iShater
Jul 28, 01:02 PM
True on the economies of scale bit - although the batteries are always going to be pricey.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
I keep hammering the same point here, but the Volt would see a quite significant fuel economy boost by switching to a diesel engine to charge the batteries and run the motors. Sort it out, US car companies...it's not like we don't sell diesel here.
That is true. I'm surprised nobody has brought even diesel based hybrids here yet. I recall hearing VW was planning on it, but I don't remember where I read that.
deriko100
Oct 12, 07:10 PM
I also agree that was stupid to do, but funny, i rely on gizmodo for my daily gadget news awesome site so it shouldn't be punished for that olddddd prank
copykris
Apr 7, 04:57 AM
Vintage poster - it will look great in my media room!
love it
love it
Winni
May 4, 02:59 AM
Just like communism
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
Actually, this also includes American Capitalism -- only a fistful of rich people benefit from it at the expense of the rest of the population that has been led to believe by the media that anybody can eventually become rich if they only work hard enough for it, but the truth is that this almost never happens.
barkomatic
Apr 5, 03:22 PM
If they had coupons with the ads that would be good. Otherwise, I'm not sure why I'd want to download this app. There isn't much interesting about little micro ad banners.
ChazUK
Apr 24, 06:03 AM
One thing I willask about all of this children/peadophile spin is why are these theoretical parents putting their children at risk giving their children such "connected" devices?
It's simply asking for trouble.
It's simply asking for trouble.
NinjaHERO
Sep 28, 09:16 PM
If I touch it on the southwest corner will it not work? ;)
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
LMAO
You know what would be funny. What if he is just using this simple house design to calm the neighbors down. They were freaking out about him tearing down the old mansion. Maybe he will build this and leave it up a year or two and then tear it down and build a much bigger house when he doesn't have to submit anything to the association. Seems excessive, but rich people can afford the expensive comedy. :D
tdhurst
Jan 12, 07:35 PM
Anyone who leaps to a conclusion over this is foolish and shooting themselves in the foot. Print media is dead in its current form so you'll never see events banning people just because they have an online presence. Crucifying gizmodo for being the morons they are while claiming they're hurting other journalists is disingenuous. Do you really think conferences don't want any press to go to their events? The big conferences are under threat (E3 is a good example). I doubt they'd do anything horribly stupid over this. Ban gizmodo? Yeah, can see that. Require that you can only get in if you have a newspaper or magazine? Doubt it.
The issue here is that bloggers and online journalists are still a fairly new medium and haven't been fully accepted yet. This would happen with any sort of group that didn't have a history.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
The issue here is that bloggers and online journalists are still a fairly new medium and haven't been fully accepted yet. This would happen with any sort of group that didn't have a history.
I would bet that no print media journalist would ever pull crap like this. He/she would have been fired on the spot and the publication itself would have issued a real apology, not post a video online and issue a half-hearted apology to one group.
Links
Aug 12, 05:07 PM
There is also no way of telling if you have a display with the newer specs or not, since there isn't another product code for this.
Oh yes there is.
See my Post #105 and use Chipmunk.
Oh yes there is.
See my Post #105 and use Chipmunk.
AP_piano295
May 4, 08:42 PM
My thoughts.
"Do you have a firearm in the home?"
"Yes"
"It should be locked up or have a trigger guard."
"NO ****?"
I'll refer you to my earlier post. The stupidity of some people will never fail to astound you.
"Do you have a firearm in the home?"
"Yes"
"It should be locked up or have a trigger guard."
"NO ****?"
I'll refer you to my earlier post. The stupidity of some people will never fail to astound you.
ArizonaKid
Sep 9, 03:54 AM
Look,
I am white biz grad from ASU (reason to be boring)...and those people in the crowd were pathetic.
I would be up standing on the chair bouncing, rhythm be damned. What a pathetic, old white crowd.
Somebody wake up Bob Dylan for these old bastards and bitziches.
I am white biz grad from ASU (reason to be boring)...and those people in the crowd were pathetic.
I would be up standing on the chair bouncing, rhythm be damned. What a pathetic, old white crowd.
Somebody wake up Bob Dylan for these old bastards and bitziches.
archipellago
Apr 5, 03:02 PM
Desperate is as desperate does...
ten-oak-druid
Apr 15, 06:34 PM
The title of this is bad. It sounds like the problem has to do with contract negotiations with record labels. This in fact means that google is having trouble getting its itunes store competitor off the ground.
Itunes is the application for playing media and the itunes store is the business for selling media through itunes.
Itunes began without any store for purchasing music. You do not need to go to the itunes store to use itunes. The application imports music from CDs. Other audio and movie files can be added without visiting the store.
The store is just a convenience.
I'm sure google can make a media player to compete with Apple's itunes. The title of this thread should refer to the store, not the application.
As for the store, I don't understand why the record labels do not just advertise their own stores for music. They sell DRM free music files on itunes so why not on their own sites? And why not on other sites? What is the big deal? If I buy an mp3 file from sony directly I can put it in itunes.
Amazon does this. They sell you digital music and you can choose to put it in itunes or whatever application you choose.
I imagine the real issue is with the movies which still have protection in the itunes store.
Still, the movie companies sell digital movie files outside of itunes for itunes. On DVDs for instance you can get a digital copy and use itunes or other applications to unlock the file. Why do the movie companies not just open a store front of their own for this?
Itunes is the application for playing media and the itunes store is the business for selling media through itunes.
Itunes began without any store for purchasing music. You do not need to go to the itunes store to use itunes. The application imports music from CDs. Other audio and movie files can be added without visiting the store.
The store is just a convenience.
I'm sure google can make a media player to compete with Apple's itunes. The title of this thread should refer to the store, not the application.
As for the store, I don't understand why the record labels do not just advertise their own stores for music. They sell DRM free music files on itunes so why not on their own sites? And why not on other sites? What is the big deal? If I buy an mp3 file from sony directly I can put it in itunes.
Amazon does this. They sell you digital music and you can choose to put it in itunes or whatever application you choose.
I imagine the real issue is with the movies which still have protection in the itunes store.
Still, the movie companies sell digital movie files outside of itunes for itunes. On DVDs for instance you can get a digital copy and use itunes or other applications to unlock the file. Why do the movie companies not just open a store front of their own for this?
Warbrain
Sep 12, 08:47 AM
Maybe with Disney coming on board it will be called iTOONS! ;)
Um, Disney owns a ton of companies that don't make cartoons.
Um, Disney owns a ton of companies that don't make cartoons.
toddybody
Apr 29, 01:14 PM
Hope Lion comes with my sandybridge mba :D
I hope something besides SB IGP comes with that MBA too:p
I hope something besides SB IGP comes with that MBA too:p
Full of Fail
May 3, 02:09 PM
The promise of an open system doesn't always play out in the real world.
Just like communism
Just like communism
alexprice
Jan 9, 04:41 PM
Here: http://www.apple.com/quicktime/guide/appleevents/
balamw
Oct 5, 08:23 AM
Your average ipod owner could not possibly give a flying %^@$ about how Fairplay's DRM compares to other mp3 players' DRM. Talking about "DRM transparent" like its something that Joe Consumer has any clue about is delusional at best.
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
That's the point, if they don't "see" the DRM, hence the transparency, it doesn't bother them one bit. I haven't seen the need for things like hymn since the DRM doesn't stop me from doing anything I want to do with the files, such as burn a CD or move it to another machine.
I'm pretty sure that that's not how FairPlay works. I think it goes something like this...
Definitely not per file, Wikipedia has a pretty good summary of how it actually works here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works . More that a database of all files the device can play is downloaded from the store...
B
steviem
Apr 13, 12:54 PM
I started my first full-time job recently so I'm not covered by my parents' insurances anymore which is why I got some own ones:
http://www.risikolebensversicherungvergleich.de/logos/asstel_full.jpg
Asstel: When you just got's ta get that booty...
http://www.risikolebensversicherungvergleich.de/logos/asstel_full.jpg
Asstel: When you just got's ta get that booty...
Sky Blue
Mar 28, 02:22 PM
It's a little cheeky, sure, but the Design Award isn't really anything but marketing opportunity for the devs.
MikhailT
Apr 6, 11:59 PM
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
Hmm, 6.1 = 6 + 1 = 7, 6.2 = 8.
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.
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.
pmhacker
Apr 29, 09:47 PM
I hate the changes. I actually liked the slider. Graphically it was much nicer and obviously would work better with a future touch screen.
I wish they would have gotten rid of that horrible faux leather top on ical.
I wish they would have gotten rid of that horrible faux leather top on ical.
Mac'nCheese
Apr 25, 03:50 PM
I didn't watch the whole video, but from what I watched, they were standing around and laughing.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I think the OP's point- and I agree- is that they went a lot further then just NOT doing something right. They did something wrong. Its past the point of should have had an armed guard....its now into looking at what they did and maybe holding them accountable for their actions, too.
Again, they should call the cops and NOT get involved.
They are hired to flip burgers, not stop violence. If you want your employees to stop a fight, hire an armed guard.
I think the OP's point- and I agree- is that they went a lot further then just NOT doing something right. They did something wrong. Its past the point of should have had an armed guard....its now into looking at what they did and maybe holding them accountable for their actions, too.
No comments:
Post a Comment