Rooskibar03
Apr 6, 12:36 PM
Grill Top Smoker from William Sonoma:
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/wsimgs/rk/images/dp/wcm/201105/0014/img3m.jpg
I've been wanting to get a smoker but just cannot justify the cost and time needed to make it happen. I'm hoping this gets me the fix I need.
http://www.williams-sonoma.com/wsimgs/rk/images/dp/wcm/201105/0014/img3m.jpg
I've been wanting to get a smoker but just cannot justify the cost and time needed to make it happen. I'm hoping this gets me the fix I need.
Sedrick
Mar 18, 05:03 AM
Yeah, it's a shame the new phone comes with some baggage:
Shaped like a brick
Drops calls (antenna design)
Shatters when you drop it
Tired old OS
..but it's still desirable over all the other phones.
Apple can fix some of these issues this summer, if they're not too smug to get off their high horse.
Shaped like a brick
Drops calls (antenna design)
Shatters when you drop it
Tired old OS
..but it's still desirable over all the other phones.
Apple can fix some of these issues this summer, if they're not too smug to get off their high horse.
Corndog5595
Nov 28, 05:40 PM
Hardline lets you get killstreaks a kill earlier. Hardline Pro lets you double tap X on a killstreak crate to switch out what's inside.
So, with this setup you can enable: SAM Turret for 3 kills, Care Package for 4, and Sentry Gun for 5. You can then switch out every single one of those for something random, which is usually Napalm Strike, B-52, or Valkyrie Rockets.
It's so overpowered.
So, with this setup you can enable: SAM Turret for 3 kills, Care Package for 4, and Sentry Gun for 5. You can then switch out every single one of those for something random, which is usually Napalm Strike, B-52, or Valkyrie Rockets.
It's so overpowered.
FreeState
Apr 15, 05:53 PM
What will be next? Here are some fine suggestions:
- Gay Arts
- Gay Phys.Ed.
- Gay Comp.Sci.
LOL - well currently in CA it is common place to not learn anything about gay history (Stonewall etc), yet alone mention that someone that does get mentioned (which is very few) was gay. Including LGBT history is not only the right thing to so, one does not learn history when you leave out things, but it has been shown to decrease harassment and bullying of LGBT students. Can you imagine going to a public school and having everything related to your culture/group excluded from the curriculum? What does that teach the students about LGBT people?
- Gay Arts
- Gay Phys.Ed.
- Gay Comp.Sci.
LOL - well currently in CA it is common place to not learn anything about gay history (Stonewall etc), yet alone mention that someone that does get mentioned (which is very few) was gay. Including LGBT history is not only the right thing to so, one does not learn history when you leave out things, but it has been shown to decrease harassment and bullying of LGBT students. Can you imagine going to a public school and having everything related to your culture/group excluded from the curriculum? What does that teach the students about LGBT people?
flopticalcube
Apr 21, 12:07 PM
Vote count before you vote: 2
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
EDIT: Counts are update after you make a selection so it may appear that your vote was not counted but the count may not be accurate on your page when you make the vote. Got it.
Vote count after you vote down: 1 (net change: -1)
Vote count after you vote up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote down, then up: 3 (net change: +1)
Vote count after you vote up, then down: 1 (net change: -1)
The net effect of you voting is only a +1 or -1. Remember, you don't know who else clicked the vote button on that same post just before you did. When you load a page, the current vote loads. If you take a minute or even a few seconds to read a post and vote, others could have voted during that time. The vote counter doesn't dynamically update every time someone votes; it does only when you vote or refresh the page.
So it's a like/dislike system that nets the like/dislikes to a numerical value, assuming the dislikes are negative. That is why when you change from a vote down to an up, you are removing your dislike and adding a like. Correct?
EDIT: Counts are update after you make a selection so it may appear that your vote was not counted but the count may not be accurate on your page when you make the vote. Got it.
eric_n_dfw
Oct 28, 06:48 PM
Not really. There are from time to time fixes that are noticed in Darwin and ported back to FreeBSD by others, but Apple have a history of not getting involved with the projects from where they take code. The stuff about the kernel is especially weird, that's still the area where Apple and FreeBSD differ the most.
Interesting. So does Apple just put their stuff up under ASPL and let the FreeBSD commiters sift through it?
I figured when they hired Mr. BSD, Jordan Hubbard, back in 2001 they be more active in pushing stuff back out to BSD.
Interesting. So does Apple just put their stuff up under ASPL and let the FreeBSD commiters sift through it?
I figured when they hired Mr. BSD, Jordan Hubbard, back in 2001 they be more active in pushing stuff back out to BSD.
Reach
Jan 12, 02:03 PM
Just stupid.. I sure wouldn't invite them to my expo, but kids will be kids I guess..
aliensporebomb
Apr 25, 11:50 AM
Curiouser and curiouser.
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
If it's a fake, whoever did it did a pretty interesting job on it.
It looks plausible.
I mean we had:
iphone 3g
iphone 3gs
why not
iphone 4
iphone 4gs
Which would give incentive for people to go for the white one I guess.
then the 5 comes out later?
baryon
Apr 7, 09:08 AM
If Windows 8 doesn't have something as simple as Spaces or multiple desktops, then it's an inferior OS.
7o7munoz7o7
May 3, 02:10 PM
Thanks for the macrumors!!!
jane doe
Mar 28, 01:02 PM
I'm not a legal expert at all but I would think that since the Xbox can only connect with connect360 if you have access to both systems (xbox360 and the mac) then that should be evidence enough? Or am I wrong about having to have access to both? I can't remember since its been months since I set mine up.
Melrose
Mar 6, 07:02 PM
The scary thing is is that you actually believe this nonsense.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Offering near-identical features on cheap-quality devices has happened. LTD can be fanboyishly irritating (no offense) but the point stands - he didn't say there were no high-end handsets from the competition, he said companies flood the market with cheap electronics... which they do.
I think you're missing the forest for the trees. Offering near-identical features on cheap-quality devices has happened. LTD can be fanboyishly irritating (no offense) but the point stands - he didn't say there were no high-end handsets from the competition, he said companies flood the market with cheap electronics... which they do.
wmmk
Nov 16, 04:50 PM
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
i believe that was already up.
Aniej
Jan 5, 02:44 PM
it would be great if apple would put up a video feed of the keynote live.
if not that, put it in the local apple stores.
wildcowboy and I will go post on the apple site suggesting this idea, perhaps steve will then follow our idea 9 minutes latter and ubermac can thank him for it;)
if not that, put it in the local apple stores.
wildcowboy and I will go post on the apple site suggesting this idea, perhaps steve will then follow our idea 9 minutes latter and ubermac can thank him for it;)
DewGuy1999
Apr 8, 09:03 PM
"Alice in Wonderland" DVD
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618uZRUCKkL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/618uZRUCKkL._SL500_AA300_.jpg
snberk103
Apr 13, 12:03 PM
I would prefer the cheaper and more effective way; profiling.
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
Also, you can't say security has been working well-- look at the number of incidences of things going through security accidentally via negligence (knives, guns, etc)-- while there's no official numbers, the anecdotal evidence is quite moving.
Actually, there is documented evidence (which I'm not going to look up, because it supports your contention). The TSA does publish numbers (though buried deep in their reports) on the number of times undercover agents are able to slip weapons through security on training/testing runs. The number is quite high, if you look at it in a "Sky is falling way". But that is the incomplete picture.
Suppose, just for argument's sake, you actually have a 50/50 chance of slipping something through security. Is that "good enough" to mount an operation? Consider that there are at least a dozen people involved, to support just one operative. You can try to separate them into cells - but that doesn't mean that they are entirely hidden... it just gives them time to try to escape while their links are followed. Plus, there is a lot of money involved.
Do you risk those 12 people, plus a large chunk of scarce resources, on a venture that only has a 50/50 chance of getting something onto the plane. (we haven't even considered that most bombs on planes lately have not gone off properly, eg. shoe bomber and underwear bomber)... or that if the intent is to forcibly take over the plane there might be sky marshall - or just a plane load of passengers who are not going to sit idly by.
So you try and reduce that risk by making the plan more "fool proof" and sophisticated - but this adds complexity ...and complex things/plans breakdown and require more resources and more people. More people means adding people with doubts, and the chances of leaking. Plus more resources, which brings attention to the operation. And as you add more people and resources, the "downside" to being caught gets bigger, so you try to reduce that risk by making it even more "foolproof".
If you are one of the 12+ people supporting the operative, and you have a 50/50 chance of being caught and spending a very long and nasty session in jail - even before you get your day in court - and you have no chance of the "ultimate reward" .... don't you think you might start having doubts, and talking to people? Sometimes the wrong people?
I don't buy for a minute all of the stories of traffic cops stopping a car for a routine check and finding "bad things" that were going to be used. The intelligence services have, imho, a pretty good idea of what is happening in these groups, and use these innocent looking traffic stops (and other coincidental discoveries) so that their undercover agents aren't suspected.
That is the value, imo, of the security checks. The barriers are are high enough to get the "bad" operations big and cumbersome, and to make the plans too complex to escape notice by the authorities. It's the planning and organization of getting past the security checks that the authorities are looking for. Once that "bad thing" is in the airport, the authorities have already lost most of the game. Then the security screening is just a last ditch attempt to catch something.
The real danger is the single lone-wolf person with a grudge, who hasn't planned in advance, and doesn't really care if they get caught. They have a 50/50 chance of getting through because the only security layer at that point is the security checkpoint. The intelligence services will not have picked them up, nor will the no-fly list incidentally.
.... all of this is just mho, of course..... read the later john lecarre though, for more chilling details....
iBug2
Apr 30, 06:44 PM
Nope, it won't happen at all. There is too big of a market for people who write and rely on custom software. I don't disagree that the friendly face of the OS will continue to get dumbed down. The backend, however, will remain just as open and customizable. Go look at any University and you'll find that in the CS dept a huge portion of the professors and their students use Mac OS X. Restrict this market and you drive away future developers. It would be suicidal.
Who said anything about driving away future developers? You do realize that the closed app store is bringing in more developers right?
Who said anything about driving away future developers? You do realize that the closed app store is bringing in more developers right?
Nekbeth
Apr 26, 09:24 PM
Update **
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
It now works !! that logic will help me a lot with future projects.
thanks wlh99 and to everyone who contribute.
Whistleway
Nov 24, 01:34 PM
oh btw..a hint...if you go to an apple store and buy a giftcard for the amount you need online...then you can use the gift card..get free shipping...plus get your 100 bucks off on a macbook w/ educatoinal discount and have no tax...
so you really end up saving 200 bucks....thats what im doing just a heads up
Could you explain?
Thanks.
so you really end up saving 200 bucks....thats what im doing just a heads up
Could you explain?
Thanks.
pink-pony115
Oct 3, 04:53 PM
I wouldn't care to see more of iTv...but my cards are rested in Steve going in dept of the iTv :o
I don't care about the iPhone or the "true" video ipod...they are just some old rumors.
....crafty though
I don't care about the iPhone or the "true" video ipod...they are just some old rumors.
....crafty though
OceanView
Apr 15, 05:42 PM
Can't tell if it's real or fake but the meta data showing CS4 is a bit of an issue.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
But I would love it if it was made from Aluminum.
Kilamite
Apr 15, 12:30 PM
I call BS on this, Johnnie Ive wouldn't make a non rounded design like that, the lines are too harsh.
Almost looks like the unibody MacBook Pro's.. I wouldn't put it out. Look's relatively cool and looks sturdy too.
Almost looks like the unibody MacBook Pro's.. I wouldn't put it out. Look's relatively cool and looks sturdy too.
darh
Sep 12, 08:03 AM
Film content from Fox and Dreamworks?!
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
yeah! Also in the Netherlands FWIW
Look at the german Quicktime page, bottom left, under "iTunes Videos": Transporter 2 from Fox and Red Eye from Dreamworks!!
http://www.apple.com/de/quicktime/mac.html
yeah! Also in the Netherlands FWIW
katanna
Jan 9, 06:34 PM
wow, I am surprised... it timed out after 2.5 minutes, but since it has been running for over an hour now... yea!
Added: had a glitch at 1:14, but it fixed quick enough.
Matthew
Added: had a glitch at 1:14, but it fixed quick enough.
Matthew
No comments:
Post a Comment