kwikdeth
Apr 16, 08:36 AM
Obviously fake. Look at the slanted iPhone writing on the bottom photo. Horrible photoshop skills
yup, that it's tell. unfortunate as I actually rather like the concept. ive never been happy with the iphone's back panel since the 3g got released due to the fact it's not flat.
yup, that it's tell. unfortunate as I actually rather like the concept. ive never been happy with the iphone's back panel since the 3g got released due to the fact it's not flat.
codebar
May 2, 09:52 AM
there is a solution here : http://www.digidna.net/products/diskaid/support/how-to-remove-iphone-tracking-data which doesn't require a jailbreak... DigiDNA added a button in DiskAid ;-)
apfhex
Jan 5, 03:17 PM
Right in the beginning, there was a live video feed to all the Apple stores... I went to two of them, both at the Mall of America store (and both times sat next to some very quirky Mac users... y'know... the regular type). Then one year, I went and it wasn't on. I was pissed. Then I learned Apple wasn't doing that because it was too expensive or something.
I wish they at least did that still. I mean, they offer a streaming video after the event, is it really so much more expensive to to offer it live? That would be something worth getting up early and going to the Apple Store for.
Although I find enough excitement in both reading the live text updates and then getting to go to Apple's site and see the product pages,and watch them in action in the keynote video.
I wish they at least did that still. I mean, they offer a streaming video after the event, is it really so much more expensive to to offer it live? That would be something worth getting up early and going to the Apple Store for.
Although I find enough excitement in both reading the live text updates and then getting to go to Apple's site and see the product pages,and watch them in action in the keynote video.
aristobrat
Oct 6, 12:24 PM
So no, the upgrade to 4G will not cause spotty coverage.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
True, but it's not like they're going to flip a switch, and suddenly all of the "red" on the Verizon coverage map (3G) is going to light up "purple" (or whatever color they use for 4G).
Verizon is going to be in the same boat AT&T is -- having to go out and touch each one of those towers... installing new equipment, upgrading backhaul circuits, etc.
Any new "G" coverage is going to start out spotty, and then roll out/fill in. If it's like prior rollouts, major population centers first, rural areas later.
psycoswimmer
Jan 9, 02:08 PM
Still, that's pretty annoying... I'd only uncovered one of those two out of my own stupidity...
Yeah. Well, at least now I don't feel scared to refresh the page looking for the updated link. Is there anyone that can be contacted to take that off?
Yeah. Well, at least now I don't feel scared to refresh the page looking for the updated link. Is there anyone that can be contacted to take that off?
mackk
Oct 8, 10:07 AM
I live in NYC and work in Manhattan every day, and my coverage is fine.
But I have a 1st gen iPhone...
But I have a 1st gen iPhone...
bearbo
Jan 12, 02:36 AM
I would love to see you come up with something revolutionary.
just because i can't come up with something revolutionary doesn't mean i can't say other things aren't.
The hardware, what do you want them to do? Come out with a floating phone? They do have to make something that is relatively affordable. They can't possibly make a platinum apple phone with surround sound speakers floating around it and tag it at $20,000. You would complain anyway.
hm. i think the point of revolutionary is so its function is not so obvious?
and just for the record, i don't want platium apple phone with surround sound speaker floating around it. ew.
again, i'm not saying iphone is crap, it's not the best thing in the world. gah
What else were you hoping for?
if he want to call it revolutionary, i was hoping for something revolutionary.
just because i can't come up with something revolutionary doesn't mean i can't say other things aren't.
The hardware, what do you want them to do? Come out with a floating phone? They do have to make something that is relatively affordable. They can't possibly make a platinum apple phone with surround sound speakers floating around it and tag it at $20,000. You would complain anyway.
hm. i think the point of revolutionary is so its function is not so obvious?
and just for the record, i don't want platium apple phone with surround sound speaker floating around it. ew.
again, i'm not saying iphone is crap, it's not the best thing in the world. gah
What else were you hoping for?
if he want to call it revolutionary, i was hoping for something revolutionary.
absolut_mac
Jan 12, 12:41 AM
Wow, I just watched the keynote and my god this guy is hard to stand....
Don't take CEO's public persona's (or any public figure for that matter) too seriously. It's all about marketing and keeping Wall Street happy.
Don't take CEO's public persona's (or any public figure for that matter) too seriously. It's all about marketing and keeping Wall Street happy.
likemyorbs
Apr 15, 03:16 PM
It bothers me a little when gay suffrage is pitted against something like slavery. Just not the same, IMO.
Gay suffrage? Wow i never knew gays were denied the right to vote! :eek:
Gay suffrage? Wow i never knew gays were denied the right to vote! :eek:
skunk
Apr 21, 11:45 AM
If the score is X, you can change the score to X-1 and X+1. If you change it to X-1 then press up, it'll display as X+1 which removes your down vote and adds your upvote.In other words, there is no allowance for apathy. I can't be arsed with a system that doesn't allow for apathy. **** that.
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
Also, please explain why clicking on the "up" arrow sometimes adds 1 and sometimes 2. Does it depend on how enthusiastically you press the button?
STYF
Apr 4, 08:50 AM
Wow some great detective work, let us know how it works out and good luck.
And wow once it's dugg the forum get 1000 extra guests!
And wow once it's dugg the forum get 1000 extra guests!
wnurse
Aug 10, 05:51 PM
Guys, I must be missing something.
Everybody is saying here that Dell 30" monitors are cheaper than Apple's 30"
Check the link bellow and you'll see that is actually more:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=222-0863
I understand that maybe there are rebates and so on, but seriously I rather pay more for an Apple display than a Dell. First the design of Apple is better and second I can get Applecare included if I purchase it with a ProMac or PowerMac.
I am not going to discuss the specs of each display. I rather see each side by side to analyze which is better.
huuh.. no one is saying Dell 30 inch is cheaper now (used to be.. so maybe you read an old post before the current price drop). Heck, don't you see I have started a foundation to get me a Apple 30'?. I think some people prefer Dell because their monitors have more options (connections wise). I know I'm glad i got my 20 inch Dell over a 20 inch apple. But I really wanted an apple monitor (even with limited connectivity).. now all you have to do is send me a buck, persuade 1999 other people to do the same (I promise to burn every contributer name onto the back of the monitor). hahaha..
Anyway, I think everyone now knows apple 30 inch is cheaper.
Everybody is saying here that Dell 30" monitors are cheaper than Apple's 30"
Check the link bellow and you'll see that is actually more:
http://accessories.us.dell.com/sna/productdetail.aspx?c=us&l=en&s=bsd&cs=04&sku=222-0863
I understand that maybe there are rebates and so on, but seriously I rather pay more for an Apple display than a Dell. First the design of Apple is better and second I can get Applecare included if I purchase it with a ProMac or PowerMac.
I am not going to discuss the specs of each display. I rather see each side by side to analyze which is better.
huuh.. no one is saying Dell 30 inch is cheaper now (used to be.. so maybe you read an old post before the current price drop). Heck, don't you see I have started a foundation to get me a Apple 30'?. I think some people prefer Dell because their monitors have more options (connections wise). I know I'm glad i got my 20 inch Dell over a 20 inch apple. But I really wanted an apple monitor (even with limited connectivity).. now all you have to do is send me a buck, persuade 1999 other people to do the same (I promise to burn every contributer name onto the back of the monitor). hahaha..
Anyway, I think everyone now knows apple 30 inch is cheaper.
Cleverboy
Jan 13, 04:12 PM
What I'm wondering is.. if Gizmodo never posted that video, would we have heard about it anyway? As in, would there be news stories saying "Pranksters hit CES hard by turning off displays"
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.Very true. They were so proud, they incriminated themselves, and went so far as to say that Panasonic was "lucky" they didn't have an exposed IR receiver fro their 150 inch display. Wow.
~ CB
My guess is we wouldn't have heard anything of the sort.Very true. They were so proud, they incriminated themselves, and went so far as to say that Panasonic was "lucky" they didn't have an exposed IR receiver fro their 150 inch display. Wow.
~ CB
skunk
Apr 21, 12:12 PM
Exactly.Very inexactly. The Arabs invented 0 some time ago. The system is borked.
fikonhjul
May 4, 07:12 PM
Looks like Roambi??
Second guess is MicroStrategy
Could very well be, but I haven't seen that particular coolness demoed anywhere. Maybe an upcoming version of one of those, or some other business data visualizer?
Second guess is MicroStrategy
Could very well be, but I haven't seen that particular coolness demoed anywhere. Maybe an upcoming version of one of those, or some other business data visualizer?
Lord Blackadder
Aug 10, 01:10 PM
There's nothing really sinister about it. It's just harder to measure and to this point, there's been no point in trying to measure it in comparison to cars.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
I understand that they have to be measured differently, but doesn't it make sense that they be compared apples-to-apples (if possible) to the vehicles they are intended to replace?
Most people do ignore it to a large extent, because they say "heck, if it costs me $1 to go 40 miles on electric vs. $2.85 to go 40 miles on gasoline, then that *must* be more efficient in some way". And they are probably right. Economics do tend to line up with efficiency (or government policy).
That is true, but as you pointed out later "green", "efficient", "alternative[to oil imports]" are not all the same thing. Perhaps they are more green but less efficient, or less efficient but more green. Just being more efficient in terms of bang for buck is not necessarily also good from an environmental or alternative energy standpoint. But you are right that the end cost per mile is going to weigh heavily when it comes to consumer acceptance of new types of autos.
I think it's great that European car manufacturers have invested heavily in finding ways to make more fuel efficient cars. And they have their governments to thank for that by making sure that diesel is given a tax advantage vs. gasoline. About 15 years ago, Europe recognized the potential for efficiency in diesels to ultimately outweigh the environmental downside. It was a short-term risk that paid off and now that they have shifted the balance, Europe is tightening their diesel emissions standards to match the US. Once that happens, I'm sure there will a huge market for TDIs in the US and we'll have a nice competitive landscape for driving-up fuel efficiency with diesels vs. gasoline hybrids vs. extended range electrics.
I would argue that Europe's switch to diesels did not involve quite the environmental tradeoff you imply - in the 70s we in the US were driving cars with huge gasoline engines, and to this day diesel regulation for trucks in this country is pretty minimal. Our emissions were probably world-leading then - partially due to the fact that we had the most cars on the roads by far. The problem lies (in my heavily biased opinion) in ignorance. People see smoke coming off diesel exhausts and assume they are dirtier than gasoline engines. But particulate pollution is not necessarily worse, just different. People are not educated about the differerence between gasoline engine pollution and diesel engine pollution. Not to mention the fact that diesel engines don't puff black smoke like they did in the 70s. I'm not arguing that diesels are necessarily cleaner, but they are arguably no worse than gasoline engines and are certainly more efficient.
Whether or not it's "greener" depends upon your definition of green. If you're worried about smog and air quality, then you might make different decisions than if you are worried about carbon dioxide and global warming. Those decisions may also be driven by where you live and where the electricity comes from.
A lot of people in the US (and I assume around the world) are also concerned about energy independence. For those people, using coal to power an electric car is more attractive than using foreign diesel. Any cleaner? Probably not, but probably not much dirtier and certainly cheaper. Our government realizes that we can always make power plants cleaner in the future through regulation, just as Europe realized they could make diesels cleaner in the future through regulation. Steven Chu is no dummy.
It's a fair point. Given the choice, I would prioritize moving to domestic fuel sources in the short term over a massive "go green" (over all alse) campaign.
Which is why we will need new metrics that actually make sense for comparing gasoline to pure electric, perhaps localized to account for the source of power in your area. For example, when I lived in Chicago, the electric was 90% nuclear. It's doesn't get any cleaner than that from an air quality / greenhouse gas standpoint. However, if you're on the east coast, it's probably closer to 60% coal.
I agree completely. The transition needs to be made as transparent as possible. People need to know the source, efficiency and cleanliness of their power source so that they can make informed choices.
I think you're smart enough to know that it's more efficient, but you're not willing to cede that for the sake of your argument, but I encourage you to embrace the idea that we should have extended range electrics *and* clean diesels *and* gasoline hybrids. There's more than one way to skin a cat.
I'm not trying to sound stubborn, I simply have not come accross the numbers anywhere. I don't get paid to do this research, ya know. I do it while hiding from the boss. ;)
I've seen that propaganda FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) before. It doesn't stand up to scrutiny. Let's consider that the power grid can handle every household running an air conditioner on a hot summer day. That's approximately 2000-3500 watts per household per hour during daytime peak load (on top of everything else on the grid.) Now let's consider that a Volt (or equivalent) has a 16kw battery that charges in 8 hours. That's 200 watts per hour, starting in the evening, or the equivalent of (4) 50 watt light bulbs. This is not exactly grid-overwhelming load.
I'm no math whiz (or electrician), but wouldn't 200 watts/hr * 8 hours = 1.6kw, rather than 16kw? I thought you'd need 2kw/hr * 8hrs to charge a 16kw battery.
It's not that I don't think people have looked into this stuff, it's just that I myself have no information on just how much energy the Volt uses and how much the grid can provide. In the short term, plugin hybrids are few in number and I don't see it being an issue. But it's something we need to work out in the medium/long term.
Or, some would argue that the biggest thing that Americans have trouble with are a few people telling them what the majority should or shouldn't do - which is, as it seems, the definition of "Communism", but I wouldn't go so far as to say that. :)
Communism means nothing in this country, because we've been so brainwashed by Cold War/right-wing rhetoric that, like "freedom", the term has been stolen for propaganda purposes until the original meanings have become lost in a massive sea of BS. I was using it for it's hyperbole value. :D
Most people do indeed realize that they can get better mileage with a smaller car and could "get by" with a much smaller vehicle. They choose not to and that is their prerogative. If the majority wants to vote for representatives who will make laws that increase fuel mileage standards, which in turn require automakers to sell more small cars - or find ways to make them more efficient - that is also their prerogative. (And, in case you haven't noticed, in the last major US election, voters did indeed vote for a party that is increasing CAFE standards.)
Well, that's the nature of democracy. But it's not so much a question of the fact that people realize a smaller car is more efficient, but a question of whether people really care about efficiency. I have recently lived in Nevada and Alaska, two states whose residents are addicted to burning fuel. Seemingly everyone has a pickup, RV and four-wheelers. Burning fuel is not just part of the daily transportation routine - it's a lifestyle.
CAFE standardsAnd if it's important to you, you should do your part and ride a bike to work or buy a TDI, or lobby your congressman for reduced emissions requirements, or stand up on a soap box and preach about the advantages of advanced clean diesel technology. All good stuff.
I walk to work. I used to commute 34 miles a day (total), and while I never minded it, I felt pretty liberated being able to ditch the car for my daily commute. Four years of walking and I don't want to go back. I love cars and motorsport, and I don't consider myself an environmentalist, but I got to the point where I realized that I was driving a lot more than necessary. That realization came when I moved out of a suburb (where you have to drive to get anywhere) and into first a small town and then a biggish city. In both cases it became possible to walk almost everywhere I needed to go. A tank of fuel lasted over a month (or longer) rather than a week from my highway-commuting days. And I lost weight as I hauled by fat backside around on foot. ;)
I won't be in the market for another car for a few years, and my current car (a Subaru) is not very fuel efficient - but then again it has literally not been driven more than half a dozen times in the last six months. When the time comes to replace it I'll be looking for something affordable (ruling out the Volt) but efficiency will be high on the priority list, followed by green-ness.
I wonder if all of you people who are proposing a diesel/diesel hybrid are Europeans, because in America, diesel is looked at as smelly and messy - it's what the trucks with black smoke use.
<snip>
As far as the Chevy Volt goes, I just don't like the name... but the price is right assuming they can get it into the high $20,000's rather quickly.
I'm an American, and yes I've seen the trucks with black smoke. We just need to discard that preconception. This isn't 1973 anymore. We also need to tighten up emissions regualtion on trucks.
The Volt is a practical car by all acoioutns, but it costs way too much. The battery is the primary contributing factor, I've heard that it costs somewhere between $8-15k by itself. Hopefully after GM has been producing such batteries for a few years the cost will drop substantially.
kiljoy616
May 4, 06:38 AM
love the ad, truly a great device. a year ago everyone joke about the name but now people see the true side of the device what it could actually do.
No I still think the name is funny :D
iMajic would have been better if just to bother the trolls. ;)
No I still think the name is funny :D
iMajic would have been better if just to bother the trolls. ;)
demallien
Oct 4, 02:11 AM
I actually work as a programmer for a DRM provider. Here's what our legal wonks have told us with regards to the DCMA:
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
1) If we want our player to be able to read files protected by a competitor's DRM, we are entitled to do so. This means that if we had a new iPod-killing mp3 player, we would be legally within our rights to reverse engineer iTunes to crack the DRM, and then re-implement the same algorithm in our own player (it would have to be cleanroom reverse engineering of course, but that's for IP reasons, not the DCMA)
2) However, our player must not give the user more rights than the original player. So, we can't provide an option to rip to mp3 for example. All we can really offer is another player, or, at the absolute limit, a convertor that removes FairPlay DRM, and replaces it with ours (or another provider's). The new DRM should provide exactly the same restrictions on copying/transferring of files as the original. The legal eagles tell us that this last bit is really a bit too grey at the moment to be safe, so we would be better off restricting ourselves to just a player.
This of course makes liars of all those people that spread FUD about the DCMA and DRM in general. All DRM is crackable, and the provisions in the DCMA make it legal to do so, if the reason for doing so does not infringe fair-use....
AMcBroom81
Apr 16, 01:07 AM
I want My next iPhone to look like this,
222383
222383
MorphingDragon
Apr 29, 07:52 PM
As far as the look goes ? Yes. As far as the architecture behind it goes ? No (gone is the fake transluscency hacks of Rasterman and Enlightenment and in are the compositing extensions). Context man, I see your break from MacRumors didn't teach you to stick to context. :rolleyes:
Well your two comments are linked.
Also !@#$ context.
Well your two comments are linked.
Also !@#$ context.
glocke12
May 4, 06:37 PM
Have you had much experience with doctors? I'm guessing that you haven't because medicine is all about asking intrusive questions.
Doctors can't diagnose a problem unless they are able to ask questions. I'm just absolutely astounded at the amount of paranoia when it comes to gun ownership. If it's such a good thing, why can't a doctor ask about it?
I am really, really stunned that there is such a disconnect from reality when it comes to guns. The NRA has done this country an enormous disservice.
Please explain to me what my guns and my doctor have in common.
People, please embrace personal responsibility before you embrace the nanny state while you still have freedoms left.
Substitute guns for something else, porn, your driving habits, etc...and see if your thinking stays the same.
The NRA. I am a member, have been a member for over 20 years and am proud that there is an organization that exists to fight for my right to own firearms. I don't agree with them 100% of the time, and at times have been disappointed in them, but am glad they exist.
Also, 99.9% of the doctors I have been to ask questions that are pertinent ONLY to the reason I am there for a visit.
Doctors can't diagnose a problem unless they are able to ask questions. I'm just absolutely astounded at the amount of paranoia when it comes to gun ownership. If it's such a good thing, why can't a doctor ask about it?
I am really, really stunned that there is such a disconnect from reality when it comes to guns. The NRA has done this country an enormous disservice.
Please explain to me what my guns and my doctor have in common.
People, please embrace personal responsibility before you embrace the nanny state while you still have freedoms left.
Substitute guns for something else, porn, your driving habits, etc...and see if your thinking stays the same.
The NRA. I am a member, have been a member for over 20 years and am proud that there is an organization that exists to fight for my right to own firearms. I don't agree with them 100% of the time, and at times have been disappointed in them, but am glad they exist.
Also, 99.9% of the doctors I have been to ask questions that are pertinent ONLY to the reason I am there for a visit.
dakwar
Mar 24, 09:58 PM
Happy B-day OSX.
Ketsjap
Jan 6, 07:57 AM
Can't someone put the Keynote on Youtube? Then MR can link to it, and that way the people who are having problems connecting to the stream can also enjoy the show...
Does ne1 like to capture the stream and put it online? That'd be awesome!:cool:
Does ne1 like to capture the stream and put it online? That'd be awesome!:cool:
Object-X
Aug 7, 06:25 PM
Be careful when buying at an Apple Store that they don't pawn off on you the previous generation model. I was told by an employee that they were the same except for the price. If your not careful they may try to sell their existing stock at the reduced price. Buy online for now. I can't see a way to tell which model is current and which is prior, except for the obvious brightness.
0 comments:
Post a Comment