razzmatazz
Sep 12, 07:25 AM
Man I'm going to be at school while this is all going on. Hmm...time to play sick :rolleyes: :D
dalvin200
Sep 12, 07:44 AM
so how much money is being lost by taking stores down for 4-6 hours?
probably not a great deal, cos they'll quadruple that in the 10 mins after the store goes up :P
pointless comment really.. lol!
probably not a great deal, cos they'll quadruple that in the 10 mins after the store goes up :P
pointless comment really.. lol!
Sedulous
May 3, 05:15 PM
I don't really get this... You already pay fees for the data - why do they care for how you use it?
I have been wondering the same thing. How can providers dictate how data is utilized by a customer? The data block is bough and paid for, the phone does the routing, so then how is an additional fee justified?
I have been wondering the same thing. How can providers dictate how data is utilized by a customer? The data block is bough and paid for, the phone does the routing, so then how is an additional fee justified?
Tibbar
Apr 3, 08:56 PM
A friend of mine works with the Xbox support team. I'll ask him if there's anything (legal) that they can do. You have my admiration for your good detective work!
Al Coholic
May 3, 04:53 PM
Ok, I'm taking down the names of all the carrier defenders here.
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
The next time you people bitch about the cable companies or magazine publishers charging you twice for the "one" thing you paid for I'm gonna be all over you.
dethmaShine
Apr 29, 04:43 PM
They are currently sorted into the four categories first, and then alphabetically in those categories. It seems Lion is throwing everything together and doing away with categories
The categories are still there. Arrange alphabetically was just another option.
The categories are still there. Arrange alphabetically was just another option.
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.
Mitthrawnuruodo
Aug 2, 07:12 AM
Apple Gets French Support in Music Compatibility Case
By THOMAS CRAMPTON
Published: July 29, 2006
PARIS, July 28 � The French constitutional council, the country�s highest judicial body, has declared major aspects of the so-called iPod law unconstitutional, undermining some controversial aspects of the legislation.
� Apple�s lawyers might want to drink a glass of French Champagne today, but not a whole bottle,� said Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property. �The constitutional council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law.�
Released late Thursday, the council�s 12-page legal finding made frequent reference to the 1789 Declaration on Human Rights and concluded that the law violated the constitutional protections of property.
The decision affects Apple�s market-dominant iTunes Music Store by undermining the government�s original intention, which was to force Apple and others to sell music online that would be playable on any device. Apple�s iPod is the only portable music device that can play music purchased on iTunes, which lead rivals to complain about anti-competitive practices.
Although the ruling could still require companies like Apple to make music sold online to be compatible with other hand-held devices, it said that the companies could not be forced to do so without receiving compensation. The council also eliminated reduced fines for file sharing.
�The constitutional council effectively highlighted the importance of intellectual property rights,� Mr. Menard said, emphasizing that Apple and other companies must be paid for sharing their copy-protection technology.
The law, which had been approved by the French Senate and National Assembly last month, was brought for review at the demand of more than 100 members of the National Assembly. The council�s review of whether the law fits within the French Constitution�s framework is one of the final steps before a law is promulgated. It now could take effect as altered by the council or the government could bring it once more before the Parliament.
The French minister of culture, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, advocated enforced interoperability as a way to ensure diverse cultural offerings on the Internet by limiting technical constraints on digital works.
While the constitutional council highlighted the need for compensation, it was not such good news for Apple and other companies that the principle of forced interoperability remained in place, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal director of the Association of Audionautes, a group opposed to copy restrictions.
�It is good news for Apple because they receive monetary compensation, but much bigger bad news if it forces them to license iTunes,� he said. Link (requires login) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/technology/29music.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin)
By THOMAS CRAMPTON
Published: July 29, 2006
PARIS, July 28 � The French constitutional council, the country�s highest judicial body, has declared major aspects of the so-called iPod law unconstitutional, undermining some controversial aspects of the legislation.
� Apple�s lawyers might want to drink a glass of French Champagne today, but not a whole bottle,� said Dominique Menard, partner at the Lovells law firm and a specialist in intellectual property. �The constitutional council has highlighted fundamental protections for intellectual property in such a way as to put iTunes a little further from risk of the French law.�
Released late Thursday, the council�s 12-page legal finding made frequent reference to the 1789 Declaration on Human Rights and concluded that the law violated the constitutional protections of property.
The decision affects Apple�s market-dominant iTunes Music Store by undermining the government�s original intention, which was to force Apple and others to sell music online that would be playable on any device. Apple�s iPod is the only portable music device that can play music purchased on iTunes, which lead rivals to complain about anti-competitive practices.
Although the ruling could still require companies like Apple to make music sold online to be compatible with other hand-held devices, it said that the companies could not be forced to do so without receiving compensation. The council also eliminated reduced fines for file sharing.
�The constitutional council effectively highlighted the importance of intellectual property rights,� Mr. Menard said, emphasizing that Apple and other companies must be paid for sharing their copy-protection technology.
The law, which had been approved by the French Senate and National Assembly last month, was brought for review at the demand of more than 100 members of the National Assembly. The council�s review of whether the law fits within the French Constitution�s framework is one of the final steps before a law is promulgated. It now could take effect as altered by the council or the government could bring it once more before the Parliament.
The French minister of culture, Renaud Donnedieu de Vabres, advocated enforced interoperability as a way to ensure diverse cultural offerings on the Internet by limiting technical constraints on digital works.
While the constitutional council highlighted the need for compensation, it was not such good news for Apple and other companies that the principle of forced interoperability remained in place, said Jean-Baptiste Soufron, legal director of the Association of Audionautes, a group opposed to copy restrictions.
�It is good news for Apple because they receive monetary compensation, but much bigger bad news if it forces them to license iTunes,� he said. Link (requires login) (http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/29/technology/29music.html?_r=4&ref=business&oref=slogin&oref=slogin&oref=login&oref=slogin)
MacsRgr8
Mar 24, 05:47 PM
Wow.... X years already!!
Well done Steve by saving Computer by evolving NeXTSTEP via Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server 1.x into Mac OS X!!
Some memories:
- Steve showing the OS strategy roadmap: Mac OS 8 / 9 vs. Mac OS X
- "Rhapsody" evolving into Mac OS X DP1
- Mac OS X DP3 incl. Aqua interface
- Mac OS X Public Beta "Kodiak"
- Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"... I got the original CD (yes.. CD..) in Paris, France.
- Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" and Office v. X
- Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" and Photoshop 7
- Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" largely regarded as the first real 100% usable version of OS X (not in the least because of app development)
- Mac OS X 10.4.1 "Tiger" Intel Developer Preview
- Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" Universal stuff
- Mac OS X 10.6.6 "Snow Leopard" and Mac App Store
- Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" and optional Server Install
I <3 and Mac OS X
Well done Steve by saving Computer by evolving NeXTSTEP via Rhapsody and Mac OS X Server 1.x into Mac OS X!!
Some memories:
- Steve showing the OS strategy roadmap: Mac OS 8 / 9 vs. Mac OS X
- "Rhapsody" evolving into Mac OS X DP1
- Mac OS X DP3 incl. Aqua interface
- Mac OS X Public Beta "Kodiak"
- Mac OS X 10.0 "Cheetah"... I got the original CD (yes.. CD..) in Paris, France.
- Mac OS X 10.1 "Puma" and Office v. X
- Mac OS X 10.2 "Jaguar" and Photoshop 7
- Mac OS X 10.3 "Panther" largely regarded as the first real 100% usable version of OS X (not in the least because of app development)
- Mac OS X 10.4.1 "Tiger" Intel Developer Preview
- Mac OS X 10.5 "Leopard" Universal stuff
- Mac OS X 10.6.6 "Snow Leopard" and Mac App Store
- Mac OS X 10.7 "Lion" and optional Server Install
I <3 and Mac OS X
gugy
Oct 11, 01:58 PM
the deadline i think is Nov. 14 when the Zune is coming out. If passes that I would think maybe at MWSF.
The main goal is the holiday season. After middle of November is too late to launch such a product.
So I have my fingers crossed for the last week of October. That's the perfect timing.
The main goal is the holiday season. After middle of November is too late to launch such a product.
So I have my fingers crossed for the last week of October. That's the perfect timing.
darkpaw
Jan 15, 03:30 PM
Not overly excited about the keynote.
I got a 17" MBP 2.6GHz back in December, and it's fine for Logic Pro 8 and Lightwave 3D on the move.
I don't see how I would justify a $1799 thin laptop that's missing some necessary ports (FireWire 400/800, Ethernet (yes, I know there's a $29 adapter doodad)). Besides, how much will it cost in the UK? (The internet is being too slow to check...)
As Steve Jobs said when he announced the iPhone in the UK, "It costs more to do business over here". Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
I got a 17" MBP 2.6GHz back in December, and it's fine for Logic Pro 8 and Lightwave 3D on the move.
I don't see how I would justify a $1799 thin laptop that's missing some necessary ports (FireWire 400/800, Ethernet (yes, I know there's a $29 adapter doodad)). Besides, how much will it cost in the UK? (The internet is being too slow to check...)
As Steve Jobs said when he announced the iPhone in the UK, "It costs more to do business over here". Yes, which is why the $20 iPod touch apps update is �12.99 over here, instead of �10.20 which is what the exchange rate demands. Even with some made up tax, it's another example of "rip-off Britain".
NamJangNamJa
Nov 16, 04:49 PM
Very interesting! :D
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
fivepoint
May 5, 01:48 PM
That would be neat, rat- if any of the examples you gave were health hazards. They aren't. Guns can be. And your health is your doctor's business. My doctor asks me about all kinds of things I do and activities I engage in to give me advice regarding them. Health is your doctor's business.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
I don't know, being a farmer/rancher is one of the most dangerous jobs in the world. Certainly living on a farm makes you considerably more likely to sustain injury or death during every day interaction on the farm. Kids get run over by tractors, wound up in PTO shafts, etc. all the time. As with anything in life, reward often brings risk. I'd say asking about living on a farm is very similar to asking about guns in the house. Both should be perfectly legal for the physician to ask about, but common sense and general courtesy would suggest that the physician should stick to more physiology related questioning.
MacFan1957
Jul 21, 11:07 AM
Really classy apple. Try to cover up your mistake by confusing users and trying to insult competitors you didn't think you even had to worry about.
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
If users are confused that is their own fault not Apples. A part of that confusion is that this is some kind of design "mistake" on Apples part, its not, it was a design choice! It was a trade off of battery life, form factor and signal strength. I can only say that for me the phone is as perfect as it could be given obvious limitations, battery life isn't limitless and all cell phone suffer with signal issues of some kind.
I trust Apple, they are smarter than your average blogger and for sure smarter than your average forum poster! More power to them I say! :-)
Apple continues to disappoint in surprising ways. What happened to the focus on building great products?
If users are confused that is their own fault not Apples. A part of that confusion is that this is some kind of design "mistake" on Apples part, its not, it was a design choice! It was a trade off of battery life, form factor and signal strength. I can only say that for me the phone is as perfect as it could be given obvious limitations, battery life isn't limitless and all cell phone suffer with signal issues of some kind.
I trust Apple, they are smarter than your average blogger and for sure smarter than your average forum poster! More power to them I say! :-)
NamJangNamJa
Nov 16, 04:49 PM
Very interesting! :D
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
I have a test so tell me what the updates are when I get back. :p
Apple store updates turns out to be "HOLIDAY GIFT GUIDE."
http://store.apple.com/1-800-MY-APPLE/WebObjects/AppleStore.woa/wa/RSLID?mco=7B2A6F69&nclm=HolidayMain2006
jestershinra
Sep 7, 11:02 PM
Personally, I just laughed. I was a bit surprised to see him saying n-this and f-that; although I'm not sure why I expected otherwise. It was a very strange scene with all those folks in the audience. I like it, though- it's a fun departure for Apple, I think. I can't stand U2, so maybe that's it.
bearbo
Jan 12, 02:45 AM
Overthrow of the government?
:confused: i suppose that's the only definition for revolutionary for you? if so, what do you see in iPhone that's revolutionary?
And only 200 new patents.
is there anything other than the fact there's "200 new patents" (where did you get this anyway?) that you find revolutionary about iPhone?
Apple is not a religion, Steve Jobs is not God.
i'm outa this thread.
:confused: i suppose that's the only definition for revolutionary for you? if so, what do you see in iPhone that's revolutionary?
And only 200 new patents.
is there anything other than the fact there's "200 new patents" (where did you get this anyway?) that you find revolutionary about iPhone?
Apple is not a religion, Steve Jobs is not God.
i'm outa this thread.
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?
jonharris200
Nov 24, 04:59 AM
Just one more thing that's US-only (iTunes TV shows, movies, etc etc). Here in UK there is never an Apple Store sale (except refurbs) as far as I have seen.
*Sighs*
So ... enjoy your US black Friday savings, even if they are only small ones!
*Sighs*
So ... enjoy your US black Friday savings, even if they are only small ones!
forrestmc4
Jan 10, 10:09 PM
I'm a regular reader of Gizmodo and their "rival" Engadget. I have to say after this stunt I don't have much respect left for Giz. A presentation, particularly a press presentation, is a key part of CES marketing for some of the biggest names around. Messing with the Motorola presentation was way, way, way over the line. Sadly, the comments on the story seem to show a rift in the Gizmodo readership trending towards acceptance of this unbelievably unprofessional conduct. There were even commenters faulting companies for leaving IR receivers uncovered by electrical tape or some other rudimentary signal blocking fix. Companies shouldn't have to shelter their product presentations from this kind of childishness, journalistic professionalism should take care of that.
Shame on Gizmodo. Bring out the banhammer.
Shame on Gizmodo. Bring out the banhammer.
asencif
Oct 17, 09:13 AM
The better technology for the future is definitely Blu-Ray, however it may be trying to make it's way too early and that is working against it. Prices are just too high right now for Blu-Ray drives and discs and the PS3 is a gaming system that is just too pricey.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
HD-DVD is much simpler and has a more recognizeable name and getting much cheaper which a lot of times is what the consumer market will favor. Right now it's still going to be another 2 years before people start looking away from DVD itself. How many people have a HDTV right now? When I say people I mean non-tech aficionados like us in these forums.
NebulaClash
May 4, 08:46 AM
That one thing that I don't see is Google sponsored Android commercials... they are not promoting their own product like MS did with Windows and are leaving each hardware manufacturer to make up their own image. All of this gives the average consumer a confusing, scattered message of the Android OS.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
That's a good point. We really don't see many ads from Google in general.
This is speculation, but I remember those stories last summer about how Android is a temporary thing for Google but Chrome is their future. This gets shot down hard any time it gets mentioned around here, but I can certainly see this as a possibility. One thing Google is famous for is starting something only to abandon it once they decide to focus in other areas. And Chrome is at the heart of their corporate mission -- getting people to stay online in the cloud where they can be monetized. Android also gets the ad revenue, so it might indeed stick around for practical reasons, but the app model is the very model Google hates for it gets people offline and perhaps using some service other than what Google provides. With Chrome, Google would have full control. With Android it's a free-for-all.
So perhaps this is why Google doesn't bother advertising Android that much. It's nice to have, but it's not considered the future at Google.
leekohler
Apr 17, 02:07 AM
Staying in. It's pouring with 40-50 mph winds. I gots me some sodomy last night though. ;)
Hope you get some too!
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
Oh, I've been a fan of Randall's Animals for I while. :) The vampire bat and American bullfrog ones are great too.
Because the promotion of homosexuality is detrimental to a society and the people who promote it know this. For example, the mere announcement of a gay history curriculum causes conflicts such as the one in this thread and especially moreso in the real world. Instead of fighting about such stupid things as this, our school system should be heavily decentralized so that you can decide whether or not your child learns about homosexual history by simply selecting a non-political, non-psychologically damaging school in your area and everything would be fine and kept separate, but no, the people who run everything love to just mash everybody into one big public school system and slowly change the rules to cause people to fight all because of what is essentially 4% of the population.
Please explain to me why the promotion of ignorance is a benefit to society. Conflict is part of how we learn. If we are never challenged, how do we grow? Can I also assume you are against all sports? Those involve conflict and fights as well.
And please explain, with evidence, how people learning about the struggles of gay people throughout history psychologically damages anyone. Your assertions get more ridiculous with every post. It's almost surreal.
Hope you get some too!
I love that video. Cracks me up every time I see it.
Oh, I've been a fan of Randall's Animals for I while. :) The vampire bat and American bullfrog ones are great too.
Because the promotion of homosexuality is detrimental to a society and the people who promote it know this. For example, the mere announcement of a gay history curriculum causes conflicts such as the one in this thread and especially moreso in the real world. Instead of fighting about such stupid things as this, our school system should be heavily decentralized so that you can decide whether or not your child learns about homosexual history by simply selecting a non-political, non-psychologically damaging school in your area and everything would be fine and kept separate, but no, the people who run everything love to just mash everybody into one big public school system and slowly change the rules to cause people to fight all because of what is essentially 4% of the population.
Please explain to me why the promotion of ignorance is a benefit to society. Conflict is part of how we learn. If we are never challenged, how do we grow? Can I also assume you are against all sports? Those involve conflict and fights as well.
And please explain, with evidence, how people learning about the struggles of gay people throughout history psychologically damages anyone. Your assertions get more ridiculous with every post. It's almost surreal.
Dr.Gargoyle
Aug 2, 06:53 AM
Loosing Denmark, or Norway or both, doesn't matter one bit. It is a courtesy that Apple even allowed these small and meaningless countries to join in on the fun.
Since you claim you work in Denmark, you should know Denmark, as well as Sweden, is a part of European Union (EU). If you had done your homework, you should also know that EU implies that all non-nation specific laws should be idential for all countries in EU (very much the same as in US). That is, if the French and the scandinavians find that Apples DRM violates consumer rights, it has a very good chance to become accepted all over EU. Furthermore, since EU has about 460 million people whereas US only have 296 milion people, it should according to your argumentation about minor markets imply that Apple rather should dump the US market than the european market. :rolleyes:
You should know by now that a company sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders, and nothing else. I very much doubt that board of Apple or its partners even would consider dumping a close to half a billion potential customers.
Since you claim you work in Denmark, you should know Denmark, as well as Sweden, is a part of European Union (EU). If you had done your homework, you should also know that EU implies that all non-nation specific laws should be idential for all countries in EU (very much the same as in US). That is, if the French and the scandinavians find that Apples DRM violates consumer rights, it has a very good chance to become accepted all over EU. Furthermore, since EU has about 460 million people whereas US only have 296 milion people, it should according to your argumentation about minor markets imply that Apple rather should dump the US market than the european market. :rolleyes:
You should know by now that a company sole purpose is to make money for the shareholders, and nothing else. I very much doubt that board of Apple or its partners even would consider dumping a close to half a billion potential customers.