Gamoe
Apr 9, 05:12 AM
I think iOS games have great potential, but I still feel that there is a gap between okay and great that is differentiated by physical controls. All we need are a few buttons and a joystick and/or d-pad. But Apple's design-style doesn't seem to allow that, and I for one think that's a shame.
Blue Velvet
Mar 26, 02:37 PM
Ciaociao
If only.
If only.
more...
Jcoz
Mar 18, 11:40 AM
<soapbox -- move on if you are not interested>
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
It's you. He's right. I could care less about the whiners who say "I need 10GB per month to tether all my devices to my iPhone." I don't like subsidizing that. If you use that much data on your iPhone directly without tethering then more power to you -- that was AT&T's mistake for offering an unlimited plan.
But the "unlimited plan" they offered did not say "unlimited devices on one plan". It was very specifically restricted to the iPhone. To those who have cheated system, I applaud your brilliance for working around the rules. But when the rule maker starts cracking down on your circumvention crying that it is "unfair" is a bit comical.
Everybody signs a contact with their carriers when they get service. They sure as heck know what they are signing up for -- some of amount of money every month for some sort of access to their network with some set of limitations.
Sure, if you buy an iPhone it is yours. You can do what you want with it. However, your use of the carrier's network is subject to a contract with specific terms. If you don't like the terms then you don't need to agree to them. But if you choose to agree to them and try to cheat the carrier through unfair practices then don't expect others to be happy about subsidizing your practice through increased rates or degraded service.
The carrier is going to make their money one way or the other. They are a corporation driven by profits. Retail stores raise prices to compensate for shoplifting just like carriers raise rates to compensate for network expansion and lost customers due to network overload from those who circumvent the agreement they signed up for.
Any measure by the carrier to crack down on those who cheat the system is a welcome effort to those who choose not to cheat the system. They could be jerks and just decide that its not worth the effort to go after those folks and make everybody pay for it.
Do I believe that AT&T will drop their rates once they crack down on the bandwidth cheaters? Heck no. Do I believe that the network performance will get better for the rest of us without added monthly fees, probably. Either way, what's fair is fair. Nobody is born entitled to an iPhone and mobile data. But the sense of entitlement in this country has gotten so out of hand.
</soapbox>
What about tiered plan users being forced into 4gb plans that cost 50% more than 5gb iphone plans (aka unlimited)?
Why should ANYONE on a well defined data plan (non-unlimited) have to pay additional cost to use that data that was paid for?
more...
Squire
Sep 20, 07:45 AM
To those that say that Apple won't allow this because it would hit their own TV show revenues from the iTunes store... I disagree. They'll have to give in sooner or later, because EyeTV isn't going to go away. Would iTunes/iPod have been such a success if they'd have made us purchase all our music from iTunes, even the stuff we alread had on CD?
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
I'm not going to pay �3 (or whatever) for an Episode of Lost if I could have recorded on EyeTV last night... especially when C4 repeat each episode about 6 times per week anyway.
I see your point but maybe you're not seeing the big picture-- the future as Apple, perhaps, sees it. (And you are paying for that "Lost" episode whether you watch it or not, aren't you?)
A few minutes ago, I was thinking, Gee...if Apple got enough content on iTunes, a guy could just buy all the stuff he wanted to see and to hell with the rest. I see this as replacing cable TV in the not-too-distant future. Customized, commercial-free TV delivered to your computer and then sent to your iTV box. Why pay for that afternoon soap opera that you never watch?
This model probably would not make financial sense for people who watch a lot of TV but, for those who only watch a select few shows, it might be a good alternative to cable TV.
-Squire
capvideo
Mar 21, 01:37 AM
Digital copyrights are licenses. You do not own the copy.
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
Where are you seeing a difference between digital copyrights and any other kind of copyright in U.S. law? There is no such difference, and current law and current case law says that purchases of copyrighted works are in fact purchases. They are not licenses.
Your license does not allow you to modify the contents such that it enables you to do things not allowed by law.
No, you've got it in reverse. The Supreme Court of the United States specifically said that anything not disallowed is allowed. That was (among other places) the betamax case that I referenced.
You seem to be conflating the DMCA with copyright. The DMCA is not about copyright. It's about breaking digital restrictions. The DMCA did not turn purchases into licenses. Things that were purchases before the DMCA are still purchases today.
You can't rent a car and break all the locks so that anyone can use it without the keys. If you OWN the car, you can do that.
This is a poor analogy. The real analogy would be that you have purchased the car, but now law requires that you not open the door without permission from the manufacturer.
When you rent a car, the rental agency can at any time require that you return the car and stop using it. The iTunes music store has no right to do this. CD manufacturers have no right to do this.
Music purchases were purchases before the DMCA and they are purchases after the DMCA. There are more restrictions after the DMCA, but the restrictions are placed on the locks, not on what is behind the locks. The music that you bought is still yours; but you aren't allowed to open the locks.
Your analogy with "so that anyone can use it" also misrepresents the DMCA: the better analogy is that you can't even open the locks so that *you* can use it.
Licenses can be revoked at any time. When I buy digital music on CD (all music on CD is digital) there is no license involved to be revoked. It is not in any way like renting a car. It is in every way except my inability to redistribute copies like purchasing a car.
But you do not OWN the music you've bought, you're merely using it as provided for by the owner. Because digital files propagate from a single copy, and that original can be copied and passed along with no quality loss or actual effort to the original copier (who still retains his copy), the law supports DRM which is designed to prevent unauthorized copying.
In the sense that you have described it above, books are digital. Books can be copied with no loss and then the original sold. Books are, according to the Supreme Court, purchases, not licenses. Book manufacturers are not even allowed to place EULAs on their books and pretend that it is a license. There is no different law about music. It's all copyright.
Copying for your own uses (from device to device) is prefectly within your rights, but modifying the file so it works in ways it was not originally intended IS against copyright law.
Show me. Show me the *copyright* law that makes this illegal and that does so because of a *license*.
Are you claiming that playing my CDs on my iPod is illegal? The file has been modified in ways that it was not originally intended: they were uncompressed digital audio files meant for playback on a CD player. Now they're compressed digital audio played back on an iPod.
That is completely outside of what the manufacturer intended that I use that CD for. I don't believe that's illegal; the U.S. courts don't believe that it's illegal. Apple certainly doesn't believe that it's illegal. The RIAA would like it to be illegal but isn't arguing that any more. Do you believe that it is illegal?
Please also consider going back over my previous post and refuting the Supreme Court cases I referenced.
Jerry
more...
jbgh
Mar 18, 09:07 AM
Forcibly changing my plan with zero evidence of anything is illegal and they will pay for it. Tme to start blasting them on Facebook, twitter, everywhere possible.
yeah that'll get them...
yeah that'll get them...
more...
samdweck
Oct 7, 04:42 PM
well then just get the heck out of here, leave, please, it may happen soon! godspeed!
TheT
Oct 7, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by gopher
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
As I've always said, it is in the software!
But Macs look better than most PCs :D
iJohnHenry
Apr 27, 04:49 PM
Before Anton van Leeuwenhoek discovered bacteria with his microscope, many probably would have insisted that there was not a shred of evidence that any microbe existed.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
We can see the ongoing effects of microbes all around us. Can you say the same for your god?
I expect that we will need a very big microscope to see God.
Is this why we have Hubble??
I doubt it, for with every amazing image we see, the vastness and complexity of the known Universe reduces us even further to the importance of gnats.
toddybody
Apr 9, 07:39 PM
I wish they'd "poach" Bobby Kotick...and by poach I mean shoot with an elephant gun and mount on Jony Ives wall.
Peterkro
Mar 13, 10:27 PM
Can you use nuclear warheads to disperse a tsunami?
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
With today's high yeild nuclear bombs, given enough time, can you detonate a nuke to vaporize/disperse the ripple of a tsunami? I know one tactic of fleet warfare is like to vaporize the water under the ships to make them "fall" or something like that.
I mean, I don't know how many megatons this will take or how much of the tsunami will be vaporized and sent up into the air, but maybe at some point it will reduce the force and profile of the incomming wave? :)
All you would do is create another Tsunami (as well as considerable fallout problems).Tsunamis in the ocean are by and large only a few centimetres in height but travel at about 500 mph when thy come to the shelfs near land all that energy is compressed going from a few centimetres to 30 metres or so the force of which destroys pretty much everything that isn't rock in it's path.
( I must go to bed I can't believe I posted a reply to that)
more...
SandynJosh
Apr 9, 04:19 AM
Gaming on idevices is for nubes. Live on PS3, Xbox and the future NGP.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
Let me watch you play those on the subway. This is all about portable gaming.
HBOC
Mar 11, 01:32 AM
God Bless everyone there. I am watching this live, and saw the surge just overrunning everything inland, including cars on the highway that couldn't move out of the way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
Hawaii is under a tsunami watch, but not the West Coast yet. There is a refinery on fire that is ready to explode and am seeing on the TV that people are on tops of roofs of houses flagging the helicopter for help. 4 million people w/o power. Just incredible, not in a good way.
more...
peharri
Sep 21, 02:58 PM
The first question is a doozy. Personally, I think Apple's choice is a bit unwieldy. Have your entertainment network rely on your Mac/PC is fine; except when you need to restart after installing software (could the hard disk in the iTV buffer enough content to keep going until the Mac restarts? Possibly). Another problem is if your home PC is a laptop, which might not be in the home, or will sleep if inadvertently shut.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
I'm 99% sure you have it wrong. The point of these most recent statements is that the iTV will be a standalone device. It'll be able to make use of networked iTunes libraries, but it will also work by itself, with no need to own a separate computer. This is one reason why it has a hard disk, for instance.
I agree that it'd be unwieldy if it required use of a computer. Which is one reason why I think, given none of the facts so far suggest use of a computer is necessary, it doesn't need one.
Moyank24
Mar 18, 01:43 AM
Option 3; STOP trying to cheat the system, and START using your iDevice the way the manufacturer and your carrier designed it.
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
And while you're at it, knock off the piracy with the napster/limewire/torrent crap.
(Yeah, I said it! SOMEBODY had to!)
Do napster and limewire even exist anymore?
more...
shawnce
Jul 12, 05:30 PM
Merom, Conroe and Woodcrest at equal clock speeds
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
--edit--
Also forgot to point out that Merom top out with 667 MT/s FSB... so several classes of tasks will be slower on a Merom then equally clocked Conroe.
Merom will underperform a Conroe under equal high loads because of thermal constraints (in unmodified systems).
--edit--
Also forgot to point out that Merom top out with 667 MT/s FSB... so several classes of tasks will be slower on a Merom then equally clocked Conroe.
more...
roocka
Apr 9, 10:05 PM
1. Define a proper game. I think there are a lot of proper games on iOS. But I think I get your point. Do you mean hardcore? Halo, elder scrolls, call of duty etc.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
2. What do you mean make a legitimate threat? I would bet money there are more iDevices in peoples homes and hands than Nintendo or Sony devices (of similar purposes) I watched a friends kid for a week in January while she was on a business trip. The kid loved his DS to death. For Christmas he got an iPad. He didn't even know where his DS was anymore, it was old news. Plus when apple has enough money to buy either company out, I think that makes them a legitimate threat.
Lets be honest, APPLE will never buy Nintendo or Sony. Apple will make them inferior and insignificant. Apple will not create the same games but rather will change gaming. Apple will probably make gaming more interactive and more inclusive.
I would say the odds are greater that Sony will buy Nintendo in a desperation move to remain relevant or Sony will get bought out by Microsoft after Apple starts creating televisions. Mark my words, Apple will never buy a bloated and inferior company. To truly believe that makes you a moron.
flopticalcube
Apr 24, 01:31 PM
The Eastern Orthodox church is the oldest church, yet I think anyone would be hard-pressed to label it as fundamentalist.
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
Have a look at St. John Chrysostom's Easter homily:
Eastern Orthodox celebrates life and downplays the "fire and brimstone" of hell, which isn't even in the Bible anyway, all that came later. In the Old Testament hell was being denied the presence of God and feeling shame, not eternal torment at the hands of demons.
Great for the Eastern Orthodox church. What does that have to do with what I said? :confused:
eric_n_dfw
Mar 19, 06:21 PM
Answering my own question, it appears (from some quick Google searches) that WINE doesn't currently like the custom CD drivers that iTunes for Windows installs, but the comercial product "CrossOffice" which is a supported WINE port that is tuned for MS Office and other popular Win32 apps, has anounced iTunes support: http://www.codeweavers.com/about/general/press/?id=20041116;cw=3b02a63d1cda46fdf5bb968a31b557c4
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
It's not free, but it is a legal option and at $40 it's not to bad.
more...
flopticalcube
Mar 25, 10:21 AM
You forgot the fact that many "Christians" in the US are fundamentalist nuts
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
On what authority do claim to decide the mental instability of another? You both believe in unprovable fantasies so you are both delusional.
more...
Mousse
Apr 26, 12:19 PM
As far as religion providing a good set of morals. In some cases yes, but this is completely a separate discussion and has no bearing, adds no weight to the possibility of the existence of God.
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
Not all religion is about the belief in God. In Buddhism (http://http://buddhismbeliefs.org/), it doesn't matter one way or the other if God exists or not. In many ways, my thinking follows the Buddhist way. By it's very definition (http://http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/religion), atheism can be considered a religion. #2 a specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.
Atheist believe in the non-existence of God; some as fervently as Christians believe in one.
As for trying to prove or disprove the existence of God. Many men and women, much smarter and better qualified than me, have tried. All have failed. I don't bother with the impossible.;)
Sydde
Mar 15, 06:25 AM
I've largely given up on these threads and arguing about my field with people outside my field, but my god awmazz you need to just stop posting altogether...you haven't once had a clue what you are talking about. Sorry, but it's the truth.
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
All the fission stopped almost 72 hours ago.
Curious. You are suggesting that the control rods are fully seated (we would hope), absorbing the entire natural neutron flux, thus completely dampening the fission process (apart from the normal spontaneous fission of the 235 in the fuel pellets). Yet, the cores are still producing significant heat, sea water is being pumped over them to cool them, a real danger appears to exist. Where is that heat coming from, why, if the fission process has been choked off, are they not simply losing heat (cooling down like a big hunk of metal)? What are we missing?
more...
nixd2001
Oct 12, 06:09 PM
Just to keep the numbers rolling:
more...
OllyW
Mar 12, 04:49 AM
Thanks Olly, I was wondering how hydrogen could exlode, not exactly flammable really is it?
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
You had said "it was just some hydrogen tanks which exploded" and mac jones seemed concerned that the whole reactor had blown up. I was just adding some updates to the thread which seemed to make more sense of the situation based on the limited information available.
Sorry if it wasn't up to scratch.
more...
No comments:
Post a Comment