Haol
Apr 29, 04:51 PM
I can't believe there are over 60 comments actually commenting the post !
I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change :D
I mean, sure. Cool that Apple listens, and nice to see they are looking into the look and feel. But hey, can't imagine a more minor change :D
3N16MA
Apr 5, 04:27 PM
Celebration of advertising? Seriously?
marksman
May 3, 03:35 PM
Contract terms require "consideration" from both parties to be legally binding. Consideration is something you provide to the other party (i.e., money from you, data services from your carrier).
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
What consideration are the carriers offering you for tethering? You're already paying $X for Y GB of data used on your phone. It doesn't matter to the carrier if your Netflix app is using it, or your tethering app is sending the data to your laptop. Nothing changes on their end, they just send the data that you've already paid for to your phone, and your phone handles the rest.
You're right, it is black and white. It's a scam aimed at exploiting consumers like yourself who don't know any better, with an illegal contract term. I hope this goes to court soon, before the carriers in Canada (where I am) try to pull the same BS.
They are offering you more bandwidth to use a higher bandwidth service like tethering.
The consideration is very clear. Thanks for quoting the premise for contract law, but claiming there is no consideration there is ridiculous.
People who tether use more bandwidth, so the cost associated with their usage is more expensive. The carriers can either charge those people for tethering or they can raise the price for EVERYONE.
They choose to charge the people who tether. It is a perfectly reasonable choice on their part.
Hey a cable line comes into my house with all the channels on it. I can just jimmy off a filter and get all the channels without paying any more. They are already delivering it to my house, why can't I just get all of them since they are there anyways and I am paying for cable right?
You are not paying for tethering unless you are paying for tethering. The math is simple. People who tether use more bandwidth. Wireless providers set their data prices based on AVERAGE usage. Tethering makes the average usage go up, so the revenue to cover those costs has to come from somewhere.
So they can either charge EVERYONE more or charge the people who tether more.. Again they choose the later.
JPyre
Apr 15, 12:29 PM
I call BS on this, Johnnie Ive wouldn't make a non rounded design like that, the lines are too harsh.
more...
flopticalcube
Apr 15, 02:40 PM
What is Gay History? History, while interesting, has always struck me as unimportant in educating Children for essential workforce skills. Leave history for Colleges or elective courses.
Absolutely not. History is just as essential in building a rational model of the world as math or science is. It just has to be taught properly, without the rote memorization of dates and people. More emphasis on the impact of events in the shaping of nations and civilization.
Absolutely not. History is just as essential in building a rational model of the world as math or science is. It just has to be taught properly, without the rote memorization of dates and people. More emphasis on the impact of events in the shaping of nations and civilization.
KnightWRX
Apr 26, 09:37 AM
Oh please don't be so smart. What you say means to lose the pixel density of Retina Display. Would you want that?
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
Considering the treshold is 300 PPI for "Retina" at 12 inches of distance and that the iPhone 4 has 326 PPI at 3.5", yes I say we can afford to lose a few PPI for a bigger screen. In the end, it will still be "Retina" (as in you can't distinguish individual pixels at a normal viewing distance).
Anyway, it's not like a screen being "Retina" or not has any effect on a developer. If both screens are 960x640, the developer has nothing to change with his code or art at all. It will all work, no matter the actual screen size. What does being a developer even have to do with losing some PPI ? Nothing. Nothing at all.
more...
fiddlestyx
Apr 14, 09:41 AM
Picked up a new coat for the colder runs and other outdoor activities:
http://gearist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mistralmens.jpg
I'm a big fan of the First Ascent gear.
http://gearist.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/mistralmens.jpg
I'm a big fan of the First Ascent gear.
PurrBall
Apr 30, 08:26 PM
Remember what Steve said. PC's as we use today will be like trucks. Yes they will be around but nobody, not you nor me are going to use them.
Me and most everyone I know owns a truck..
Me and most everyone I know owns a truck..
more...
dethmaShine
Apr 16, 03:56 PM
You get 20gbs if you purchase an mp3 album...or pretend to. I purchased 6 foot 7 foot by Lil Wayne one song and 99 cents
20gigs of free storage if you purchase a single album?
20gigs of free storage if you purchase a single album?
aswitcher
Sep 12, 07:43 AM
They'll release iTunes 7.0 with "iTunes Store" in it's place and it will all come back online after the event.
Yep, its going to be a long night.
Yep, its going to be a long night.
more...
BJB Productions
Mar 17, 10:57 AM
I feel bad for the kid who's not going to have a job because a costumer was too American to be honest and tell him that he did not pay the correct amount.
What is American coming to? I think I'll move to Japan.
What is American coming to? I think I'll move to Japan.
calculus
Jan 12, 02:30 AM
i'm not saying iphone is crap, it's just disappointing from all the hype.
What else were you hoping for?
What else were you hoping for?
more...
0815
May 3, 02:20 PM
So much for the freedom of being open :rolleyes:
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
- carriers adding crapware by default
- carriers blocking certain apps
- carriers preventing you from updating to the latest OS (or if you are lucky only delay it for a long time)
- android was the only mobile platform where the remote wipe had to be used once for 'bad' apps
.... yep, way to go Android - open is good (for carriers, not the user) :D
mrgreen4242
Jan 15, 02:26 PM
To stick with Steve's 4 main points:
1) Time Capsule is pretty neat, not a terrible price for what it is, either.
2) iPhone software looks pretty nice. iPod touch update is a travesty against all mankind... I think Apple is seriously underestimating the backlash this will cause.
3) The ATV updates are nice, price drop is decent, but not nearly enough for year old hardware with no upgrades. Software only update means HD content will be 720p24@5mbits which is pretty OK but not what I would have liked to see. 5.1 finally.
4) Macbook Air: stupid, stupid name. Crazy insane pricing, especially when you add the SD, ethernet, remote, and modem (you really should have all those in the box at $1800). Who's going to be buying this thing? It's just so targeted at a very specific market that I can't see it being a huge success.
As for stuff that DIDN'T get talked about:
- No desktop updates at all. I predict Apple getting out of the consumer desktop market in the next 2-3 years. No more iMac or mini.
- No tablet. They could have done a <$1000 multitouch 9" iSlab tablet thingy that would have been as light and thin as the Air and actually revolutionized something, but... shrug.
- iTunes subscription. Now that they have a self destructing DRM scheme in Fairplay I expected a subscription for TV shows, at least.
All in all, unexciting, really.
1) Time Capsule is pretty neat, not a terrible price for what it is, either.
2) iPhone software looks pretty nice. iPod touch update is a travesty against all mankind... I think Apple is seriously underestimating the backlash this will cause.
3) The ATV updates are nice, price drop is decent, but not nearly enough for year old hardware with no upgrades. Software only update means HD content will be 720p24@5mbits which is pretty OK but not what I would have liked to see. 5.1 finally.
4) Macbook Air: stupid, stupid name. Crazy insane pricing, especially when you add the SD, ethernet, remote, and modem (you really should have all those in the box at $1800). Who's going to be buying this thing? It's just so targeted at a very specific market that I can't see it being a huge success.
As for stuff that DIDN'T get talked about:
- No desktop updates at all. I predict Apple getting out of the consumer desktop market in the next 2-3 years. No more iMac or mini.
- No tablet. They could have done a <$1000 multitouch 9" iSlab tablet thingy that would have been as light and thin as the Air and actually revolutionized something, but... shrug.
- iTunes subscription. Now that they have a self destructing DRM scheme in Fairplay I expected a subscription for TV shows, at least.
All in all, unexciting, really.
more...
NoSmokingBandit
Nov 14, 09:47 PM
MW2's plot wasn't too ludicrous. You infiltrate a Russian terrorist cell, you're commanding officer betrays you, starts a war between the US and Russia. The only ludicrous part that I can remember is a nuke blowing apart the ISS.
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
There are many things wrong with MW2's plot. Instead of typing them all out i'll just copypasta them.
�As the mission opens, we�re treated to General Shepherd reciting a litany of Makarov�s excesses over a montage of shocking headlines. Makarov is an internationally known figure of menace, then, with a Russian military record. So when he confidently machineguns his way through the airport without even bothering to put on a mask, are we to believe that the Russian authorities weren�t able to identify him from security camera footage?
Instead, Russia blames a nobody CIA agent found dead at the scene who was killed by a point-blank pistol shot to the head. That doesn�t raise any red flags at all? The obvious conclusion is that the whole thing was an American plot, and that a full-scale invasion of the continental US is the appropriate response. The transition to the Takedown favela mission begets more confusion, such as: how did Shepherd tie the shell casings to Rojas? Meticulous analysis of the cutscene indicates that he actually re-created a 3D model of a shell casing from security camera footage, which was sufficiently hi-rez to make a match against a big bullet database. So the Russians, who had the actual shell casings to analyze, couldn�t figure that out? The security footage was crisp enough to recreate minute detail on a spent shell casing, but not of sufficient quality to identify Makarov�s face. Conclusion: Makarov�s face is smaller than a bullet.
�When the warriors of 141 get to South America, they make short work of tracking down their man. Unfortunately, HQ won�t send a helicopter to extract them from the favela so Soap rings up his old pal Nikolai on a payphone. Luckily, the Russian informant just so happens to be tooling around Rio in a chopper and pops right over to pick them up. The mission itself, dashing weaponless across rooftops and frantically leaping to safety, was brilliant fun in the heat of the moment. But upon reflection, we must concede that nothing about the scenario makes a bit of sense. But look, it�s Nikolai!!
�With his newfound freedom, Price�s first order of business is to launch a nuclear warhead at the east coast of the United States, with the goal of snuffing out the Russian invasion. Of course, he wasn�t planning to nuke America outright. When a nuclear explosion occurs in space, the only effect is an EMP blast that destroys all unshielded electronics in its line of sight.
While it made for an intensely dramatic scene as the burst rippled across America and demolished the ISS, there�s no way Price could have launched a missile from a Russian nuclear sub by himself. Did he just ring up Nikolai on a payphone to get the launch codes? How did he singlehandedly defeat the physical safety measures? You don�t just push the glowy red button with the mean face on it. There are elaborate control systems in place to prevent just such unauthorized launches.
http://static.gamesradar.com/images/mb/GamesRadar/us/Games/M/Modern%20Warfare%202/Everything%20else/plot%20holes/Finished/112009_modernwarfare2_obs06--article_image.jpg
Above: Two people have to turn launch keys simultaneously to fire a real nuclear missile
One more thing: how did Price get it to detonate in space, anyhow? We�re pretty sure that wasn�t part of the missile�s original instructions. Regardless, if the Russians were serious about their �kill America� plan from the get-go, they probably would have launched HEMP and nuclear strikes of their own as a precursor to the invasion.
�Once the Russians have been successfully repelled, Shepherd and Task Force 141 get down to the business of mopping up Makarov. Shepherd calls out two potential hiding places, the �last safe havens on earth for Makarov and his men.� Incidentally, no one stopped to wonder how Shepherd suddenly uncovered these safe havens or, if he knew about them all along, why they weren�t investigated after the airport massacre. But wait! Intel gathered at one of the safehouses links Makarov to Shepherd: cue the shocking murder of Ghost and Roach at Shepherd�s hands.
Devastated, Price and Soap moan about how they�re all alone in the world with no one to turn to. Umm, guys? Aren�t you technically still officers in the British Armed Forces? Sure Shepherd was calling the duo �terrorists,� but America�s credibility on the world stage was shot to hell after the airport incident. Someone over at SAS would remember the heroes who gunned down Zakhaev and send help. No? OK, better just grab Nikolai and go after the bad guy yourselves.
Theres more you can read on your own, but these are the biggest imo.
http://www.gamesradar.com/f/modern-warfare-2s-glaring-plot-holes-exposed/a-20091120123332495077/p-1
lbartley
Apr 4, 02:27 PM
it seem's like you are getting the run around from MS cause they want you to buy another 360 to make them more money. this looks bad on MS part in not doing anything in helping to track down the stolen 360. i thought that is why the unique ID was given to each system just for that case. and the fact they are using the live account, they can also be buying games with it which is like stealing your credit card.
That's a horribly selfish view of the situation. Would you really want MS to give out personally identifiable information about a customer to any Joe Crazyface that calls in?
You need to look at this from their perspective as well. I'm sure the prospect of $50 profit is pretty minor when weighed against the idea of giving personal information on a customer to some guy who just called in. Even if they wanted to, you're not going to get it from the standard customer service department, especially not after their recent "hacking".
That's a horribly selfish view of the situation. Would you really want MS to give out personally identifiable information about a customer to any Joe Crazyface that calls in?
You need to look at this from their perspective as well. I'm sure the prospect of $50 profit is pretty minor when weighed against the idea of giving personal information on a customer to some guy who just called in. Even if they wanted to, you're not going to get it from the standard customer service department, especially not after their recent "hacking".
more...
darthraige
Dec 13, 01:40 PM
I highly doubt an early 2011 verizon iphone. LTE, doubly so. If it's coming for Verizon, it will be unveiled/launch the same time as the AT&T iphone 5.
And if you're wrong and it's announced in January? ;)
And if you're wrong and it's announced in January? ;)
MacRumors
Sep 28, 11:49 AM
http://www.macrumors.com/images/macrumorsthreadlogo.gif (http://www.macrumors.com/2010/09/28/steve-jobs-to-build-the-iphone-of-houses/)
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/09/28/124615-jobs_house_schematic_500.jpg
quotes. valentine
http://images.macrumors.com/article/2010/09/28/124615-jobs_house_schematic_500.jpg
NT1440
Mar 4, 02:10 PM
They realize that a hand-out is NEVER the same as a hand-up, and that wealth earned is not generally earned at the expense of others, but rather to their benefit.
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
What truly amazing rhetoric. :rolleyes:
Lord Blackadder
May 5, 06:24 PM
If we were to implement restrictions it would have to be nation-wide, or else it would be too easily thwarted.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
What do we do with the 200 million legally owned guns? Not to mention the unknown (but surely quite significant) number of illegally owned or stolen guns we can't even track?
I think any talk of a blanket ban is pure folly and ignores the reality of the situation.
The biggest problem is just how far apart people are on this issue. People with little or no exposure to guns generally fear them and support draconian bans; people who grew up surrounded by them are much more likely to support some level of gun ownership, but a vocal minority of them want to do away with most or all regulation. I think both extreme positions (seeking to ban most/all guns vs advocating little/no regulation) are unrealistic and need to be abandoned.
The NRA's current policy leans heavily towards automatic knee-jerk attacks towards any person or organization that might appear to criticise or question any aspect of firearms ownership, or to undertake any scientific study involving guns, safety, culture, crime, etc etc. Speaking as a gun owner myself, I think the NRA is a wayward, counterproductive organization that is far too combative and has strayed too far from their original purpose, becoming in the process a horrible caricature of itself. On the other hand, a large chunk of the anti-gun lobby consists of fearmongers who are themselves largely ignorant when it comes to firearms and prey on the ignorance and fear of people to gain support.
The whole political debate is broken, and I see no evidence that this will ever change. Both sides fear nothing more than concession to their opponent, so an eternal stalemate will continue.
The OP is an example of just how far from reality the "gun debate" in this country has strayed.
DevinPitcher
Apr 15, 01:10 PM
Is it just me, or is the writing on the 3rd photo a bit skewed, or rotated in an odd way?
Agreed.
Agreed.
iansilv
Apr 29, 11:23 PM
GOOD. I hate tweaking stuff just for the sake of tweaking it. If it works, leave it- no reason to throw out simple intuitive controls.
geocom
Jan 11, 11:53 PM
I would not see a problem with them going to report at macworld if anything happens in the keynote Steve would recover like he did at last years Mac World where his clicker stopped working and you are also talking about a mac event unlike CES things don't crash :)
maclaptop
Apr 10, 12:00 AM
I believe Windows 8 will actually be Windows 6.2.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
As an Apple user, I'm thrilled that I'm not afflicted with the need to put down Windows in order to boost my ego.
No comments:
Post a Comment