Macopotamus
May 3, 02:29 PM
I'm not surprised by this, it's pressure from the carriers.
BTW the AT&T link doesn't work.
BTW the AT&T link doesn't work.
Gugulino
Mar 24, 04:11 PM
Cheers! I wish Mac OS X a long and successful life! Keep going on�
7o7munoz7o7
Dec 13, 05:01 PM
I'm getting really tired of reading "iPhone on Verizon 4G after Christmas!" rumors on here. WHy is it that every time someone says "Oh, I've heard the iPhone's coming to Verizon in January," MacRumors puts it on the front page or Page 2? Are enough people so totally obsessed with the iPhone, they pee their pants if they don't hear a Verizon iPhone rumor every day/every other day?
Yes.
Yes.
Chundles
Sep 12, 01:15 AM
I really don't care anymore...tomorrow will probably follow a familiar formula - some disappointments, some bullseyes.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
That's just a continuation of the old cube patents - keeps anyone from copying Apple. The old cube had a handle too you know.
This is what I want after seeing the infamous "cube with a handle" patent that surfaced earlier this week:
That's just a continuation of the old cube patents - keeps anyone from copying Apple. The old cube had a handle too you know.
CalBoy
Apr 14, 10:50 PM
I understand the point you are trying to make (re: enhanced security measures] but technically those two incidents had nothing to do with the TSA since they both flew from non-USA airports - that is, the TSA didn't screen them at all.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
While this is true, we can't allow that technicality to wipe the slate clean. Our security as a whole is deficient, even if the TSA on its own might not be responsible for these two particular failures. Our tax dollars are still going to the our mutual safety so we should expect more.
I guess that depends on how you define "not much trouble". We can't know the actual number, since we will never know many actually get through. But they are catching over half the weapons that their own agents try to smuggle through on test/training runs. So that counts as being "some trouble". How much "trouble" is enough? Read my post above about how much risk a "bad person" organization is willing to take on 50/50 odds. My late father made his career "gaming" situations, so I have a bit of a passing knowledge of it. I am certain that the TSA has "gamed" the odds, and the TSA believe that they have reached a reasonable balance between costing the public time, money, and indignities - and - ensuring a reasonable level of safety for the flying public. They may be wrong.... but I would bet money that, to the best of their ability, they believe they have reached a balance.
Well when a fanatic is willing to commit suicide because he believes that he'll be rewarded in heaven, 50/50 odds don't seem to be all that much of a deterrent. What's worse is that we've only achieved that with a lot of our personal dignity, time, and money. I don't think we can tolerate much more. We should be expecting more for the time, money, and humiliation we're putting ourselves (and our 6 year-old children) through.
If this is the TSA's best effort and what it believes is the best balance, I want a new TSA.
OK, then why are hijackings down? I have my working hypothesis. I cited some evidence to support it. If you don't agree, then it is up to you to state an alternative one that is supported by more than unsupported statements.
I am not saying the TSA (or in my case CATSA) is perfect or haven't mucked things up sometimes. I'm just saying that I believe that they have been mostly responsible for a dramatic drop in airline hijackings. I cited some statistics. Now it's your turn.....
Your statistics don't unequivocally prove the efficacy of the TSA though. They only show that the TSA employs a cost-benefit method to determine what measures to take.
Since you believe in the efficacy of the TSA so much, the burden is yours to make a clear and convincing case, not mine. I can provide alternative hypotheses, but I am in no way saying that these are provable at the current moment in time. I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Terrorism is a complex thing. My bet is that as we waged wars in multiple nations, it became more advantageous for fanatics to strike where our military forces were. Without having to gain entry into the country, get past airport security (no matter what odds were), or hijack a plane, terrorists were able to kill over 4,000 Americans in Iraq and nearly 1,500 in Afghanistan. That's almost twice as many as were killed on 9/11.
If I were the leader of a group intent on killing Americans and Westerners in general, I certainly would go down that route rather than hijack planes.
ps there is no proof that it wasn't Lisa's rock. There are some very weird causal relationships in the world. Like shooting wolves causes the Aspen to die off in Wyoming. Or .... overfishing the Salmon in the Pacific changes the mix of trees along the rivers of the BC coast.....
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock. Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation. That is not surprising, nor is it difficult to prove (you can track all three populations simultaneously). There is also a causal mechanism at work that can explain the effect without the need for new assumptions (Occam's Razor).
The efficacy of the TSA and our security measures, on the other hand, are quite complex and are affected by numerous causes. Changes in travel patterns, other nations' actions, and an enemey's changing strategy all play a big role. You can't ignore all of these and pronounce our security gimmicks (and really, that's what patting down a 6 year-old is) to be so masterfully effective.
ozred
Mar 17, 11:33 PM
It's a shame that the "4G" on the Inspire is slower than the 3G on the iPhone 4, especially in upload speed (since the Inspire is mysteriously crippled and lacking in HSUPA support and the iPhone 4 is not). Shrug.
And for what it's worth, my iPhone 4 consistently outperforms all of my friends' Android and Win7 phones (Droid A855, HTC Incredible, HTC HD7, HTC Evo 4G) in just about every way (battery life, reliability, network speed and connection reliability). Of course, your location can have a big impact on your experience with certain devices, and it helps that I'm in a city with outstanding AT&T service.
And your point is?
And for what it's worth, my iPhone 4 consistently outperforms all of my friends' Android and Win7 phones (Droid A855, HTC Incredible, HTC HD7, HTC Evo 4G) in just about every way (battery life, reliability, network speed and connection reliability). Of course, your location can have a big impact on your experience with certain devices, and it helps that I'm in a city with outstanding AT&T service.
And your point is?
sundancekid
Jan 14, 08:16 PM
Hey bad news is better than no news. I'd bet Gizmodo will get a few more hits out of this and maybe ces will attract some more people to see what will happen next year. It may be in the end one of the better things to have happened to this event. (Just a different way of looking at it)
Spanna
Nov 25, 06:20 AM
Could someone please tell me what is thanksgiving, I have seen it being celebrated on many american television programs and I know it's got something to do with turkeys but they never seem to mention its origins. Also is it a national public holiday ?
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.
stoid
Aug 8, 07:20 AM
Sorry to say this, but you're simplifying things too much. Just because a monitor has the same size/resolution, doesn't mean that the LCD sources are identical.
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
FYI, Apple is using LCDs from Lg.Philips, Dell's LCDs come from Samsung. As a matter of fact, the 30" from Samsung for example is an exact copy of the Lg.Philips panel that they developed for Apple: same module dimensions (even fixation holes), electrical interface, etc.
Because Dell is doing copy-paste, some of the specs are indeed identical. However, Apple displays use IPS (in-plane switching) LCD technology, while Samsung uses PVA (patterned vertical alignment). Consequence of this is that optical specs are slightly different:
- higher brightness for Dell (because of higher LCD transmission of PVA)
- higher contrast for Dell (but only perpendicular: contrast decreases very rapidly if you look off-axis at PVA-based panels)
- superior color stability for Apple (large color shift with viewing angle for PVA, especially for grey tones)
The latter characteristic is why Apple chooses for Lg.Philips, and why Apple displays are better for graphical applications, despite the slightly lower specifications on paper.
Be careful! wnurse may not have gotten a nap, and can get very cranky when people point out differences between Dell and Apple monitors. ;)
Seriously though, wnurse, lighten up and chill out! :cool:
twoodcc
Jul 30, 11:54 PM
i know! it cant be that hard to write some support for it can it? just support some of the later ones even.
yeah you would think that. maybe some day
yeah you would think that. maybe some day
Lynxpro
Oct 20, 01:40 PM
Seriously, the more I think about it, the more upset I am that they aren't offering one. I mean, what the heck are they goint to do with $10 billion? Even the most aggressive expansion and R&D strategy doesn't justify holding onto that. And it would be a great way to offset any damage from the options fiasco. And it would boost the shares 5% (at least) on announcement. They USED to pay a dividend (1987-1995). It's time to bring it back!
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
Oh, I dunno, perhaps acquire some more companies? You know, like TiVo - with its valuable IP - for an easy $400 million. Or pump it into R&D. Or a stake in Nintendo or Sony. Or acquire the EMI Music Group (for $1 billion) as a buffer against the other RIAA members pressuring for an increase in the iTunes Store pricing. Or finally pay off Apple Records once and for all. Those are several things Apple could do* with that $10 billion that could be more useful than artificially boosting the stock by paying out an expensive dividend to grumpy shareholders.
Heck, maybe they could go all-solar on the Apple campus like what Google is doing.
*My personal favorite idea would be for Apple to acquire Atari dirt-cheap. This would give Apple a large library of classic titles that could be ported to the iPod, not to mention giving Apple a brand that could be used to pump out OS X "compatible" computers geared towards gamers in order to boost gaming on OS X overall and a means at gunning after Dell-owned Alienware and Dell's own XPS line.
benjayman2
Apr 8, 10:44 PM
what theme is that for your lockscreen .. looks great
typophone 4 and typophone weather
It works well with the current jb 4.3.1 since there is little black bar that shows up on lockscreen wallpapers that are not plain black.
typophone 4 and typophone weather
It works well with the current jb 4.3.1 since there is little black bar that shows up on lockscreen wallpapers that are not plain black.
BForstall
Mar 17, 02:09 AM
Metaphor.
Meh. I'd put money on 75% of the posters in this thread gladly walking out with a $250 iPad 2. No reason to get on a noble, moral horse on the internet and deny it. You all know what you would do deep down inside, if you lied to improve your image online, that's pretty low. If not, more power to you.
Meh. I'd put money on 75% of the posters in this thread gladly walking out with a $250 iPad 2. No reason to get on a noble, moral horse on the internet and deny it. You all know what you would do deep down inside, if you lied to improve your image online, that's pretty low. If not, more power to you.
0010101
Oct 29, 04:10 PM
For the record, i'd gladly pay top dollar for OSX 10.5 if I could put it on my own 'home built' x86 box with Apples blessing.
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
Here's an idea for Apple.. start selling ATX motherboards for the DIY crowd bundled with the latest MacTel OSX version, and let the consumer just drop them in their own case.
Really.. that would be going right back to their roots (the Apple I was sold like that)
Price the board/OS bundle package at a point that makes it cost prohibitive for OEM's to build clones with the boards.. but low enough that the 'Techno Geek' (who would otherwise simply buy a simular spec'ed Intel Chipset board and run their bootleg osX86 on it.) is buying their parts right from Apple.
Let's face it.. if you're a guy who wants OSX, but can't shell out the $1000+ bucks for an iMac, but could.. say.. spend $300 for the OS and a board you can just drop in your exsisting PC case, and use your current hard drive, power supply, etc.. you would probably not even bother trying to build a 'bootleg' MacTel.
That way, Apple stays in firm control of the hardware, makes their big fat margins, and nips the whole 'osx86' thing right in the bud.. not to mention that such a program would have little to no impact on their 'full machine' sales (because the typical Mac buyer isn't a person real interested in 'building' their own computer)
milo
Oct 6, 10:23 AM
Apple needs to start working on a new business model while the studios are still suing their customers and the TV boom is still on. If they dont they're going to be beaten overseas. Enough with the legal rhetoric damn it, evolve your business model or you'll lose.
Beaten overseas by who? Who is making it big selling TV shows overseas?
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
Wow, that's incredibly naive. People don't get free content because the free content is "simpler". It's because they're too cheap to pay. If people want no drm, they can just buy cd's and dvd's and rip them. People who download free content, or rip rented discs are just cheapskates who are stealing.
There IS DRM free music for sale online. And in contrast to your theory, people are still stealing it.
Whom are you kidding? Nobody cares that Fairplay's DRM is better than other DRM. Do you think it being "successful" (and that word ONLY applies comparing it to other pay services, not overall downloads) has anything to do with the fact that 70% of all mp3 players are ipods, and only work with the itms?
But if iTunes' DRM was annoying to users, it never would have made it to 70%. Users absolutely care about DRM. But they're not aware of it unless it's too restrictive or inconvenient - if you give them *bad* DRM they will totally notice it and hate it.
Beaten overseas by who? Who is making it big selling TV shows overseas?
good lord, if anyone actually got through reading all this, can there be any doubt left that all consumers want is DRM-free content??? There's a simple rule that exists - the more complicated the DRM you put on your content, the less likely that people are going to buy it. Hence, people are downloading music and movies for free, and ripping Netflix DVDs to their hard drives to burn their own copies.
You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Until there's DRM-free movies and music for sale online, so-called pirated downloads will continue to dwarf legal downloads. End of story.
Wow, that's incredibly naive. People don't get free content because the free content is "simpler". It's because they're too cheap to pay. If people want no drm, they can just buy cd's and dvd's and rip them. People who download free content, or rip rented discs are just cheapskates who are stealing.
There IS DRM free music for sale online. And in contrast to your theory, people are still stealing it.
Whom are you kidding? Nobody cares that Fairplay's DRM is better than other DRM. Do you think it being "successful" (and that word ONLY applies comparing it to other pay services, not overall downloads) has anything to do with the fact that 70% of all mp3 players are ipods, and only work with the itms?
But if iTunes' DRM was annoying to users, it never would have made it to 70%. Users absolutely care about DRM. But they're not aware of it unless it's too restrictive or inconvenient - if you give them *bad* DRM they will totally notice it and hate it.
IJ Reilly
Oct 19, 11:04 AM
Showoff ;)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
You're basically bragging that you have $100K in Apple stock. Nice!!!! :D Your faith is being rewarded handsomely...
Two can play at that game. I still have the 400 shares I bought in 1997.
Do the math. :)
KnightWRX
Apr 29, 05:24 PM
In a command prompt, use winver. Note the version listed
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x.
NT 4 and Windows 95/98 don't use the same kernel at all. They might share the GUI sub-system (actually, it's called the Win32 sub-system, which is probably what Windows Team blog is referring when referring to API versions, since Win32 is the Windows API) (and yes, I know the 64 bit version is called Win64, just like the 16 bit version was called Win16), but they do not share the same architecture/kernel at all, which Smitty inferred. So no, Smitty wasn't right at all, is use of the word kernel was wrong and confusing.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
EG, Windows 95, NT 4, 98, and ME are all considered Windows 4.x.
NT 4 and Windows 95/98 don't use the same kernel at all. They might share the GUI sub-system (actually, it's called the Win32 sub-system, which is probably what Windows Team blog is referring when referring to API versions, since Win32 is the Windows API) (and yes, I know the 64 bit version is called Win64, just like the 16 bit version was called Win16), but they do not share the same architecture/kernel at all, which Smitty inferred. So no, Smitty wasn't right at all, is use of the word kernel was wrong and confusing.
Anyway, the only way it makes sense again is Windows NT releases. I doubt the Windows Team Blog are in on marketing meetings. ;)
raster
Mar 24, 05:09 PM
My Mac Geek Friend, Dylan's B-day is today too...
What a coincidence...
What a coincidence...
synth3tik
Jan 10, 05:17 PM
Thats something that should stay at the hackers convention. not CES and most definitely not MWSF.
Applejuiced
Apr 27, 12:46 PM
same with me. On IE7 running Vista
Edit: Now works! :)
Works now for me too.
Win7 with IE9.
Had to log out of the forum, delete all cookies and restart the computer.
Then I logged back in and the arrows work without bringing me to the main forum section any more:)
Edit:
It was working fine for 15-20 and now started doing it again. I didnt log out or even closed the IE page I had open.
I dont know whats up, seems like its still buggy....
Edit: Now works! :)
Works now for me too.
Win7 with IE9.
Had to log out of the forum, delete all cookies and restart the computer.
Then I logged back in and the arrows work without bringing me to the main forum section any more:)
Edit:
It was working fine for 15-20 and now started doing it again. I didnt log out or even closed the IE page I had open.
I dont know whats up, seems like its still buggy....
bboucher790
May 2, 10:44 AM
You're tracking us wrong.
faketom
Aug 9, 04:43 PM
Just ordered a 30" with my Mac Pro. Stuck with the stock graphics card however. It was a huge decision of whether to go for the single 30" or the two 23" displays - which is actually cheaper. Did I make the right choice?
Anybody who has a 30" have anything good or bad:( to say about them?
Anybody who has a 30" have anything good or bad:( to say about them?
NDA74
Jan 12, 07:14 PM
Credentialed people are held to a higher standard. They are trusted to cover the event, not affect the outcome of it. Any blogger or press member should be embarrassed by this kind of behavior. As a writer and an event planner, I'm pissed in every way imaginable.
Agreed. People have argued that bloggers should not be credentialed for trade shows and sporting events because they might disrupt the event. Gizmodo's stunt adds credibility to those arguments.
I used to read Gizmodo regularly, but I deleted the RSS feed from NetNewsWire Friday.
Agreed. People have argued that bloggers should not be credentialed for trade shows and sporting events because they might disrupt the event. Gizmodo's stunt adds credibility to those arguments.
I used to read Gizmodo regularly, but I deleted the RSS feed from NetNewsWire Friday.