Vegasman
Mar 28, 04:07 PM
So..What great App you all feel is going to be excluded by this change? I did not see anything from last years winners that could not be in the app store if the developer wanted.
If you have a great app, you may not need the App Store to help market it. So why give Steve 30% when you don't need to.
If you have a great app, you may not need the App Store to help market it. So why give Steve 30% when you don't need to.
jimbo999
Oct 3, 12:01 AM
The DMCA changed that, and until it's tested in court anything where encryption is used or even potentially used is not "safe" to reverse engineer in the US.
B
Not "anything where encryption is used." But if something is encrypted, it can only be reverse engineered under 1201(f):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
Keira Knightley#39;s breasts
Pirates of the Caribbean
Pirates Of Caribbean
Keira Knightley: The Pirates
Keira Knightley to Star in “My
Keira Knightley Widescreen
Keira Knightley Actress Keira
Pirates of the Caribbean: At
Keira Knightley
keira-knightley-pirates
Keira Knightley at the Pirates
keira knightley elizabeth
B
Not "anything where encryption is used." But if something is encrypted, it can only be reverse engineered under 1201(f):
(f) Reverse Engineering. -
Cromulent
Apr 27, 10:52 PM
thats funny, as soon as someone mentions "what's a pointer"..everyone shoots to kill here, and they tell you to step out or go deep yourself in books. The last thing you'll get is a simple answer, which 1 out 20 developers give you without asking you "Have you even read the objective-C manual?? cause if not you should leave the Real Coding and go study now
Fine. I'll give you a simple answer to "What is a pointer?".
It is a memory address. Nothing more and nothing less. The reason people don't give you the simple answer is because it will mean nothing to you and you won't understand the answer until you have read the articles and documents that people have been trying to get you to read.
Frankly having read this thread I think your behaviour is disgusting. People have been falling over themselves here trying to help you and you are just dismissing every single piece of help that is being offered to you.
Fine. I'll give you a simple answer to "What is a pointer?".
It is a memory address. Nothing more and nothing less. The reason people don't give you the simple answer is because it will mean nothing to you and you won't understand the answer until you have read the articles and documents that people have been trying to get you to read.
Frankly having read this thread I think your behaviour is disgusting. People have been falling over themselves here trying to help you and you are just dismissing every single piece of help that is being offered to you.
MacBoobsPro
Sep 12, 07:20 AM
Tremendously Tremendous!
puuukeey
Jan 9, 02:02 PM
Oh the irony. I sit and refresh this idiotic mac fanatic fan site 4 times a day so I can see what apple is going to release. Then I insist on being the last guy on the planet to know when they actually do something.
SHOOT ME
SHOOT ME
IOIIOOO
Apr 5, 03:11 PM
Now the dismal iAd clickthrough rates we see do to so few ads available can be made even lower. Thanks Apple!
kwikdeth
Apr 16, 08:36 AM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
yup, that it's tell. unfortunate as I actually rather like the concept. ive never been happy with the iphone's back panel since the 3g got released due to the fact it's not flat.
yup, that it's tell. unfortunate as I actually rather like the concept. ive never been happy with the iphone's back panel since the 3g got released due to the fact it's not flat.
MusicallySilent
Jan 13, 12:22 AM
Mid range Mac
I would hope for a mid range "Cube like" computer only because I'm looking to upgrade soon.
That would be almost nice to have a cube, sort of what I was thinking of except have desktop or xeons instead it could be a desktop xeon (lga775) for all I care just give us the option for a desktop/server power dual and quad core, along with 2-4 (pref 4) ram slots, pci E graphics and a few hdd bays and get it out the door for 999 or less
I would hope for a mid range "Cube like" computer only because I'm looking to upgrade soon.
That would be almost nice to have a cube, sort of what I was thinking of except have desktop or xeons instead it could be a desktop xeon (lga775) for all I care just give us the option for a desktop/server power dual and quad core, along with 2-4 (pref 4) ram slots, pci E graphics and a few hdd bays and get it out the door for 999 or less
djransom
Mar 17, 12:24 PM
With my flame suit on, i say this...
I might have done the same thing as the OP.
Regarding the kid, well, its probably a part time job for him. Furthermore, how much can BestBuy possibly be paying him? He could probably earn more if he worked else where. :)
Truth be told alot of people in this thread would've. People are quick to say what they will and won't do AFTER the situation, but had the opportunity presented not many would've passed on it.
I might have done the same thing as the OP.
Regarding the kid, well, its probably a part time job for him. Furthermore, how much can BestBuy possibly be paying him? He could probably earn more if he worked else where. :)
Truth be told alot of people in this thread would've. People are quick to say what they will and won't do AFTER the situation, but had the opportunity presented not many would've passed on it.
TheNewDude
Nov 10, 07:19 AM
I got the game yesterday but still haven't opened it....
I'm just so addicted to GOD OF WAR 3 right now... It's is wrong that I like breaking people's necks in the underworld???
Will start Black Ops on the weekend hopefully!
I'm just so addicted to GOD OF WAR 3 right now... It's is wrong that I like breaking people's necks in the underworld???
Will start Black Ops on the weekend hopefully!
KnightWRX
Mar 13, 09:59 AM
Tablets don't even redefine computing at all anyway. It's all the same it's always been. A device that takes input, processes it according to a set of instructions, and outputs a result or provides storage.
That's the basic definition of a computer. iPad, iPhone, Macbook, Xserve, Mac Pro, they are all computers. You use them to input data, process it, store it or output it to an output device (printer, screen).
To think there's some kind of paradigm-shift going is simply having your head in the clouds.
For programmers, nothing has changed, we're doing the same thing with the devices people in the 1970s were doing, albeit, with more refined output capabilities and different input devices.
For server admins nothing has changed. These thin/fat clients are still needing server architectures to drive them and still use the very core Client/Server model for most of their servers. Heck, moving things "into the cloud", just means more power on the server backend and less in the client. That means more infrastructure to manage for us server guys. :D "Cloud computer" is just another way of saying "Client/Server" model and the 60s called about that, they want us to quit renaming their concept.
For "desktop support" people, nothing has changed. Devices have to be imaged with the software the customer needs, it needs to be configured and that configuration needs to be managed. It needs to get hardware service when broken. It needs software support for when things don't really work right or for when the user needs a live person "manual" to reference.
Heck, I'd go so far as to argue even for users, what really changed ? iPad is a big e-mail, web, facebook, gaming device. PCs/Laptops have been this for these people for the last 10 or 15 years. They are doing the same thing on tablets that they were on laptops. There's no paradigm shift at all, just a different format. It would be like calling laptops a paradigm shift when they came out.
That's the basic definition of a computer. iPad, iPhone, Macbook, Xserve, Mac Pro, they are all computers. You use them to input data, process it, store it or output it to an output device (printer, screen).
To think there's some kind of paradigm-shift going is simply having your head in the clouds.
For programmers, nothing has changed, we're doing the same thing with the devices people in the 1970s were doing, albeit, with more refined output capabilities and different input devices.
For server admins nothing has changed. These thin/fat clients are still needing server architectures to drive them and still use the very core Client/Server model for most of their servers. Heck, moving things "into the cloud", just means more power on the server backend and less in the client. That means more infrastructure to manage for us server guys. :D "Cloud computer" is just another way of saying "Client/Server" model and the 60s called about that, they want us to quit renaming their concept.
For "desktop support" people, nothing has changed. Devices have to be imaged with the software the customer needs, it needs to be configured and that configuration needs to be managed. It needs to get hardware service when broken. It needs software support for when things don't really work right or for when the user needs a live person "manual" to reference.
Heck, I'd go so far as to argue even for users, what really changed ? iPad is a big e-mail, web, facebook, gaming device. PCs/Laptops have been this for these people for the last 10 or 15 years. They are doing the same thing on tablets that they were on laptops. There's no paradigm shift at all, just a different format. It would be like calling laptops a paradigm shift when they came out.
snberk103
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
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.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
As I said, I understood the point you were trying to make. But.... you can't take two non-TSA incidents and use those to make a case against the TSA specifically. All you can do is say that increased security, similar to what the TSA does, can be shown to not catch everything. I could just as easily argue that because the two incidents (shoe and underwear bombers) did not occur from TSA screenings then that is proof the TSA methods work. I could, but I won't because we don't really know that is true. Too small a sample to judge.
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.
Did you not read my post above? Or did you not understand it? Or did I not write clearly? I'll assume the 3rd. Past history is that bombs are not put on planes by lone wolf fanatics. They are placed there by a whole operation involving a number of people... perhaps a dozen, maybe? The person carrying the bomb may be a brainwashed fool (though, surprisingly - often educated) - but the support team likely aren't fools. The team includes dedicated individuals who have specialized training and experience that are needed to mount further operations. The bomb makers, the money people, the people who nurture the bomb carrier and ensure that they are fit (mentally) to go through with a suicide attack. These people, the support crew, are not going to like 50/50 odds. Nor, are the support teams command and control. The security forces have shown themselves to be quite good at eventually following the linkages back up the chain.
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.
You are right. There has been a cost to dignity, time and money. Most of life is. People are constantly balancing personal and societal security/safety against personal freedoms. In this case what you think is only part of the balance between society and security. You feel it's too far. I can't argue. I don't fly anymore unless I have to. But, I also think that what the TSA (and CATSA, & the European equivalents) are doing is working. I just don't have to like going through it.
....
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.
Give the man/woman/boy a cigar! There is no way to prove it, other than setting controlled experiments in which make some airports security free, and others with varying levels of security. And in some cases you don't tell the travelling public which airports have what level (if any) of security - but you do tell the bad guys/gals.
In other words, in this world... all you've got is incomplete data to try and make a reasonable decisions based on a cost/benefit analysis.
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 did. I cited a sharp drop-off in hijackings at a particular moment in history. Within the limits of a Mac Rumours Forum, that is as far as I'm going to go. If you an alternative hypothesis, you have to at least back it up with something. My something trumps your alternative hypothesis - even if my something is merely a pair of deuces - until you provide something to back up your AH.
I'm only saying that they are rational objections to your theory.
Objections with nothing to support them.
My hypothesis is essentially the same as Lisa's: the protection is coming from our circumstances rather than our deliberative efforts.
Good. Support your hypothesis. Otherwise it's got the exactly the same weight as my hypothesis that in fact Lisa's rock was making the bears scarce.
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.
US has been waging wars in multiple nations since.... well, lets not go there.... for a long time. What changed on 9/11? Besides enhanced security at the airports, that is.
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.
Over 10 years, not 10 minutes. It is the single act of terrorism on 9/11 that is engraved on people's (not just American) memories and consciousnesses - not the background and now seemingly routine deaths in the military ranks (I'm speaking about the general population, not about the families and fellow soldiers of those who have been killed.)
Terrorism against military targets is 1) not technically terrorism, and b) not very newsworthy to the public. That's why terrorists target civilians. Deadliest single overseas attack on the US military since the 2nd WW - where and when? Hint... it killed 241 American serviceman. Even if you know that incident, do you think it resonates with the general public in anyway? How about the Oklahoma City bombing? Bet you most people would think more people were killed there than in .... (shall I tell you? Beirut.) That's because civilians were targeted in OK, and the military in Beirut.
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.
You'd not make the news very often, nor change much public opinion in the US, then.
It's pretty clear that it was not the rock.
But can you prove it? :)
Ecosystems are constantly finding new equilibriums; killing off an herbivore's primary predator should cause a decline in vegetation.
I'm glad you got that reference. The Salmon works like this. For millennia the bears and eagles have been scooping the salmon out of the streams. Bears, especially, don't actually eat much of the fish. They take a bite or two of the juiciest bits (from a bear's POV) and toss the carcass over their shoulder to scoop another Salmon. All those carcasses put fish fertilizer into the creek and river banks. A lot of fertilizer. So, the you get really big trees there.
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.
But I think your reasoning is flawed. Human behaviour is much less complex than tracking how the ecosystem interacts with itself. One species vs numerous species; A species we can communicate with vs multiples that we can't; A long history of trying to understand human behaviour vs Not so much.
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.
It's also why they couldn't pay me enough me to run that operation. Too many "known unknowns".
We can't deduce anything from that footage of the 6 year old without knowing more. What if the explosives sniffing machine was going nuts anytime the girl went near it. If you were on that plane, wouldn't you want to know why that machine thought the girl has explosives on her? We don't know that there was a explosives sniffing device, and we don't know that there wasn't. All we know is from that footage that doesn't give us any context.
If I was a privacy or rights group, I would immediately launch an inquiry though. There is a enough information to be concerned, just not enough to form any conclusions what-so-ever. Except the screener appeared to be very professional.
jonnysods
Sep 30, 07:42 AM
Very modest house for a guy of his wealth. Very impressive.
marclapierre13
Nov 14, 06:16 PM
anyone read my post at the top of the page.
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
The Pirates of the Caribbean
Keira Knightley (Pirates of
Keira Knightley#39;s Pirates
Pirates of the Caribbean
Keira Knightley Director Gore
anyone else having problems joining team death with a party of 2 or more?
Clix Pix
Apr 21, 01:16 PM
Too much like Facebook to suit me. I think it's really rather silly.
Surely
Apr 12, 01:13 PM
Wait......do you guys have a little obsession with cupcakes, or an obsession with little cupcakes?
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
I just want to be clear, that's all. ;)
yellow
Jan 15, 04:59 PM
Hee-hee.. I was just watching the MBA guided tour on the Apple site and they made sure to tell you that it ships with Mac OS X Leopard and iLife 08.
First thought.. I would NOT want to be trying to make movies or DVDs on that thing.
Second thought.. I sure hope that I'd be smart enough to order a SuperDrive with it so I can reinstall the OS or burn those DVDs. :)
They should really just jack the price up $100 and make you opt out of getting one with the unit during the config process.
First thought.. I would NOT want to be trying to make movies or DVDs on that thing.
Second thought.. I sure hope that I'd be smart enough to order a SuperDrive with it so I can reinstall the OS or burn those DVDs. :)
They should really just jack the price up $100 and make you opt out of getting one with the unit during the config process.
cybermiguel
Nov 16, 09:59 PM
who wants to run amd anyway?
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
I would.
You see...ATi's integrated graphics solution is WAAYY BETTER than Intel 945 integrated graphics solution, so, it would be the perfect match for a lowcost laptop: Turion CPU and an ATi chipset.
Here's a page with some IGP benchmarks: http://kettya.com/notebook2/gpu_ranking.htm
LightSpeed1
Apr 11, 01:25 AM
Similar tastes...I have the 23" and M10's as well. But where did you find black Swans?...unless it's painted after the fact
Lockware Systems (http://www.lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Have you posted your setup before?
Mac Setup: Past & Present (Part 14) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1098165)
If you have a picture of your setup and don't mind sharing it, I would love to see the two together.
Lockware Systems (http://www.lockwaresystems.com/swanm10b-179.html)
Have you posted your setup before?
Mac Setup: Past & Present (Part 14) (http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=1098165)
If you have a picture of your setup and don't mind sharing it, I would love to see the two together.
rorschach
Apr 29, 04:12 PM
Why are you people talking about scroll bars and scrolling? This article is about the buttons in sub-pane selectors. Not scrolling.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
The article was just edited. It had a paragraph about the iOS-style scrollbars being gone.
Airforcekid
Apr 5, 06:11 PM
AdBlock just became worthless.
However unlike flash ads I enjoy 90 percent of iAds.
However unlike flash ads I enjoy 90 percent of iAds.
Moyank24
Apr 15, 03:18 PM
Gay suffrage? Wow i never knew gays were denied the right to vote! :eek:
:D
I'm not sure how many gay threads this forum can take in 1 day.
:D
I'm not sure how many gay threads this forum can take in 1 day.
flashPUNK
Apr 15, 12:28 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
jclardy
Apr 29, 04:05 PM
Good to know that Apple is willing to change.
The Expose/Spaces "slider" was one of the first things I noticed that seemed strange when I installed the preview.
The slider makes sense when you have at least 3 icons but with only 2 it is not immediately apparent. I think we have been conditioned to take a darker button as being shadowed and therefore selected.
And the scrollbars being always on seems to be a good decision as well. It is nice to know where you are in a document at a glance, and the scrollbar does that pretty well.
The Expose/Spaces "slider" was one of the first things I noticed that seemed strange when I installed the preview.
The slider makes sense when you have at least 3 icons but with only 2 it is not immediately apparent. I think we have been conditioned to take a darker button as being shadowed and therefore selected.
And the scrollbars being always on seems to be a good decision as well. It is nice to know where you are in a document at a glance, and the scrollbar does that pretty well.
