Multimedia
Sep 12, 04:46 PM
The way I understood, it was capable of playin that resolution in mp4, but not when using AVC/H.264...Right. Mac res for H.264 WAS 320x240 way too small - only the iPod screen res. So H.264 was unpopular because of this limit. Now if the res limit works on teh existing base of 5G 1st gen Video iPods this is HUGE and changes the game completely. See above I am testing this theory now and will report on the result in about a half hour.
cube
Apr 22, 02:55 PM
AMD Fusion w/RadeonHD 6xxx and Price drop to $799 for the 11" and $899 for 13.3" - now that would send the sales skyrocketing.
Hmm... Mobile quad core @ 45W. When are the mobile dual core coming out?
Hmm... Mobile quad core @ 45W. When are the mobile dual core coming out?
DagazaGZ
Apr 30, 02:02 PM
Curious that everyone is clamoring for a thunderbolt-enabled machine, but there isn't a single thunderbolt drive available on the market.
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
You bring a good point... I thought there were thunderbolt drives...
I guess some people just need to feel like they have new stuff even if it's totally pointless.
You bring a good point... I thought there were thunderbolt drives...
levitynyc
Sep 9, 10:52 AM
I have had a few BSODs in XP, but they are rare. Mainly I used to leave my tower on 24/7 and the worst I would get is switching my monitor on first thing in the morning or when I got home from work and see it had rebooted itself and was telling me it was an invalid system disc.
Since Mac, never once has this happened, (even though I tend to power down on this more often, I still often leave running 24/7 if it is doing something that requires up time).
Strangely enough, I am one fo the few that never had that many problems with ME.
Never had the BSOD on XP, but on ME ....WOW that was one shutty OS!
Since Mac, never once has this happened, (even though I tend to power down on this more often, I still often leave running 24/7 if it is doing something that requires up time).
Strangely enough, I am one fo the few that never had that many problems with ME.
Never had the BSOD on XP, but on ME ....WOW that was one shutty OS!
Evangelion
Sep 6, 01:47 AM
I'm also not sure about the bittorrent thing. It's nice in theory, but even with bittorrent, movies will take a while to download. The problem with that is that you can't watch a bittorrent movie until the whole thing has downloaded, whereas with traditional quicktime downloads, you can start watching as soon as you have a decent enough buffer. And iTMS is all about instant gratification.
Well, the good thing (as far as Apple is concerned) with Bittorrent is that it makes it easier and cheaper to distribute content, the fact that it can make RECEIVING the said content faster is just a nice bonus. And who is to say that they couldn't combine the good parts of Quicktime (instant-on) with the good parts of Bittorrent (distributed distribution).
Well, the good thing (as far as Apple is concerned) with Bittorrent is that it makes it easier and cheaper to distribute content, the fact that it can make RECEIVING the said content faster is just a nice bonus. And who is to say that they couldn't combine the good parts of Quicktime (instant-on) with the good parts of Bittorrent (distributed distribution).
corbin_a2
Sep 4, 06:51 PM
This is good news!
Misplaced Mage
Sep 26, 05:29 PM
Mark me down in the "it's on Cingular because it's HSDPA" camp. If Apple seriously intends to sell songs (and TV shows? movies? games?) from the iTunes Store over the air, they need two things:
Sub-Zero figure - Scorpion
Scorpion vs Sub-Zero
Mortal Kombat Scorpion Vs Sub
mortal kombat 9 scorpion vs
mortal kombat sub zero and
mortal kombat sub zero and
mortal kombat 9 sub zero vs
mortal kombat 9 sub zero vs
scorpion vs sub zero mortal
Sareena middot; Mortal Kombat vs
Or is the cold as ice Sub-Zero
Sub Zero Vs Scorpion
Howardchief
Mar 23, 05:53 PM
You counter point is just as silly.
His counter point is supposed to be just as silly. That's his point.
His counter point is supposed to be just as silly. That's his point.
APPLENEWBIE
Apr 14, 06:47 PM
This may seem a bit catty, but that USB 3 logo is one of the ugliest, most amateurish attempts at graphic art I have seen out of a major operation in a very long time... Guter Gott!
sushi
Aug 23, 10:28 PM
Apple makes money off of iTunes - they won't tell us how much, but it is a money maker (all be it insignificant compared to the iPod)
I think that you mean Apple makes money off of iTMS (iTunes Music Store). And yes, it would be interesting to know how much they really make.
I think that you mean Apple makes money off of iTMS (iTunes Music Store). And yes, it would be interesting to know how much they really make.
peharri
Sep 21, 08:10 AM
Finally, someone gets it right.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
CDMA is technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure it. GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company. CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM. It was nothing more than a case of Not Invented Here writ large and turf protection. This early rapid push to standardize on GSM in as many places as possible as a strategic hedge gave them a strong market position in most of the rest of the world. In the US, the various protocols had to fight it out on the open market which took time to sort itself out.
There's a lot of nonsense about IS-95 ("CDMA" as implemented by Qualcomm) that's promoted by Qualcomm shills (some openly, like Steve De Beste) that I'd be very careful about taking claims of "superiority" at face value. The above is so full of the kind mis-representations I've seen posted everywhere I have to respond.
1. CDMA is not "technically superior to GSM just about any way you care to measure". CDMA (by which I assume you mean IS95, because comparing GSM to CDMA air interface technology is like comparing a minivan to a car tire - the conflation of TDMA and GSM has, and the deliberate underplaying of the 95% of IS-95 that has nothing to do with the air-interface, has been a standard tool in the shills toolbox) has an air-interface technology which has better capacity than GSM's TDMA, but the rest of IS-95 really isn't as mature or consumer friendly as GSM. In particular, IS-95 leaves decisions as to support for SIM cards, and network codes, to operators, which means in practice that there's no standardization and few benefits to an end user who chooses it. Most US operators seem to have, surprise surprise, avoided SIM cards and network standardization seems to be based upon US analog dialing star codes (eg *72, etc)
2. "GSM's widespread adoption in Europe was by fiat as a protectionist measure for European telecom companies, primarily because the European technology providers did not want to license CDMA from an American company." is objectively untrue. GSM was developed in the mid-eighties as a method to move towards a standardized mobile phone system for Europe, which at the time had different systems running on different frequencies in pretty much every country (unlike the US where AMPS was available in every state.)
By the time IS-95 was developed, GSM was already an established standard in practically all of Europe. While 900MHz services were mandated as GSM and legacy analogy only by the EC, countries were free to allow other standards on other frequencies until one became dominant on a particular frequency. With 1800MHz, the first operators given the band choose GSM, as it was clearly more advanced than what Qualcomm was offering, and handset makers would have little or no difficulty making multifrequency handsets. (Today GSM is also mandated on 1800MHz, but that wasn't true at the time one2one and Orange, and many that followed, choose GSM.)
The only aspect of IS95 that could be described as "superior" that would require licensing is the CDMA air interface technology. European operators and phone makers have, indeed, licensed that technology (albeit not to Qualcomm's specifications) and it's present in pretty much all implementations of UMTS. So much for that.
3. "CDMA was basically slandered six ways to Sunday to justify using GSM." Funny, I could have sworn I saw the exact opposite.
I came to the US in 1998, GSM wasn't available in my market area at the time, and I picked up an IS-95 phone believing it to be superior based upon what was said on newsgroups, US media, and other sources. I was shocked. IS-95 was better than IS-136 ("D-AMPS"), but not by much, and it was considerably less reliable. At that time, IS-95, as providing by most US operators, didn't support two way text messaging or data. It didn't support - much to my astonishment - SIM cards. ISDN integration was nil. Network services were a jumbled mess. Call drops were common, even when signal strengths were high.
Much of this has been fixed since. But what amazed me looking back on it was the sheer nonsense being directed at GSM by IS-95 advocates. GSM was, according to them, identical to IS-136, which they called TDMA. It had identical problems. Apparently on GSM, calls would drop every time you changed tower. GSM only had a 7km range! It only worked in Europe because everyone lives in cities! And GSM was a government owned standard, imposed by the EU on unwilling mobile phone operators.
Every single one of these facts was completely untrue. IS-136 was closer in form to IS-95 than GSM. IS-136, unlike GSM and like IS-95, was essentially built around the same mobile phone model as AMPS, with little or no network services standardization and an inherent assumption that the all calls would be to POTS or other similarly limited cellphones as itself. Like IS-95 and unlike GSM, in IS-136 your phone was your identifier, you couldn't change phones without your operator's permission. Like IS-95 at the time, messaging and data was barely implemented in IS-136 - when I left the UK I'd been browsing the web and using IRC (via Demon's telnetable IRC client) on my Nokia 9000 on a regular basis.
No TDMA system I'm aware of routinely drops calls when you change towers. In practice, I had far more call drops under Sprint PCS then I had under any other operator, namely because IS-95's capacity improvement was over-exaggerated and operators at the time routinely overloaded their networks.
GSM's range, which is around 20km, while technically a limitation of the air interface technology, isn't much different to what a .25W cellphone's range is in practice. You're not going to find many cellphones capable of getting a signal from a tower that far, regardless of what technology you use. The whole "Everyone lives in cities" thing is a myth, as certain countries, notably Finland, have far more US-like demographics in that respect (but what do they know about cellphones in Finland (http://www.nokia.com)?)
GSM was a standard built by the operators after the EU told them to create at least one standard that would be supported across the continent. Only the concept of "standardization" was forced upon operators, the standard - a development of work being done by France Telecom at the time - was made and agreed to by the operators. Those same operators would have looked at IS-95, or even at CDMA incorporated into GSM at the air interface level - had it been a mature, viable, technology at the time. It wasn't.
The only practical advantage IS-95 had over GSM was better capacity. This in theory meant cheaper minutes. For a time, that was true. Today, most US operators offer close to identical tariffs and close to identical reliability. But I can choose which GSM phone I leave the house with, and I know it'll work consistantly regardless of where I am.
Ultimately, the GSM consortium lost and Qualcomm got the last laugh because the technology does not scale as well as CDMA. Every last telecom equipment provider in Europe has since licensed the CDMA technology, and some version of the technology is part of the next generation cellular infrastructure under a few different names.
This paragraph is bizarrely misleading and I'm wondering if you just worded it poorly. GSM is still the worldwide standard. The newest version, UMTS, uses a CDMA air interface but is otherwise a clear development of GSM. It has virtually nothing in common with IS-95. "The GSM consortium" consists of GSM operators and handset makers. They're doing pretty well. What have they lost? Are you saying that because GSM's latest version includes one aspect of the IS-95 standard that GSM is worse? Or that IS-95 is suddenly better?
While GSM has better interoperability globally, I would make the observation that CDMA works just fine in the US, which is no small region of the planet and the third most populous country. For many people, the better quality is worth it.
Given the choice between 2G IS-95 or GSM, I'd pick GSM every time. Given the choice between 3G IS-95 (CDMA2000) and UMTS, I'd pick UMTS every time. The quality is generally better with the GSM equivalent - you're getting a well designed, digitial, integrated, network with GSM with all the features you'd expect. The advantages of the IS-95 equivalent are harder to come by. Slightly better data rates with 3G seems to be the only major one. Well, maybe the only one. Capacity? That's an operator issue. Indeed, with the move to UMA (presumably there'll be an IS-95 equivalent), it wouldn't surprise me if operators need less towers in the future regardless of which network technology they picked. The only other "advantages" IS-95 brings to the table seem to be imaginary.
h00ligan
Apr 20, 10:44 AM
Has to have some back and forth that could be tracked.
Incorrect. You're confusing it with a location device. However as traffic receivers become more pervasive and ask you to report back for data. Yes.
Gps by default is not 2 way as I understand it.
Incorrect. You're confusing it with a location device. However as traffic receivers become more pervasive and ask you to report back for data. Yes.
Gps by default is not 2 way as I understand it.
aiqw9182
Apr 25, 06:50 PM
Bad example.
However, per your request, a card that runs higher than 2560 x 1600
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2040733/nvidia-launches-entry-level-quadro-400-graphics-professionals
A graphics card that is shipping that can go higher than 2560 x 1600.
Match - set - Full of Win
Yawn. Maximum resolution is 2560x1600 at 60Hz.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-400-us.html
Still waiting.
However, per your request, a card that runs higher than 2560 x 1600
http://www.v3.co.uk/v3-uk/news/2040733/nvidia-launches-entry-level-quadro-400-graphics-professionals
A graphics card that is shipping that can go higher than 2560 x 1600.
Match - set - Full of Win
Yawn. Maximum resolution is 2560x1600 at 60Hz.
http://www.nvidia.com/object/product-quadro-400-us.html
Still waiting.
Eidorian
May 3, 11:21 AM
These iMacs have discrete chips supporting 6 displays, too. But they are crippled by Thunderbolt, like the MBPs.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
Do you think the MBPs will have the power for it also?As before, that support is entirely derived from ATI's GPUs and the available number of outputs.
You can get 5 Mini-DisplayPort connectors on a single slot video card.
GGJstudios
Apr 17, 03:52 PM
I notice that the items in those folder only have system with write privilege but I believe the folders themselves also have admin with write privileges.
281797
Many of those security sensitive folders in /Library just serve the same function as ~/Library but affect all users. Important items included in those folders by default, require system level privileges to modify so password authentication would be required to hijack those items. I also believe that items have to only be writeable by system if going to interact with system level processes due to unix DAC; I haven't confirmed this yet. Makes sense?
Yes, it makes sense.
281797
Many of those security sensitive folders in /Library just serve the same function as ~/Library but affect all users. Important items included in those folders by default, require system level privileges to modify so password authentication would be required to hijack those items. I also believe that items have to only be writeable by system if going to interact with system level processes due to unix DAC; I haven't confirmed this yet. Makes sense?
Yes, it makes sense.
cmaier
Nov 13, 10:43 PM
You're absolutely right, which means, unless you OWN or LICENSE the icons from Apple, you can't use them. That's what copyright infringement means.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
Not quite. There are at least two other options. Fair use, and exhaustion/implied license/first sale doctrine.
The use is almost certainly fair use, and Apple's rights may very well be exhausted under the first sale doctrine. It's a thorny question of law since there is nothing in the Mac OS license that makes it clear what you can do with those icons. Apple would have been better off putting something in the development agreement about not being able to use representations of Macs, etc. But they didn't.
So your argument is that since a court of law would find this to be copyright infringement, it's covered by the development agreement.
My opinion, as an I.P. lawyer, is that it's not at all clear that it's copyright infringement, that most people would think it probably isn't, and that therefore the development agreement does not at all clearly forbid this sort of thing.
P.S.: You're saying developers just need to read the agreement. I'm saying they need to read the agreement, go to law school, and guess how Apple will interpret the facts.
woodman
Sep 14, 01:23 AM
Instead of having a slide-down clickwheel that reveals buttons, why not just have the clickwheel behave like those old roatary phones. You can just scroll around a circle of numbers on the screen and click to select it. That'd be cleaner. Of course text messages are a different thing :)
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
While I'm here, I'd just like to reiterate my belief that Apple will have it's own network and not offer its phone to other carriers (they don't want it anyway). They will lease lines like Boost or ESPN does.
Although I've been shot down on this before, I still believe it and I've even heard media mention the same thing, so I'd be willing to bet. (In fact my Jan-07 call options are a bet!).
mi5moav
Sep 14, 09:50 AM
I'm sure it's just an update to aperture along with a new aluminium skinned Apple video camera with 1/3 CCD and 100G HD. The future of video recording is on us and apple more than anyone knows about digital video. Though I'm realing hoping some sort of Leica/Zeiss/Apple announcement.
mattwolfmatt
Apr 4, 12:10 PM
As the story says: "A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said."
The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.
From the article:
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
I feel I must defend my original post from page 1 . . . when I posted that, there was no mention of gunfire in the article. This story has been updated since I posted my question of whether the guard had the right to do what he did. And as I said, there are facts we don't know yet.
Don't jump all over someone for not reading the article, when the article you are referring to wasn't posted yet.
The burglars were shooting at him also. So the security guard acting in self defense. It wasn't like they were unarmed and while they ran away he shot them.
From the article:
A private armed security guard interrupted the burglars and at some point, gunfire was exchanged with the two male burglars, who were also armed, Facicci said.
Only in America, can you have the intention to hurt/kill others, but until an x amount of people are hurt/shot or raped, then charges can be pressed allow criminals to make multiple attempts until they have a good successful one before they are official caught/punished. What the hell did he think would happen robbing a store while being armed? Cops would give him lollipops? Come on, people that rob banks shouldn't be "surprised" that they were shot. He knew the consequences of armed robbery.
I feel I must defend my original post from page 1 . . . when I posted that, there was no mention of gunfire in the article. This story has been updated since I posted my question of whether the guard had the right to do what he did. And as I said, there are facts we don't know yet.
Don't jump all over someone for not reading the article, when the article you are referring to wasn't posted yet.
iJawn108
Oct 12, 08:25 PM
They should have come out with red Core 2 Duo MacBook Pros, now those would be hot items.:p
QCassidy352
Sep 26, 12:05 PM
I'm pretty happy with verizon's service. I get very good coverage and never a dropped call. OTOH, the phone choices suck, they're pretty expensive, and almost everyone I know has a verizon phone so most of my calls are free. My contract is up next May... would an iphone be enough to make me go Cingular? Depends on how revolutionary it is.
weg
Aug 29, 02:25 AM
all the people who said it's only marginal at best can stick it where the sun don't shine!
The only place where I can use my PB 12"...
The only place where I can use my PB 12"...
Coolerking
Sep 8, 09:03 AM
Leopard will even run on PowerPC macs.
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
Ok so in other words you DON'T need a Core 2 Duo to run Leopard, right?
luminosity
Sep 1, 11:37 AM
wow. would that be the biggest mainstream desktop around?
Hiç yorum yok:
Yorum Gönder