nsjoker
Sep 20, 03:45 PM
it won't have any dvr functionality... it'll just be frontrow on your tv, and nothing else. woopdee freaking doo
Peterkro
Mar 13, 04:45 PM
For energy wind is not considered a back bone power supply due to it not reliable enough. Solar can be consider good backbone due to it is reliable and we can store the heat energy to power us threw the night.
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
Wind would be fine as a back bone source if the geographical spread was big enough (it's always windy in one area or another) and in spite of people saying energy storage is a problem in fact it's not.(see for instance the Ffestiniog Power Station in north Wales which has been operating since the early sixties)(it can come online in 90 seconds if necessary)
matticus008
Mar 21, 02:45 AM
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.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
They are purchases of usage rights, not of ownership of the intellectual property contained therein. Review the cases more carefully. If you don't want to call it a license, fine. But it's not ownership of the song. It's ownership of your limited-use copy of that song.
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.
Yes, the Supreme Court said that, but in reference to all laws, not just copyright laws. Anything not forbidden by law is permissable. What this does is break other laws, as well as the distribution component of the copyright law. The DMCA is about digital copyright law, whether it has other purposes or not. It governs your rights with regard to copyrighted digital works. Your purchase of the CD did not and still does not give you ownership of the digital content of that CD, only ownership of the physical disc itself.
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.
Not true. If you misuse your copy of any copyrighted work, you can be required to surrender your copy of the work and desist immediately. The law does not require you to do anything special with material you OWN. But you don't own the music. The analogy stands.
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.
Exactly right about the restrictions placed on the locks, but exactly wrong about the content behind them. You did not own it before the DMCA, and you do not own it now.
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.
No, not at all. The DMCA has issues that need to be addressed, but it does not prohibit your fair use of material.
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.
Again, read the court cases more carefully. You have rights to do as you please with the physical book. You do not have rights to the content of the books. You never did, and the Supreme Court has never granted you this permission. With your digital file, there is nothing physical that you own and control, only the intellectual property which is owned SOLELY by the copyright holder. Books are purchases of a physical, bound paper product containing the intellectual property of another individual. The Supreme Court has supported this since the implementation of IP law in the 19th century.
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.
It's not illegal by copyright law to put your unprotected music on an iPod. You are not modifying the intellectual property of the owner. You are taking it from what you own (the physical disc) and putting it on something else you own (the iPod hard disk).
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?
One more time. The copyright law governs the material, your purchase covers the disc. You can do whatever you want with the disc, but you don't have the same freedom with the data on that disc. No one is stopping you from breaking the CD or selling it or doing whatever you want. You are not allowed to take control of the intellectual property that is not yours (the songs). Show ME a case that demonstrates otherwise from the past 50 years. Older cases are not applicable, and I'm being generous with the 50 year window as well given the wealth of more recent cases, all of which support IP rights and consumer ownership of the media but not the content.
WiiDSmoker
May 6, 07:21 AM
I'm not letting AT&T off easily, but I still argue that half of the problem is the iPhone itself. When I'm the only person with an iPhone and everyone else around me is on old cell phones on the same network and they have 5 bars and I have no signal, there's a problem.
AlBDamned
Aug 29, 11:14 AM
zero evidence, other than my gut feeling.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Then that's nothing but semi-diluted Apple fanboi-ism which is, in my opinion, a lot worse than any Dell computer.
Given Greenpeace's mission and credibility, I think it's safe to assume that all manufacturers featured were graded on the same criteria. So at least in this survey, it's quite believable that Apple has dived compared to its competitors.
Apple does promote a hip, cool and socially aware image, but as a business it's quite far removed from that ideal.
Sydde
Mar 14, 08:43 PM
I also have to ask, if not engineers, who would you rather have design an ECCS for a nuclear power plant? Who else would be qualified to design such a thing?
That might be my point.
That might be my point.
rturner2
Apr 9, 08:59 PM
Wirelessly posted (Mozilla/5.0 (iPhone; U; CPU iPhone OS 4_3 like Mac OS X; en-us) AppleWebKit/533.17.9 (KHTML, like Gecko) Version/5.0.2 Mobile/8F190 Safari/6533.18.5)
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
Why doesnt Apple allow you to plug a controller in the 30 pin adaptor? Wouldnt that be the best of both worlds?
I agree! I need some buttons. Or wireless via Bluetooth even better.
ddtlm
Oct 12, 05:31 PM
JustAGuy:
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
You should try those tests with some of the compiler flags that I used in my post a few posts up, which I have been editing.
Right now I am looking at the assembly that gcc is generating. It looks like gcc gets the answer in a very strange way.
javajedi:
One more question i have for you while you are responding: What you suggested may very well be accurate, the compiler is making some really poor decisions, however if this were the case, what about javac?
I don't have an answer to that at this time, but it seems to me that we are looking at different quality of JVM's. I could see a P4 beat a G4 by a fair amount, but lets be realistic... the G4 is not so slow as the numbers here have been suggesting.
I wish I knew some PPC assembly. :) I would code up some stuff for that too, and I bet the nubmer of registers would help a lot. Registers are great for loop unrolling.
Anyway, some time ago you asked how the G4 has better scalar units than the G3. Basically the FP units are similar but the G4 unit has a lower instruction latency when doing double precision (in the G3 doubles take one more cycle than singles, on the G4 they are the same). Also, the G4 has 4 integer units where the G3 has only two. This is not always useful, but in this problem if I could do PPC assembly I could easily overwelm all 4 of them.
iJohnHenry
Mar 13, 11:34 AM
I am inland of two, on the shores of Lake Ontario, one East one West, both at ~20 miles.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
BUT, the prevailing wind is from the North-West, so Rochester, Northern New York will probably get the fallout.
Candu reactors (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CANDU_reactor) are reasonably safe.
shamino
Mar 18, 03:50 PM
The interesting thing here is that this hack doesn't violate the DMCA. It violates the iTunes shrink-wrap license, but that's only enforceable in VA and MD.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
The DMCA doesn't allow breaking encryption. So saving a data stream that is sent unencrypted from a legal distributor doesn't violate this law.
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.
This doesn't make it any more difficult for a creating programmer to capture the stream and remove the common encryption without applying DRM, but it does mean that he has to decrypt something in the process. Which makes it into a DMCA violation.
Of course, a new iTunes update will be required to make this happen, but this wouldn't be the first time Apple made a change to ITMS requiring an iTunes upgrade.
Octobot
Oct 30, 10:46 AM
If I was running upcomming Leopard OSX, a few osx apps, the full upcoming CS3 Suite (not necessarily Batch Processing), have After Effects rendering a 30 minute clip in the background, downloading *legal torrents, watching internet tv (muted), while burning a DVD and listening to music..
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
That keeping in mind I won't necessariy be rendering-multiple scenes, while encoding, batch processing with a multiple of applications while running SETI@home ;) .... yet
Would that kind of Multi-tasking benefit through Multi-threading on the Octobot's 8-Cores..
Or slighly / not significant enough to warrant Going Octo over Quad..
thx in advance,
L
amin
Oct 8, 08:48 AM
...With the Clovertowns, the system was 20% faster than the Woodies (even at 800 MHz slower per core), at almost exactly the same wattage (1 or 2 watts more)...
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
Faster at what? I'm too lazy to find the part in the keynote where they showed this. Was it 20% faster at something designed to use all 8 cores?
RebootD
Apr 12, 10:54 PM
So exactly what "pro" features were removed with this release?
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
I don't understand the outrage at this announcement UNLESS this means Color, Motion etc are going to be 'dumbed down' and integrated as extras into FCPX. That will upset a lot of people.
edifyingGerbil
Apr 27, 01:49 PM
The real point is that the "Judaeo-Christian God" is not Judaeo-Christian at all, but the chief god of the Ugaritic pantheon, and no more "real" than Zeus, Jupiter, Horus or Astarte.
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
No, please stop spamming this everywhere. The Judaeo-Christian God has certain attributes which I listed. Does this Ugaritic God share the same attributes, ie omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenevolence?
Mitthrawnuruodo
Mar 18, 06:04 PM
Apple's "fix" for this is fairly simple. Send the files in an ecrypted form. In order to maximize caching, use a common key that all iTunes clients have built-in, sort of like DVDs and CES. The client can then decrypt with the common key and re-encrypt with the DRM key.Don't iTMS and iTunes already do this?According to wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FairPlay#How_it_works), that's right...
Bill McEnaney
Apr 25, 12:24 AM
I don't think many atheists actually feel that a god absolutely does not exist. Atheism is simply the lack of a belief in a god but most atheists, I believe, are agnostic in the actual existence. While lacking in a belief about a god, most would keep an open mind on the issue or would say it's impossible to know either way.
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
Floptical cube's post sounds like an excellent description of agnosticism. But every atheist I've ever met has believed that there's no God.
I think it's important to remember that, although people can feel emotions about beliefs, beliefs aren't emotions. I don't feel that there's a God. I believe that there is one. I feel happiness, sadness, loneliness, hurt, and so forth. I believe that those feelings exist, but I don't believe that happiness, say, is either a truth or a falsehood. I don't believe that it's a conformity between my intellect and reality. My belief that there's a pine tree in my front yard is true because there is a pine tree there that causes my belief to be true. The tree will still be there 10 minutes from now, even if someone or something fools me into believing that it's gone. The truth or falsehood of my belief depends on the way things are in the world. I can't cause that tree to exist by merely believing that it does exist. I can't make it stop existing by simply believing that it doesn't exist, can I?
Salacion
Apr 20, 06:23 PM
I agree. The reason I won't jailbreak until my iPod Touch is old is because the programmers who make stuff on Cydia are @#$%ing morons sometimes. Plenty of horrible apps.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
And to think that the ENTIRE Droid market is unregulated? More and more viruses will appear. You can't get a virus on an iPhone unless Apple somehow lets it in. Even then it would have to be user-initiated since it is UNIX.
And that's why I find it hilarious how Android enthusiasts always state how "Apple's closed garden" is a negative element, when it's the unregulated nature of Android that degrades the experience.
ImageWrangler
Oct 9, 03:33 PM
Probably, unless Apple recognizes the competition and responds by:
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
- Removal of 3g cellular restrictions not technically motivated at least outside of the US
- Allowing at least music apps like Spotify to run in the background
- Improving the app approval process to become more like the Android process
- Flash support in Safari (with an option to disable this)
- SDK that can execute on other platforms like Windows or Linux and that uses a more user-friendly and intuitive language than Objective-C
Hahaha! I love it! A humor writer! For which night time show do you right your jokes for because these are all awesomely funny, I mean, only a humor writer could write such thing so ludicrous and out there. Now, please only take this is constructive criticism as some of your jokes you wrote aren't as funny as others, I mean, you're clearly not at the top escholon and you're honing your funny writing chops but, as a start, with such absurd one-liners as this I think your future is bright, especially for say parody or absurdist or non-logical humor... brilliant stuff. Keep up the good work. Unless you were being serious, in which case, try a magnifying glass.
Howdr
Mar 18, 08:04 AM
Additional tethering charge on an unlimited data plan: justified.
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
Additional tethering charge on a limited data plan: not justified.
I don't care what contract you've signed, any court would agree.
Tethering Charge not justified.
How can you say charging twice for the same Data is justified?
I pay for internet I use the internet. People have been brainwashed to side with the carriers.
You pay for a bottle of water $1
You pour it on your head then the person says Thats another $1 you owe
Why? because you used the same water you just bought to wash yourself not drink.
Its the same issue, Data = Data use is use, how you use should not be charged different since on the supply side makes no difference.
this is so twisted I cant tell you enough.:mad:
jimbobb24
Apr 9, 07:51 PM
Real games aren't played on an iDevice. Say what you want, it's true at the moment. No need to look into the future..........cause you don't know what it holds. And if you do tell me if i'll be at work Monday please! (Gov worker)
"real games"? What does that mean?
Don't you guys get paid whether or not it all gets shut down? Its crazy - why didn't Obama make a budget last year when they had the House and Senate? All very weird/incompetent.
"real games"? What does that mean?
Don't you guys get paid whether or not it all gets shut down? Its crazy - why didn't Obama make a budget last year when they had the House and Senate? All very weird/incompetent.
babyj
Sep 20, 12:11 PM
What do you do with your Xbox that would been relevant to watching videos on your TV?
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
If you fit a mod chip to an Xbox it allows you to do lots of cool things, including upgrading the hard drive and run non certified software (eg homebrew, open source).
Probaby the most popular is Xbox Media Centre, which is what it says and does it pretty well. So for about £150 you end up with a decent media centre which isn't bad, plus its a game console as well.
Can you load Vids onto the Xbox HD and play them??
If you fit a mod chip to an Xbox it allows you to do lots of cool things, including upgrading the hard drive and run non certified software (eg homebrew, open source).
Probaby the most popular is Xbox Media Centre, which is what it says and does it pretty well. So for about £150 you end up with a decent media centre which isn't bad, plus its a game console as well.
fleggy
Mar 18, 01:58 PM
When are you all going to realize that this is marketing fluff?
Let me give you a possible scenario...(something to lighten the mood)
AT&T Infrastructure: Wow - these new smart phones use a lot of data. We need to restrict it.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, well, we can't tell customers the restrictions - it will lose us business. I want to tell them it is unlimited!
AT&T Infrastructure: No way...it will kill us - especially with tethering! I'd be happy with it restricted to the smart phone only.
AT&T Legal: We can insert a clause...restricting to this device only...no tethering.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, yes! I can just mention and promote unlimited, and the actual usage can be buried in the ToS. I like it.
AT&T release "unlimited data for the iPhone" knowing full well that even if your iPhone downloads 24x7 - their network can handle it (although this will never happen in reality).
Everyone flocks to buy it and SIGN UP.
Selecting which part of the service to market IS mis-leading, however...it is pretty clear - "this device only".
Everything in America is like this. Marketing is a black art form here!! You can't pick and choose which parts of the marketing and ToS you like!
Let me give you a possible scenario...(something to lighten the mood)
AT&T Infrastructure: Wow - these new smart phones use a lot of data. We need to restrict it.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, well, we can't tell customers the restrictions - it will lose us business. I want to tell them it is unlimited!
AT&T Infrastructure: No way...it will kill us - especially with tethering! I'd be happy with it restricted to the smart phone only.
AT&T Legal: We can insert a clause...restricting to this device only...no tethering.
AT&T Marketing: Yes, yes! I can just mention and promote unlimited, and the actual usage can be buried in the ToS. I like it.
AT&T release "unlimited data for the iPhone" knowing full well that even if your iPhone downloads 24x7 - their network can handle it (although this will never happen in reality).
Everyone flocks to buy it and SIGN UP.
Selecting which part of the service to market IS mis-leading, however...it is pretty clear - "this device only".
Everything in America is like this. Marketing is a black art form here!! You can't pick and choose which parts of the marketing and ToS you like!
Bigdaddyguido
Apr 13, 07:16 AM
This thread reads like a bunch of wanna-be's crying for attention. All this talk that real professionals will be disappointed. First off, if this is a conference for production professionals, and you weren't there, kinda already makes you sound like an also-ran. Not to say that every quality professional would be at one event, but if you are truly a professional, you'd know that pointless pontification about a product you've never seen and are judging based on a series of quotes from a one hour presentation isnt very respectable.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
There's no way even a large fraction of the total features were presented in an hour, and if the app was built from the ground up and took three tears to be released, it stands to reason that many assumptions your making based on old software could be markedly wrong.
LQYoshi
Apr 11, 11:01 AM
Unlikely, but you can install Lion on an external drive and boot from that when you want to.
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini
B
Would it be considered switching if I bought the mini? I"ll still have a few laptops which I'll be using with XP, but then again; I can just VNC to the OSX mac mini