the explosions are muted, the kill streaks are really pretty weak, and the graphics are pretty appalling for a 'state-of-the-art' 2010 PS3 game. Also, the RC-XD is all over the place in multiplayer, and it's seriously annoying (but everybody uses them).
I want to love it, but so far it's been a pretty negative experience for me. Will keep at it for a while, but at this stage it feels like MW2 is a much more polished game overall.
kiljoy616
May 4, 06:38 AM
love the ad, truly a great device. a year ago everyone joke about the name but now people see the true side of the device what it could actually do.
No I still think the name is funny :D
iMajic would have been better if just to bother the trolls. ;)
No I still think the name is funny :D
iMajic would have been better if just to bother the trolls. ;)
xAnthony
Mar 19, 03:34 AM
So again, it's a freaking phone... It's not a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
True.. But studies have shown that iPhone owners have more intercourse (decided to use the proper term) than Android phone owners. So I could see it resembling a status symbol.
mrsir2009
Apr 26, 04:30 AM
Woah at the end of that video why was she twitching really violently? She was flipping out, looks freaky :eek:
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
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 when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
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. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
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.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
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.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. 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.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
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 when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent.
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. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
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.
....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
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.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time.
I did. 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.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
likemyorbs
Apr 25, 04:30 PM
I won't watch the video because i'm faint of heart, i even had to close my eyes for half of American History X (everyone should watch that movie btw). But this is really messed up that the employees not only did nothing but encouraged it. I would have punched one of those nasty little teenage bitches in the face.
Dear McDonalds: Boom. You just lost a whole lot of customers.
That's not fair. It's not the company's fault. It's called individual responsibilities and these employees should be fired.
Dear McDonalds: Boom. You just lost a whole lot of customers.
That's not fair. It's not the company's fault. It's called individual responsibilities and these employees should be fired.
codo
Oct 28, 02:49 PM
They might just end up releasing the source a version later so hackers intent on spreading the latest and greatest simply can't - whilst still providing the code for legitimate uses.
Just out of interest - What do people actually do with this source? I mean, are there other operating systems based on it? Or is it useful for OS X developers so they can refine their code to integrate with OS X? Forgive my ignorance, just wondering.
Just out of interest - What do people actually do with this source? I mean, are there other operating systems based on it? Or is it useful for OS X developers so they can refine their code to integrate with OS X? Forgive my ignorance, just wondering.
bedifferent
Apr 29, 08:05 PM
"About This Mac" System Information now shows HDD content by type as opposed to just "other" (orange)
larrylaffer
Apr 8, 01:07 PM
"Rating: -45"
haha
haha
CalBoy
Apr 14, 08:43 PM
I do actually know the difference between causal and correlational relationships.... :D
I will stand by my hypothesis that something that the TSA is doing is working to make hijackings less likely to happen in the USA.....
Just because hijackings are down doesn't mean that TSA is actually working. Since 9/11 we've had a guy who got c4 into his shoe, another who lit his underwear on fire, and countless TSA tests have shown guns and other weapons make it through without much trouble.
Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock, and at worst much worse because they not only slow down travellers, curtail individual dignity, and cost billions, but also breed distrust and adversarial stances from the public that is supposed to be served.
I will stand by my hypothesis that something that the TSA is doing is working to make hijackings less likely to happen in the USA.....
Just because hijackings are down doesn't mean that TSA is actually working. Since 9/11 we've had a guy who got c4 into his shoe, another who lit his underwear on fire, and countless TSA tests have shown guns and other weapons make it through without much trouble.
Our attempts at security are at best as good as Lisa's rock, and at worst much worse because they not only slow down travellers, curtail individual dignity, and cost billions, but also breed distrust and adversarial stances from the public that is supposed to be served.
Chundles
Sep 12, 03:06 AM
well, I can see that it wouldn't be fast enough for unbuffered video, but if the receiving piece of hardware could decode h.264, then it would be fast enough, right? I can stream h.264 from apples website wirelessly.
Yeah, but that's buffered on your computer, it loads a bit into memory before playing so that the rest of it comes in while your watching. Streaming means it's coming straight in - no buffer.
Yeah, but that's buffered on your computer, it loads a bit into memory before playing so that the rest of it comes in while your watching. Streaming means it's coming straight in - no buffer.
wpotere
Apr 13, 07:25 AM
That again? You do realize that 9/11 had very little to do with airport security but everything to do with incompetence on the side of the secret service and negligence on the side of the US government? TSA has not made airtravel any safer than prior to 9/11.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Yeah, because you have access to all of the intellegence reports. :rolleyes: As for the TSA not making air travel any safer you literally have nothing to go on other than making a blind assumption. It is simply another security layer and that in itself will deter some from giving it a try. That being said, if someone wants to kill people bad enough they will and people like you will constantly blame it on others. :rolleyes:
So tell me, what would you prefer? Ponds guards walking the halls or no security at all? I bet your mind might change if you were on a plane that was hijacked.
Timepass
Aug 1, 12:54 PM
Denmark, Norway and Sweden are just about the happiest countries in the world. Taking the iTMS away from them ought to knock them down a few pegs!
Problem is Demark, Norway and Sweden are just the first countries to really crack down on DRM like this but they will not be the last. Pulling iTMS away from them might work right now but think long term. The 3 counties will not be the last to do it. Other will follow suit with the DRM. France will at some point get the laws passed since they are pretty close to DRM set up like that with ones that went though so it would not be much of a surpise to see France force DRM to open up there as well. I could see most of the EU at some point forcing the issue.
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
Problem is Demark, Norway and Sweden are just the first countries to really crack down on DRM like this but they will not be the last. Pulling iTMS away from them might work right now but think long term. The 3 counties will not be the last to do it. Other will follow suit with the DRM. France will at some point get the laws passed since they are pretty close to DRM set up like that with ones that went though so it would not be much of a surpise to see France force DRM to open up there as well. I could see most of the EU at some point forcing the issue.
Should apple pull iTMS away from every country that does that. No it will catch up to them and they will just open up to all. Problem is any country the pulled out of they burned those bridges and will have a very hard time getting back in and will more than likely lose a lot of market share long term by pulling that stunt.
Long term the wises action is for apple to give in and just open it up because those countries are just the first and they most certanily will not be the last.
Surf Monkey
Mar 17, 01:16 AM
One possibility that came to mind is that the cashier guy let him get away with it because he intended to pocket the cash himself.
And he would do that how?
And he would do that how?
7o7munoz7o7
Dec 13, 05:01 PM
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Yes.
Yes.
leekohler
May 5, 04:30 PM
You're better than this Lee.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
Just because it hasn't worked in Chicago doesn't mean it won't work period. Other countries ban guns just fine. It's about enforcement.
There are completely different cultural factors that play into this as well. You cannot blame guns for this, you have to blame people. There are underlying issues that cause this type of violence that we are not dealing with. Guns are not the problem, our culture is. Treat the disease, not the symptom, or your results will continue to be the same.
Zolk
Nov 23, 09:28 PM
What time does the sale start online, anyone??
I'm writing from Atlantic Standard Time (11:27 pm now)
Thanks.
"Shopping event is available only at the online Apple Store on November 24 from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. PST and at Apple retail stores."
I'm writing from Atlantic Standard Time (11:27 pm now)
Thanks.
"Shopping event is available only at the online Apple Store on November 24 from 12:01 a.m. to 11:59 p.m. PST and at Apple retail stores."
minnesotamacman
Sep 12, 07:41 AM
I just opened iTunes and it ask me if I wanted to update...
*LTD*
Apr 24, 03:14 PM
then why does Apple keep terminal which is nothing more than Apple version of command prompt.
I was referring to the poster's comment about a hypothetical MS transition to Unix, which won't happen any time soon for a lot of reasons.
The command line is quite useful, actually. There are some very handy Terminal commands out there.
Here's a fun one, which might already be familiar:
Type this into the Terminal window and hit return:
telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl
It's been a while, I'm not sure if they actually finished it.
I was referring to the poster's comment about a hypothetical MS transition to Unix, which won't happen any time soon for a lot of reasons.
The command line is quite useful, actually. There are some very handy Terminal commands out there.
Here's a fun one, which might already be familiar:
Type this into the Terminal window and hit return:
telnet towel.blinkenlights.nl
It's been a while, I'm not sure if they actually finished it.
jgurbisz
Nov 16, 04:43 PM
You will have better luck following your Fart than what Dig Times says!
Комментариев нет:
Отправить комментарий