flopticalcube
Nov 24, 05:58 PM
Apple.ca store now very slow...
kernkraft
Jul 30, 11:22 AM
I think the Volt is a success in terms of meeting its intended design parameters. However, I think the whole notion of the all-electric car and plug-in hybrids are flawed due to our current infrastructure.
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
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.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
As long as we burn fossil fuels to get the electricity, the electric car is just sweeping the fossil fuel/pollution problem under the rug by putting the "dirty" side of power consumption out of sight (back at the power plant). Also, there's no way our current power generation infrastructure could support even a fraction of the population switching to electric cars. California already has rolling blackouts - if people stopped burning gas and switched to electrics, the problem would get drastically worse.
I think electric cars are a dead end for the present...At least until our entire power grid makes large-scale switches to alternative energy, and there is no timeline for that currently. Also, there is currently no guarantee that practical fuel-cell systems will ever be truly affordable or mass-producable. The current offerings are all extremely expensive, proof-of-concept vehicles with short useful lives.
We'd be better off with diesels or diesel hybrids. People don't want to admit it, but those are currently our best options IMO.
I really wish I didn't sound so cynical, but that's the picture as I understand it.
Very valid points! My only point to add would be that BMW already makes diesel cars that use the company's EfficientDynamics technology to regenerate wasted energy. In the end, what might solve our energy crisis is the combination of alternative energy, frugality on the user end and trying to capture and re-use as much energy and energy-intensive (to make) products as possible. To me, there is no great difference between a hybrid and a BMW diesel that stops in stationary traffic. Of course, in city centres, using a purely electric drive helps to keep the air clean, which is something that diesel engines are not good at.
Well, they should research capacitors then, never wear out, and charge veeeeewy quick. Like EEstor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/EEStor)
Very good point. And not without a bit of irony as Rudolf Diesel patented his engine in the U.S. (608,845), and we don't use it - though that's because of the Oil companies, not the car companies.
I agree we should use the diesel. After the apocalypse, you could make your own fuel from zombie bodies!
Used vegetable oil or quality diesel would be a start...
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.
I heard it that the reason why BMW stopped selling diesel cars in the US was that the engines failed, due to the very poor quality. In Europe, you can get quality fuel, but in the US, diesel is still the fuel of trucks, primarily.
Just one statistics: in continental Europe (not in the UK), new diesel cars have been outselling petrol ones for almost a decade, despite the premium.
That's the great thing about a platform like the Volt, or anything like it: you can easily change whatever gives the electricity. Gas not working right? The American public finally getting their asses out of their collective heads about diesel? Just get one the right size, and hook it up to the generator. It works for trains. Small fusion reactors finally a possibility? Bingo!
If GM hadn't ****ed up when they tried bringing diesel cars to the market, it wouldn't be anywhere near as bad. We still have some old M-B diesels kicking around, and probably a good bunch of them run on SVO by now.
Subaru still sells FWD cars, just not in the US or Europe.
You may easily change the source of electricity (actually, you cannot, it mainly comes from coal and oil in the US, I think), but so far, there is no decent technology available to solve the problem of storing electricity. Batteries suck and the Volt still uses ancient batteries that you would find in all sorts of consumer products. That is a car, running on laptop batteries (or AA's, if you prefer).
Why did you burst my bubble of Subarus awesomeness? :(
Don't forget the dealership markup. Some of the automotive blogs have people complaining that the dealerships are adding a $10k markup to the already expensive vehicle.
You shouldn't have any impression about Subarus. They really have the traction of a train (AWD ones, of course - why would you buy anything else?!), but everything else is just midrange quality at best.
I've had a 1998 Impreza estate several years ago and it was OK. Recently, I've had a 2007 Legacy Outback from work. Nice glass on the top and good traction, but I have no intention of trading a BMW or Mercedes for it the next time. The interior is low quality and Subaru has no understanding of fuel efficiency, it seems. OK, it's a 2.5L engine, automatic and AWD, but still... 25 imperial mpg?!
Becordial
Apr 15, 02:07 PM
If you had access to these, why would your camera be this bad?
Think about it, even if you were using a 3G iPhone to take the shots, they'd be better quality than this.
Think about it, even if you were using a 3G iPhone to take the shots, they'd be better quality than this.
Rocketman
Oct 3, 03:54 PM
the VAST majority of users and customers neither know nor care. And to be perfectly honest, the speed difference in 99% of the things people use their computers for are unnoticeable.
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
Their business is great, and more importantly, their big push right now is obviously iPods for the holiday season. This is a much more popular gift item, and the holiday shopping season is barely gearing up.
I agree.
Also they are having a real problem keeping up with MacBook sales, even with Yonah (C1D) and THAT is their current manufacturing focus. For a change, it is NOT caused by chip shortages either! It is a manufacturing shortage. That is a great problem to have!!
Rocketman
twoodcc
Jan 12, 12:19 AM
Steve Jobs has earned the right to be smug, you however, have not.
ha, that was pretty good. and true really...
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
ha, that was pretty good. and true really...
they didn't release iwork and ilife probably b/c of Amazon putting it up on their website early
ssdeg7
May 2, 02:24 PM
I preferred the slide tabs than the old ones. I hope we get back to them soon.
8CoreWhore
May 2, 02:29 PM
I find it amusing that the G1 can run Android Gingerbread fairly well, but Apple makes it impossible to upgrade the original iPhone to the latest and greatest iOS.
The G1 came out more than a year after the iPhone, and had a dual-core and more RAM.
And, upgrading it to 3.0 Gingerbread is unofficial --- for a reason.
So, um, big deal.
Really, what's the point you're making? Everyone should therefore throw their iPhones in the garbage and buy an HTC?
The G1 came out more than a year after the iPhone, and had a dual-core and more RAM.
And, upgrading it to 3.0 Gingerbread is unofficial --- for a reason.
So, um, big deal.
Really, what's the point you're making? Everyone should therefore throw their iPhones in the garbage and buy an HTC?
darbus69
May 4, 12:37 AM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8H7 Safari/6533.18.5)
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
I really like the tone of these commercials.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
you are very observant-nice job...
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3_2 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Mobile/8H7)
I really like the tone of these commercials.
Also, I enjoy that they keep saying magic or magical; only because I know how angry people (trolls, mostly) here get about it.
Apple commercials are bright, uplifting and show how technology enhances the human experience. They show people using iPads, iPhones, MacBooks, etc in everyday situations. However Android Zoom, BB Playbook, Tab are dark, joyless with people abducted by aliens, enveloped and overpowered by machines, etc.
you are very observant-nice job...
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....
BLUELION
May 3, 09:26 PM
Oh ya. Lets see where they go.
fxtech
Mar 31, 05:00 PM
What kept me often from buying apps was the too complicated paying system: You have to register, give them the number of your credit card, remember the password of the login and so on. The MAS makes this a lot easier and safer. Apple's decision to only allow MAS apps for the Design Award is to push developers to publish their apps on the MAS. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong with it is it expressly denies potentially stellar Mac apps from possibly winning the award, due to Apple's arguably arbitrary "rules" as to what apps are allowed in said store.
Rather lame considering Apple's own apps seem to be except from the same rules.
What's wrong with it is it expressly denies potentially stellar Mac apps from possibly winning the award, due to Apple's arguably arbitrary "rules" as to what apps are allowed in said store.
Rather lame considering Apple's own apps seem to be except from the same rules.
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
Geckotek
Dec 13, 10:21 PM
Ill be handing out grains of salt.
<-----Takes one
I just don't see Apple creating a situation where they're going to have 2 separate refresh dates for the iPhone. Whatever they do, they're going to make it so they refresh ALL of their iPhones around June of every year. Otherwise they're going to put one of the carriers at a distinct disadvantage because Verizon will have the latest technology for up to 6 months before it goes to ATT--which will hurt apple sales overall.
Why on earth would they create such a manufacturing and delivery nightmare??? OF COURSE they would put Verizon and AT&T on 2 separate refresh dates, it only makes sense. The situation you describe is perfectly normal and happens all the time. It's only practical for Apple to do the same.
Will it come in white? :rolleyes:
:D
Is this the same Verizon LTE network that takes about 2 minutes to handshake between the LTE and 3G network?
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Not that I think this is happening, but isn't that issue getting fixed with a simple firmware update?
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?
Uhhh...because that's the purpose of MacRumors?? :confused:
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Once again, this makes no sense. There are already capacity issues keeping up with demand. Apple already rolls out to other carriers globally on a delayed schedule. Why would Verizon be any different? That being said, it would be easy for Verizon to tweak a few issues found in the iPhone 4 *cough-antenna-cough*
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
B-BYE!
Y would they make a verizon iPhone before July when they come out with a new one anyway. It's stupid I'm shure that they will come out with one when they always come out with them in JULY. They will make more money (maybe) if they do what they always do, unless apple is becoming like the driods and make a new one every month. Whatever the case may be this verizon rumor is getting pushed back and back
Wrong, they will make more money if they stagger the release. Think about the additional hype that comes with a release. Now do that 2x a year. Yeah...it's the best thing for Apple to do...2 release cycles. One major release with a minor update on the second release.
Actually I think this is what might happen, eventually. But rather than AT&T getting the same spec iPhone "A" 6 months later, they will get the "B" with some improvements, then the next year Verizon gets the "C" 6 months after that and so on... Where they will just keep leap frogging each other. I think the market is moving too fast for Apple to continue with just yearly updates.
Right. One of the problems people have when they try to predict what Apple might do is they assume the past = the future. "Oh, Apple only does yearly updates, so this rumor is impossible." Well, Apple does what it does . . . until it doesn't. They don't do books, but now they do. They don't do movies, but now they do, etc.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
^^AGREED^^
I'm not buying it (either in terms of the story, or in terms of a supposed hybrid phone if it does make it to market).
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
Not that you're definately wrong, but it crosses my mind that we are all assuming that the LTE chipsets will be power hogs when they first come out. But we have no idea if this is the case. They could easily take what they learned from developing the 3G chipsets to start off more efficient with the first get of LTE chipsets.
Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case, it just came to mind that we are all making an assumption re: this aspect of it.
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
Really, because Apple never changes right? Excuse me while I go buy that new MacBook Air with the PowerPC chip in it. Oh...wait a tick!
<-----Takes one
I just don't see Apple creating a situation where they're going to have 2 separate refresh dates for the iPhone. Whatever they do, they're going to make it so they refresh ALL of their iPhones around June of every year. Otherwise they're going to put one of the carriers at a distinct disadvantage because Verizon will have the latest technology for up to 6 months before it goes to ATT--which will hurt apple sales overall.
Why on earth would they create such a manufacturing and delivery nightmare??? OF COURSE they would put Verizon and AT&T on 2 separate refresh dates, it only makes sense. The situation you describe is perfectly normal and happens all the time. It's only practical for Apple to do the same.
Will it come in white? :rolleyes:
:D
Is this the same Verizon LTE network that takes about 2 minutes to handshake between the LTE and 3G network?
Yeah, that isn't happening.
Not that I think this is happening, but isn't that issue getting fixed with a simple firmware update?
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?
Uhhh...because that's the purpose of MacRumors?? :confused:
Not that I believe the rumor, but the phone being LTE only will simply mean that there's one version between the AT&T and verizon phones that supports CDMA and GSM networks. Instead, there will be a CDMA/LTE phone and a GSM 3G phone. Thus, AT&T's LTE network being infantile/non-existent throws a wrench in that.
That being said, I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
Once again, this makes no sense. There are already capacity issues keeping up with demand. Apple already rolls out to other carriers globally on a delayed schedule. Why would Verizon be any different? That being said, it would be easy for Verizon to tweak a few issues found in the iPhone 4 *cough-antenna-cough*
How about not even putting it up on the site? My question was why do they have to have a new article for every time someone says that?
As for peeing pants, ok, maybe people aren't peeing their pants. But obviously people care enough to post these this rumor every time another site posts the rumor. I'm just tired of seeing dozens of new articles about this place or that place saying "iPhone on Verizon after Christmas!" Ok, I get it! People expect a Verizon iPhone. Get over it. This is kinda like the Beatles on iTunes, or people talking for months that Michael Jackson died, etc.
Anyone know a good news site that says what has happened and then move on to the next news item? If this is all that MacRumors is going to post, I think it may be time to say goodbye to MacRumors. Just tired of seeing the same rumors repeated over & over again.
B-BYE!
Y would they make a verizon iPhone before July when they come out with a new one anyway. It's stupid I'm shure that they will come out with one when they always come out with them in JULY. They will make more money (maybe) if they do what they always do, unless apple is becoming like the driods and make a new one every month. Whatever the case may be this verizon rumor is getting pushed back and back
Wrong, they will make more money if they stagger the release. Think about the additional hype that comes with a release. Now do that 2x a year. Yeah...it's the best thing for Apple to do...2 release cycles. One major release with a minor update on the second release.
Actually I think this is what might happen, eventually. But rather than AT&T getting the same spec iPhone "A" 6 months later, they will get the "B" with some improvements, then the next year Verizon gets the "C" 6 months after that and so on... Where they will just keep leap frogging each other. I think the market is moving too fast for Apple to continue with just yearly updates.
Right. One of the problems people have when they try to predict what Apple might do is they assume the past = the future. "Oh, Apple only does yearly updates, so this rumor is impossible." Well, Apple does what it does . . . until it doesn't. They don't do books, but now they do. They don't do movies, but now they do, etc.
Apple is not a MacRumors poster stubbornly sticking to the only thing they know. Apple changes as market conditions change. If they think they can increase profitability and market share by making semi-yearly phone updates, they are going to switch to semi-yearly phone updates. Simple as that.
So a Q1 2011 Verizon phone is quite possible.
^^AGREED^^
I'm not buying it (either in terms of the story, or in terms of a supposed hybrid phone if it does make it to market).
The baseband chipsets don't exist as mass market components (either in supply or feature set).
If they did, they'd suck down battery faster than you could keep the damn thing charged. I think it is pretty clear where Apple plays - technology that is applicable, relevant, and usable.
I don't think 4G is there yet, unless Qualcomm et al are hiding some major hybrid CDMA/LTE chipsets (the LTE-only chipsets themselves are power hogs - why do you think VZW hasn't rolled out handsets, they've limited 4G use to people hooking USB cards into a 3000mAh battery that can feed that 500mAh - 1000mAh draw).
Battery technology is getting better, and the chipsets are getting better, but not in time for a device in January. Maybe I'll eat crow, but I doubt it. If this happens (and it might), it's not going to be a great device that everyone is expecting (read: keep the 4G radio off and use it as a CDMA iPhone 4) or it's simply not going to exist. It's possible VZW needed a retort to ATT's simultaneous voice & data ploy so they included it to check that off the list and the phone will stick to EVDO for nearly everything...but the EVDO<->LTE carrier handoff isn't transparent (far worse than EDGE<->3G), so that is a usability issue in and of itself that I think Apple would not like.
Not that you're definately wrong, but it crosses my mind that we are all assuming that the LTE chipsets will be power hogs when they first come out. But we have no idea if this is the case. They could easily take what they learned from developing the 3G chipsets to start off more efficient with the first get of LTE chipsets.
Like I said, I'm not saying that's the case, it just came to mind that we are all making an assumption re: this aspect of it.
I don't see that happening. It's just not how Apple works.
Really, because Apple never changes right? Excuse me while I go buy that new MacBook Air with the PowerPC chip in it. Oh...wait a tick!
BC2009
Apr 25, 12:00 PM
Doesn't look too bad but on the other hand, the screen doesn't even look that noticeably bigger either (to the point of, "What is the point?"). And if even resizing it like that would make developers have to re-do their apps (I don't know how that works but I've heard people say with how iOS works, re-sizing would mean having to re-program apps), I'd say it's not worth it.
(I'm one of the ones who don't want a bigger screen due to the fact I don't want a bigger phone and I don't think they could squeeze a bigger one in without sacrificing usability and/or aesthetics. Bezels are useful for giving you some area to grip. This one doesn't look too bad for my concerns but honestly, it doesn't seem to give you a noticeable increase in screen size).
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
(I'm one of the ones who don't want a bigger screen due to the fact I don't want a bigger phone and I don't think they could squeeze a bigger one in without sacrificing usability and/or aesthetics. Bezels are useful for giving you some area to grip. This one doesn't look too bad for my concerns but honestly, it doesn't seem to give you a noticeable increase in screen size).
Resizing only means having to rewrite apps if the screen resolution changes -- especially if it changes by something other than a whole-number multiple (e.g. 1.5x versus 2x). All rumors indicate a 3.7-inch screen iPhone would have the same Retina-Display resolution (still maintaining over 300dpi).
Technically their "Retina-Display" stuff is based also on typical viewing distance as well -- so a "Retina Display" iPad, iMac, or MacBook (assuming those are in the works) may not go as high as 300dpi. However, a Retina-Display iPad would like require the same pixel-doubling (2x) that was done for apps not optimized for the Retina Display until updates came that included higher-resolution graphics.
WhiteShadow
Aug 13, 10:50 PM
price cut? the displays still seem a bit over priced.
dicklacara
Jul 21, 11:38 AM
.
Here's a post at another site that saya it best:
bbrewer 1 hour ago
2 people liked this.
Antenna-gate was a non-issue to start with. If anything it may end up helping Apple meet demand at some point. Right now they are not able to make them fast enough anyway.
The external antenna is great. You won't drop a call no matter how you hold it if you have a decent signal. If you are in a weak signal area, you might not even have a signal on another phone. Of the iPhone 4, if you have one bar, avoid touching the strip near the bottom of the left side. If you can tie your own shoes, you can probably manage this. Or get a (free) case. Gee, what a crisis.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100721/apple-earnings-no-better-antennagate-deodorant-than-success/#comments
.
Here's a post at another site that saya it best:
bbrewer 1 hour ago
2 people liked this.
Antenna-gate was a non-issue to start with. If anything it may end up helping Apple meet demand at some point. Right now they are not able to make them fast enough anyway.
The external antenna is great. You won't drop a call no matter how you hold it if you have a decent signal. If you are in a weak signal area, you might not even have a signal on another phone. Of the iPhone 4, if you have one bar, avoid touching the strip near the bottom of the left side. If you can tie your own shoes, you can probably manage this. Or get a (free) case. Gee, what a crisis.
http://digitaldaily.allthingsd.com/20100721/apple-earnings-no-better-antennagate-deodorant-than-success/#comments
.
Eidorian
Nov 16, 03:03 PM
And one more thing....
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:pSome Dvorak love.
Johhny Depp rumoured to swap
Johnny Depp At Hot Topic
Introducing the Macbook mini AMD edition!
AMD 4x4 processors at 2.6ghz
Nvidia 4x4 compatible chipset
AMD x1950 graphics w/ 512 memory
12in sxga screen
Superdrive
2 gigs memory standard
Liquid Nitrogen not included...
:pSome Dvorak love.
creator2456
Apr 10, 12:36 AM
Can you report your speeds with that whenever you get it running?
I shall try to remember, but won't have it until Wed., won't have connection until the Monday after.
I shall try to remember, but won't have it until Wed., won't have connection until the Monday after.
Dr Kevorkian94
Sep 28, 06:00 PM
he can control everything from his ipad and his iphone, he will be so happy with the house we cant have. but in all seriousness that is awesome but i wonder if it will be technological, and everything will run on ios. lol
CalBoy
Mar 13, 04:46 PM
Can you say just one company that seems to capture the needs/desires as Apple has?
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I'm not sure what you're replying to...:confused:
Apple clearly does marketing and design very well, and most other tech companies are pretty honestly terrible at it.
However, good marketing and design do not make a company innovative. If those were the factors of innovation, then a host of clothing retailers are more innovative than even Apple.
I don'y see lines for the latest Droid phone or pad...
Like it or not of late; Apple knows how do things right...
I'm not sure what you're replying to...:confused:
Apple clearly does marketing and design very well, and most other tech companies are pretty honestly terrible at it.
However, good marketing and design do not make a company innovative. If those were the factors of innovation, then a host of clothing retailers are more innovative than even Apple.
Hankster
Apr 25, 12:18 PM
To better clarify what the arrows indicate, it may be beneficial to change the image into a thumbs up and thumbs down.
Kwill
Apr 6, 05:56 PM
Novel concept: Non-stop commercials. Perhaps actual movies will be played during intermission.
*LTD*
Apr 22, 09:01 AM
Seriously you hate it when MS fans get their hopes up :rolleyes: Given your blind fanboyism, I doubt very much you have much empathy for anything related to MS.
Comparing Apple's achievements favourably to the late and flat-footed competition doesn't make me biased. It makes me accurate. Being enthusiastic about it, however, does make me biased. But that's like being biased toward chocolate. A good thing is a good thing, any way you slice it.
If you don't like reading pro-Apple posts, then you can put me on ignore or hang out on Neowin. Now if you're looking for "blind", you'll most certainly find plenty of that there, plus copious doses of delusion. If you're lucky, they might even give out "there's always next year" and "rounding error" t-shirts and mousepads. :D
Comparing Apple's achievements favourably to the late and flat-footed competition doesn't make me biased. It makes me accurate. Being enthusiastic about it, however, does make me biased. But that's like being biased toward chocolate. A good thing is a good thing, any way you slice it.
If you don't like reading pro-Apple posts, then you can put me on ignore or hang out on Neowin. Now if you're looking for "blind", you'll most certainly find plenty of that there, plus copious doses of delusion. If you're lucky, they might even give out "there's always next year" and "rounding error" t-shirts and mousepads. :D
Branskins
Apr 29, 01:29 PM
And people kept telling me that OSX and iOS weren't going to merge in any meaningful manner for years ahead, if ever. Yeah right. I'd bet the one after this has them nearly fully merged and I mean towards iOS for the most part. OSX will be dumbed down to the lowest common brain cell and you won't be able to get free/open software anymore. It'll have to come through the App Store or not at all. Wait and see. That is the point I'll be moving on.
Come on, really?
Come on, really?